Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-06-2021 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, May 6, 2021 Electronic Formal Meeting — 7:00 PM Zoom Meeting Platform 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/tJOpcugrrikiG9VGcjSUQ9TYa8gybtnAT35y 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 994 5330 2811 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Development Items (Revised plan submitted by applicant) 4. Case No. REZ20-0016 Applicant: Axiom Consultants on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1 St 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). Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 6, 2021 Zoning Code Text Amendment 5. Case No.: REZ21-0003 Consideration of an update to single-family site development standards, which amends Title 14 Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815. 6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 15, 2021 7. Planning & Zoning Information 8. Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett(cDiowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: May 20 / June 3 / June 17 Informal: Scheduled as needed. r CITY OF IOWA CITY �"'��t MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Re: REZ20-0016 — Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission Background Information: On February 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting on a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development — Single Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). Staff recommended approval with five conditions related to approval of a Woodland Management Plan, provision of trail connections, incorporation of traffic calming devices, installation of right-of-way trees, and platting requirements. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of 0-7. On March 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting to discuss a revised OPD Plan that was submitted by the applicant. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of 1-6. The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC., has submitted a further revised OPD Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan (Attachment #1) for the Commission's consideration. Revised Submission: The most recent OPD Plan contains the following changes to the layout from the previous plans that were reviewed by the Commission: 1. The removal of the condo -style housing in the northwest portion of the plan area. The revised Plan contains 41 lots intended for detached single-family housing. 2. A single -loaded street is proposed for approximately 71 % of the south and west sides of the proposed Hickory Trail extension. A double -loaded street is still proposed for the northern 29% of the street extension. 3. The acreage in Outlot A, that is proposed to be dedicated to the City for the expansion of Hickory Hill Park, would be increased from 11.66 acres to 14.02 acres. 4. Per staff, the applicant has added a third pedestrian crossing, which will be adjacent to the proposed traffic circle. 5. Per staff, the applicant has also added an additional sidewalk accessing the senior living facility from the public sidewalk on the east side of the facility. 6. The percent of impacted critical slopes went down from 17% to 13%. Additionally, the percent of preserved woodlands went up from 46% to 51 %. RS-5 zones require a woodland retention requirement of 50%. Because the amount of woodlands preserved exceeds 50%, mitigation is no longer required. 7. The applicant has increased the stream corridor buffer to 25 feet on each side of the stream corridor. April 30, 2021 Page 2 8. The applicant has provided a buildable area analysis (Attachment #2) that illustrates the allowable buildable area within Lots 10-31. While Lots 10-31 have a total lot size ranging between approximately 15,000 and 35,000 square feet, the buildable area of these lots minus conservation easement land and setbacks, will be roughly between 4,700 and 7,600 square feet. Staff has determined that the buildable area of these lots is comparable to the buildable area of an 8,000 square foot lot, which is the minimum lot size allowed in an RS-5 zone. 9. The applicant has also submitted updated renderings (Attachment #3) and elevations (Attachment #4) for the senior living facility. The updated renderings show some additional views of the facility, while the updated elevations show the total height on each side of the facility. Figures 1 and 2 below show the change in layout from the original OPD Plan (Figure 1) that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the February 18th meeting, versus the current plan (Figure 2) presented on the May 6th meeting. 71(J. uiu 1 — reu. I OL11 rll(:KUfy 1 rdll vru rldn f _ N � rW• t __ — i _;�;�.,..,,�, si r� r t ♦,'3 1 BU1 sNJ aar,yN ./ _ -.---_...._ _ HIC �/ref .. _ NOW HILL PARR j Comprehensive Plan: Figure 2 — April 29th Hickory Trail OPD Plan � � a y� : at ,i, � w k f sx41 r .. yip. • JJJ � 31 t 4O II 1, -(�O � a fi ti '�' p u r Ir [mil f1 4- JF " , � L r + -------------- � - -- - - - - -- ___�,._ _ __ 4 - 'y '�. 4.?.}``•l Imo. --____ +01111 H 1L 7P� - - l ACV T "L: 31F. I Figures 3 and 4 show a comparison between the Bluffwood Neighborhood conceptual vision from the Northeast District Plan and the current proposed OPD Plan. While the proposed OPD Plan uses a through street, as opposed to two cul-de-sacs, the current proposed OPD Plan features a April 30, 2021 Page 3 similar single -loaded street frontage, with most of the central and southern portions of the development showing housing only on one side of the street. Figure 3 — Bluffwood Neighborhood Figure 4 — April 29t" Hickory Trail OPD Plan NE District Plan CD a '`�.4 I i�t}.f •,��Y � , �l5 ryt � i� ! ,4 }� .� r. &y::s.. ,: � r-. :':� . fY � •�S-�.__- -7Y. 4f I a' j I ism � °� !', r.[r,s - • ��•`+"� f � � J .'.,k � I I J 1I I r -- C I i� I ',L its Y 'I �•�•��� :���� ='i'H. � �J +F �r it � A` 5�11 IIII�I I' it '1 I . y� 74'I'` 41 - ���_ ____ - - -•- -mow. �- - _ Parks and Recreation Commission: At its April 14t" meeting, staff presented the OPD Plan's proposed parkland dedication in Outlot A to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain recommendations from the Commission to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the dedication of land. After discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to defer any formal recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission until the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation of approval. The proposed dedication of parkland will be discussed at a future Parks and Recreation Commission meeting if the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation of approval. Landscaping: The City Forrester has reviewed the landscaping plan associated with the proposed OPD Plan and finds the landscaping plan to be satisfactory. The plan provides a mix of native and well- behaved non-native species, which is something the City strives for to create a more resilient urban forest. As many non-native species are well adapted to grow in Iowa City's growing conditions, they are also more resilient against non-native pests. This approach helps to promote diversity and tree resiliency in Iowa City's forests. April 30, 2021 Page 4 Proposed Conditions: Staff proposes the following conditions for the rezoning. These conditions are the same conditions that were recommended for the February 18t" Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 1. In accordance with the subdivider's agreement at final platting, approval of a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City. 2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 04/29/2021. The trail connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept plan and must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding subdivision are approved. 3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to raised crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to be planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right-of-way. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be consistent with the approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City Forrester. Trees shall be planted generally 30' apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot -by -lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot. 5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Attachments: 1. Revised OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan (04.29.2021) 2. Buildable Area Exhibit 3. Updated Senior Living Facility Renderings 4. Updated Senior Living Facility Elevations 5. March 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Memo and Correspondence 6. February 18, 2021 Staff Report Approved b : SJ+- pp Y �� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services OZZ9-6iS (6TE) I WO]'NO]-WOIXV'MMM S1N`d110SNOS O o TZOZ-6Z-40 NV1d1N3WdOl3A3003S1A3H 9 AUVID Hd3SOF 'D :31NVN IN311D HD13M ti6ZO-OZ :1VN015S330Hd N91S30-ON.03fO8d TZ01-TZ-40 NV1d 1N3WdD13A3003SIA3H 1 TZOZ-LO-to Z101NO-LnOAV303SIA3H 3 Nt/ld S`d3iib' 3/1111SN3S O wol :1i33N19N3 � 0 TZOZ-TO-Y(1 TZOZ-ZT-TO 31VO NVld 1N3WdDl3A30 D351A3H NVId1N3Wd013A3003SIMM S3!DNVH730NOI1dRDS30 901 JNIMVIdG 0 3 Mu 19 ado AHVNIW113Ud S31VIS3IIVUTA210AOIH :3WVN 133fOHd S3i nIV33 3AIIISN3S IIVU3AO '3WVN 133HS - U z 9WWI — r - etz '� " / � •G,: � 'f �' ,--$t+� ' � 6 m OIL-- _ � \ ; , � � �- r' ��, Jib ->}:L \ I � • �a )/ _ �I � j . Q - �-:` II Q I r� /.% l '� ��� ` ' % �� �:�:. i �•-`�q�n�rll r: �" i *, p 4 _ .. 1, -A04 G / i' � 1 \ YTh ! j r � �sS, � • I � � � O Z� W GG W W tz -4 G z z Z , O O ul O L Q g v~i N Q Y O 2 O u zmu' a� Z�ywUa r Z m u u 0 Z m g m:5 Z W a Q m 0 a W 2 3W s°j 'nC) a J JQ m 0 zQ � Q Q J J � LLJ < = ~ <O 0 �w ~= W Q��°�u z O OQ 5 Z J U0 L � W J LU N W 0 i I I �I W •` �I 0. O a l I l r it m z a N o O a ¢ _ y �I I Wllil LE FI W = �Z oZ O < N OJ 2.iS Q q z a � D o x Q ? E 7ZI O ap U a z Z !y o¢ a w �W i~ O n O +�.+ W z z �� a N o n 0 i z 0 ac a u E gW W q _ og w Z Z W z Z Wo W� F O� a 5 0- Ww O O Z °� N O aLL in m a o 8 O- F u u .� G u r- o w G fCi f V' a 3 f 3 m i;' J � � cc 0 a 0 V a w V) w J W In = Z W W m a a 0 Q Z a w zg `�� iA z Q a a Q 0 W >gz Li Q L- p g V Z O O Z Z z O w oz:5 Z z g CL a a w ~~~In¢ N vi vt v Z a Z w W LLI w w w W Lu U "' O N = O Q Q Q Ca ZO m Z z N w>>> D u 0 a u- N P F- > Z> U 0 !n 7n V1 W W Z In W (A cc O Z > J 4 J z}}} Q O Q W OC � w Ln a a a f- w z Z Z Z) N} H w K Z> 0- Q w w w w v H V H > = = O a c. o_ 2 2 Na N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c�r u V U u u u_i-jo J ) s ji r If ./ :.77 R3L . w / �i i� f ; J I• ,/��, �I 7 /N< \mo -l- it a IT A mil. A�4+ � � j� . 7 � !!"rib r•�Y 1�. ,� >� %' J,r-' Y �1 1 i �[ Q O Z z _ Z �oQ3 U z In 0 0 w 0 zg > Zq� f- UZ=O Es z U V w cc F to W O W O Ii W In W nF_ w = W O J OW z � 0 0 \ ' vi H lD ui WI to°, °.�' u w O z 3 Oa 0 �a z z u = ? D 0 0 oam= o O z W ]G a OZZ9-619 (6TE) I WO]'NO]-WOIXV'MMM O TZOZ-6Z-40 NVId 1N3WdOl3A3003S1A3H 9 AUVID Hd3SOF .9 HD13M t76Z0-0Z S1N`d110SNOS o TZ01-TZ-40 NVId 1N3Wd013A3003SIA3H 1 :31NVN IN311D :1VN015S330Hd N91S30 :-ON173fO8d 1(I TZOZ-LO-to Z101N0OAV70351A3H 3 NVId S` RIV 3AU1SN3S � O wol TZOZ-TO-YO NV1d 1N3Wd013A3003SIA3H 0 - TZOZ-ZT-TO NVId1N3WdO13A3003SIA3a 19 ado AHVNIW113Ud S3d01S 3AUISNT U 0 31tl0 539NtlH730NOI1dJIa0S3o n3a S31VIS311VU1,kU0 101H SV3UV 3AU1SN3S AUVNIW113Ud :1i33N19N3 901 ✓NIMb'ba 3WVN iJ3fOHd '3WVN 133HS V ------ - - �. ` �-'�i��--�I H. \ / '^y"n'' ) il{i,'+I�C. 'Ir, ?�2�Wi�4'1 PJ ll-Y�NiFL•IISi�}dJ - �. ._. - \ 6 - e'P'1. ��UviI WN!—'islU'J \ _-� .�•�.- J v NN „ aN N\ ~ �£ tr 9F< ,tl�'/ _ f r o0 or - o'"- r .lOm� \ Ilk }�'! i Curvi� d "' If i•L qs0 /In - 0 o� ! e Ln Af 2 ° m LD m In oo rvLn rN r i m o o-iI n mm ono 0m Ib o Ln m N N caa6i o o It r,-I rZ m N � o o rS -F Lo r -4rn vvi re re Ln LU � N w ® O / a vJa� fJSo < !! N LL \, �l N w ry cD m rn m co m f lD 00 ry H w i n m� m Cc)'t 00 r- -O .r-1 i 772 1/` l / t Z � r-i rrl" rrj �0' � r-I" .--I' v7 L tV � � vzz ? � � - } � a n- Q a 726 `!. 1 i ! I/ No lito . LM a1 ry 1p u.l In O J t N v� VQ Q r1 ry m d ul cD n oo m o m y /� , \ i\ �% Q H / f I U. 1ID l-n 00 O�=U l I m \ Y Q G. g 1 e _r'' /r'/ 1 r--^} //�---•/ ��;. ///: a �,ry azo� cc No V1 W } f- 1.f1 V) Y lJ.l C /.� N '-'+.-�.,_ti•A!' ��' v i _ \ \ �� u J Y a N O w H �_ Y z�-aa� zZ>>Yz �! m a Ln l i zui S mogo �� 1 f u z m sir r / / a � Z w a HO Z LLi ~' -' ` °° ran �' / - N u 1 /` j ' •.3a / -- aa�m Q�e¢Lnvaimcn t ,mo J 1 �I ! /' ' 1 /• / �zom� ur ry Z a o Ln z O m a LL ua a OU 9Q Z Q N W O is t— [` w m w Lu Z 2 H Z O U Q z_ z •- ,�,/ r' t"r "Zn9 / u N m U v zig 0 Q p m a N a w °r° w U =— askD 1 i cr Im QQ w F- I `.r • \ f` - v F L9 coW ( Z LiO 0 Q ~ M< O ~ N N O \ \ \\ 1 ❑ z \ T CL Q Ln Q o G o QQ w O m a a \� •\ ,\ ` m LiJ ❑ d Z C`' 1TrWo TrrQ N Q N O n Q� d�0 QO1 .Ni < N w pCw w / O w ❑ cc ! u ICE f LU / Iz" W Q Z ; L.L LL rn ❑ o O z J( + 11 z y? O= Z CCw r w W C0_ V� C3O O b O oo \\ \\\ • • \ ` ,7 J U O QG j»o ow o zZzz uNQQw m EOO OC zW 0 w W ❑ ❑dw O O w c OzZ`.$ EE zw i zW \ \ _ af a �, � Lu O J N W K p F a Z Z F W d Z w W cc a LL I- O O z w O H- w 7 w w U Z Z U y) - Z vl Lu m H Z A r4 r i a OZZ9-6TS (6LE) I WO]'NO]-WOIXV'MMM S1N`d110SNOS O o TZOZ-6Z-40 NVId 1N3WdOl3A3003S1A3H 9 AUVIJ Hd3SOF '9 :31NVN IN311D HJ13M tl6Z0-0Z :1VN015S330Hd N91S30 :-ON133fO8d Rol-SZ-to NVId 1N3WdO13A3003SIA3H 1 TZOZ-LO-to Z101N01(IOAV30351A3H 3 NVId S` RIV 3AUISN3S C cV wol 0 TZOZ-10-YO TZOZ-ZT-TO 31VO NVld 1N3Wd013A3003SIA3H NVId1N3Wd013A3003SIA3a S3!DNVH730NOI1�dRDS30 0 A3a 19 ado AHVNIWII3Ud S31VIS3 IIVUI �U0AD1H SVRIV ON`dla00M SV3UV 3AIiISN3S kUVNIWII3Ud - U :1i33N19N3 901 ONIM V aQ :3WVN 133fOHd '3WVN 133HS I _ � I \ ennnui n —nnil i,nu—nnn I �\ �Nnm�^_n sl,liinn nwiaunnnn `\ 0 w ` W W ~ C z z z Z O O Ln O OOP J Q Q t~n N Q YLn ❑= U Y W iy Q N o Y~ 1— V V J} CS: H U U= U Y z�'a H z Y z LLJ �zm�c, �zmago IL w 2 ,--J Z _Q a O z w J 3 J Q Qa m Q he Ln LA m O V V o C7 a) OC H N Z Q N w 6Z1 oz Z �n � u.. Q O < O O c~n p Z a J — O uj H V O H W o > co LU W W z z❑ u a z_ z m U u zO a= o m a ni 3 0ui u`n., sJ a l7 N— a z a N❑ a z z Q Ln Q J Owe —a CL = << : OQz�o L U L1J Q�u z�o< SZJUD W Jw>= W V) LU C) OZZ9-6TS (6LE) I WO]'NO]-WOIXV'MMM S1N`d110SNOS O o ZZOZ-6Z-40 NV1d1N3WdOl3A3003S1A3H 9 AUVID Hd3SOF 'D :31NVN IN311D HD13M 'b6ZO-OZ IVN0ISS33OHd NDIS30 ON 1J3fOHd TZOZ-SZ-40 NVld 1N3WdOl3A3003SVGN 1 uozLouo z1o1No1noima3sln3H 3 NVId S` RIV 3AUISN3S 21001Hi 10O Wd3d1S 3NII 3f118 C M wol 0 Woz-10-YO TZOZ-ZT-EO 31tl0 NVld 1N3Wd013A30 03SIA3H NVId1N3Wd013A3003SIAM 539NtlH730NOI1dIa0S3o 0 n3a 2 ado AHVNIWII3Ud S31VIS3IIVUTAHOAJIH dMd SGNVI13M SV3UV3AIiISN3S kUVNIWII3Ud - 2 U z, 833N19N3 901 JNIMVW] :3WVN 133fOHd 3WVN133HS O 0 L� W W W ~ Z Z Z y W Ou cc cc O W a 3 a c r a Y o g g In Z W }} ]W[ W W a P Q Y F- F- 1— � vJf o-M I— U 6Wj F=— zI- IQa zg -S -Z z m 2 u < Z m o g o agi..,3 a,ZLL+ Q <0- Pn Q1<incQiim 0 u u J F- J u Ql D 0 cc f— Z Cn I— N w OLn n Z O In d J� Q Q Cif O 110 Z gJ � _ tON) Z N j m ul V' J ~ U W Q > W W Z Z O u a Z_ Z U W m u u z a c O m J O W a J O Z kD C Q IL a �4 aLLJ--I�m�(a < r4 azallo r) z z Q Ln Q J Owe — a a = =0 OQz� � LULU Q��°�u z00 SZJUD W J W > _ W L/) w I) CL I _ I � � unnnw, n 491 n1111 nnnw,an.Nnnn I 1\ tNnrtl.4^_n slslllnn nwlrnawlnnn \ w N w \ zF- �c DoQ \ J <Zui Z w 0 O Z> U° ° (� J W CO H 0 \ LL o0Z ulwa W LU �O J W W 1% N fL d W O .-I Z OZZ9-61S (6L£) I WOJ'NO]-WOIXV-MMM 1��1 • 1' ��1'�l✓ S1NviinSNOD wol� 0 C3 0 TZOZ-6Z-Y❑ NVld 1N3Wd❑l3A3003SIA38 9 AUVIJ Hd3SOf S) 3NNVN IN311D Nt/ld S`d3db' 3/1111SN3S HJ13M I tl6Z0-0Z :IVNOISS330Md N91S30 ON 133 fOad O - TZOZ-LZ-40 TZOZ-L❑-b0 NVld INIMDI A3003SIAM Z 101 NO 1f10AV103SIA311 3 3 0 1ZOZ'L❑'60 TZ❑Z-ZT-fO 31YO NVld 1N3WdOl3A900351A3H NVld 1N3WdOl3A3003SIA3H SaE)NVHJ30NOI1�dlUUDS34 ❑ , AH 19 ado AHVNIA113Ud S31VIS3IIVUTAU0AD1H NVld 1d3DN0J 1N3WdOl3A3a SIIVUJL � J0>I01H U :1i33N19N3 901 JNIMVd(I :3WVN 13irmld '3WVN 133HS acqli o C,00tT N Ih Vl Vl IN V) r I- w w w w w w ¢¢trx ww U U U U LL LL aaaa lllc)Nd 00Ch I, M O V Nr az w cro a F- w Q goza EF LL 0 o}�oz M, LU o VJ a _ >3"~ za W w LL 0 j w 0 O Q O Y w W J �0�z wz O�0-0 NN 1� LLJ Z.w \ \. IA O "' z O Q U Z w C W w C7 `^ w a o J 0_ U OZZ9-61S(6T£) I WOJ'NO]-INOIMMMM TZOZ-6Zti•❑ NV1d1N3Wd013A3❑❑3SIA38 9 AUVID Hd3SOf S) H:)13M I V6TO-0Z S1Nb'11f1SN�� TZOZ-LZ-40 NVIdLNIMID A3❑43SIAM 3 31llIN3113 1VN015S330MdN91S3❑ ON1J3fQ1d 'v►s/ Tz❑z ro Z101NO1f10AV1❑351A3tl 3 NVId SRIV 3AUISN3S N`dld 1d3DN0D � `cV wol 1ZOZ'L❑'621 NV -Id 1N31NdO13A90 ❑351A3H ❑ '8 - TZOz-ZT-fo 11N3WdO1WG(13SIA3M , ado JlbtfNlWll321d �9N1/11l iiO1N3S U 0 31tl0 539NdH730NOI1dIaUDS30 A3a S31VIS311VU11�U0ADIH T 101 :1i33N19N3 901 ✓NIMV1dG :31 oirmld '3WVN 133HS N 1-i m v 0000 0100 rn D w Ln ILL H O Q Z a J LA g o a z 3 o =3 d kD O Ln to * It It 11 11 o W= 0)❑❑ Ln w Z x Ln v 1� m m m w Z a Z11M Q L] 11 N fy1 0 Z w (7 U 0).11 r-I » o a w Wo H Z w rrn cow ~O z n :2 m- v o z W O= O w 0 cc m \ ^ ]L F u- J Q W 0 cn _1 > LAW = J Q Ln cn W V f W w LL N z ILL LL LD L-I LU lai a z Z a ono 00 3 O N O m m m 2 F t� oO N _ Z m m m m m m /n J w f" a D ." l W M M W a p O> d t N CC p LU W W W _ a a a w LU .-I co ('n N Ln O Z W d J K LL u l w C E > d U n N O fn m LD O �- Q w x to 'l LL \ J J J O ❑ LLJ of > o o l a v In (D Cf II Q Q Q a O H tD g a 3C � z��� o Z w LL O O ~ > 1 ru w w ri O m O z a O I Ln z w O 0 Z O W W W W J LL O U9 wa �--I W N d C L. LL LL LL ❑ 1 1 W W Ljj Ln Z m D Lu Ow ❑ H z Z C Z a Z z ❑ u! p Y O Q J N a Z Ln m 00 w m O O w N Q K 0 2 Q Q O w Z w o 0 w Z O y w 0 0- LL O NO Oo � w w W w J L,,1 w N m Z m LL > a❑ C O d w v> w z J Q O u. Q a Q C7 C9 > Q (7 > O Q> O W C H Q > �i x p O Fa- v t7 _5 > Q x Fd- x Q O O v x C! W a J O m ❑ z 0 O-I 0 m m 0 O> Z ILLJ O w _p p> U ❑ l7 > 1- > m ❑LU r m z N a O F O> N rG J Z❑ a m O J Q L°Ci. Ov m Q Ov JO Wa N LLLL a 7 �c w Q v> > 5 Ln ❑ w Ln f 0_ U F- w U O N In w Z m -❑ Y } m m F I- I- I- H U Z C7 N Lu Ln Q 0 Z IJ O Z ❑ _ �Q Q9 W u Qa� �0000W zou z D�Qv�i� * aQ� J J O J N Z Z Q < �" _ J J J J a J W CO F- U. I- m Z Q O Z Q H O L`I Q _z z z _z x x 1-. Co r- Q W O O x W O K O J u.1 rz' p w w a s ❑ O W :D O \ J J H a Ln l9 ry a fn LL h m x m J Ln CO H z t ` 1 i �- _. I --p09 bo Ln ZD zn LA 10 \ ♦ �. l ' i ♦ �D 1 1 1 I 1 \♦ �♦ 1' 11 1 ♦ I \\ I I 1'I \\ \\ 1y \\ ♦\ J \\ J LLI IS I mLn O en_ 1 N \ - - ♦\ W , I_CL \♦ ♦\ ri \\ Y \t N 0 1\ O, O N a 1 I i 1`Y1 , , \\ 1 , ♦` ` 1 1 l gyp, ------------- /♦ Q 1 1 f � I Ln CL 1 / II ♦\ 'y - \\ � � / N j s r ♦ 1 r-1 - �cI \ I 00 `N1 I 00 _ o I -`\` '♦, M it \\ `'_`~�-- --M--� ---- N ry , 4 4 '`♦ - \♦\ \ \ _ 1 - - ♦♦♦♦ I I zo I � /' � l� per_-���I � ♦ - _ � . j' � � ��_� ---- ---- %------- / 1 a ----- - --- N - UE AD„- _�" - ---Ln- K-- - ----- ---- ----_ - --- - / l _ ; i } 1 _ ■�i��' rrrr - � �� II - - III `- •\ ` /j � / � � � ! M, ../ __ _ - __ _ _ .O OZZ9-61S (6L£) I WOJ'NO]-WOIXV'MMM S1 li v I i A S I OD 1�`IY1 1'J��I�J✓ wol o EZ0Z-6Z-40 NV1d1N3WdOl3A3O03S1A3H 9 NUVID Hd3SOF 'J :3AVN 1N3117 HJl3M I b6TO-OZ :IVNOISS3iOHd N91S30 :'ON 133fOHd Lzol-SZ-to NVId 1N3WdOl3A30 03SVGN I izozLow IZOZ-10-YO z1o1No1noima3sln3H NVld 1N3Wd013A3003SIA3H 3 0 NYld Sd3lgV 3AUISN3S C) O iZOZ-ZE-EO NVld1N3Wd013A3003SIAM ado A '8 2�b'NIW113Nd Nt/ld 3ddJSa N`dl l J H33NI9N3 0 31tl0 539NtlH730NOI1dIa:)530 n3a S31VIS311VUA1 IONDIH :3WVN 133f0Hd 1N3Wd013AM Sll`dK AHONDIH '3WVN133HS W N 901 9NIMVW] O I f \ � �" O V 6f \ T rr M Z, � O %r Y � t�r:•:�4 �1 � � ��i J�,' Jf /•"i"�► a � J�Jf:E"� ��`,W.�NI%4 ��o��0-jy '�.•'SZ• �:.0� tT a Iw.>} o C U,. Y .n u1 +i 1- ir�a"lr Z •� 1 r.��'. 'i�•��, T��.'>!4 'i o ��L�' �6 X ;S1 • . m +hr'q,' U `� �:y ? .,, Z6` .+ 0 4 y�. c � ;�' ' :: ki �-�••.... .i wt;> *.�a" yr. S o s ,.� : _ _ W �y ed. � � per: �:�.� '�'�' ��..4 c q W � fA w .- ./3.1�J. - ��' 7 f- _� -U�c ) ` h- VY O r •t• U ��''ttr" U � �'�iy�. 1 � j�� ~ j[ w�iy �'i a (17 `•r� fir• •L- C U.�.r d�4,-,t s,�•- � •.a,�� '?t1� � `:._.r -a' 3 � U �, ? � �cy.}sCk � `1'.''t:••r „ '0 �j• • :: r. � a� o %��: �< 4 `� -. \\ � / � I it T 71ba 1 Aacoul ---- — • _'� ~ r�:tiv't•�, `M o �.,{+�h �?,�.'S�� o ��Y" ! a'�. ,i�... � � �VJ�.^•.r"i^•O. '4�i� X. t '�y ^• �s mow,,, ='+c i — w ���N-4 a z 4 �- •— �k�� o_o � o � o _U—= ,� 7j �� a;•� � � i;� � � w o �i��'� �� � � V^�i4�'J�.,. '�-ia:x Yjr �� "�o�lL p � •(�. .�,nT� aI �$ �4 loLL w ~• Y4 pa :� z � a �.•s��m N O C i c > ask . • ir a cr � Ltio +r:; • o Q � �o _ Z Q OZZ9-61S(6L£) I WOJ'NO]-WOIXV-MMM TZOZ-6Z-b❑ NVld lN3WdOl3A30❑3SIA38 9 AUVID Hd3SOf •9 HD13AA I t16ZO-OZ WOZ'17-40 Nb'1d1NIMDI A3003SIAM 3 S1NviinS#IOD f;V Y ��I'�l✓ wol :3WtlNIN311] :1VN0155330Nd N91S30 ON 1]3fOad � TZOZ-L❑-b0 Z101 NO 1f10AV1 035M311 3 NVId S` RIV 3AUISN3S TZOZ'L❑'60 NVld 1N3WdOl3A900351A3H ❑ak 18 ado JlbtfNlWIl32Id Sllb'13a ONd S310N 3ddOSdN`dl j TZOZ-ZT-fO NVld 1N3WdOl3A3003SIA3M , SUVIS3 IIVUI )kUO>IOIH 33U 133HiS W PLya 53[9�NdHJ[C��O NOI1�dJIaUJS34 n3a JOl ✓NIMVldG :1i33N19N3 :3WtlN i3irmld '3VWN 133HSLn N V U Z J Z Vl w u o g . o zO�OZ Z❑ �F-mo0�wmo�xQ aDN OQ �Q�w vQ7 z w L'i cc O w o _ w?0 a D tole F-=x❑ =o Q nC g zJ F- Q 'OU LLJ o Lq a � O D Z O 0o[ � Z❑aLLv�j �� W LU O Z FUu Vx W N z m QQOF- 0 Z JZ pwF Ln J W ❑ gLL W F- a} w m w 2 m W a le U F n w w O O U W Vo og? �o�°~ z w oat 0Owo Q w Ln z ~� Uz�w Q N Q W W Z W F- z Fm �a 0:5 �Zw=Z 06 > Z=a3 ❑ z z g g Q ❑ w z D a Z 0 W Q Y J > W u mN NFO 20M�Y a ❑w cjlx>i- ZO Q��-vNi� O F Z Q DJ cc cFO zvJiF❑Q = IJ a O ❑LL Q w�Q 2W��gu 0 Qa 0Ln Ln °2i0:LLp Ln z F c n m D w z V oZ ~ C LLUJ J U0 W J J g Q> MLu o °z W0 ova L,CC0 o a Jammu ❑o: W D o 2 aW a x z Z V) =QzJ 0 JzOw U 0 Ngpw Z CC C7Qw UF- J ❑ U D O Z O Z O m m g¢ W O- F- W J z G. F- VI �x❑u' ❑ } U 2 z m0 wLLz OF-ZDO Zu m zwzmwz Z z< F- xtz� DD�WO m z cc a0w O W 0 m H ap O_ gDO0o Z Om > C <=a>- > w CO OF 0 W m Z Z> FQ- ❑vW gg ❑>- Q2z p Omc� O a 2JN O � 2JO>QOLL? O Q Z ZW Q=�O N w lD ad 1= F-xQ Z IYQ-U V1 to a �N W NNUD W W C' m a IIl W n 00 cn 't O e-1 N Ml F- O O O O O O O 14 .-1 .-i .-1 11 ui O > cc D w 0 O w r Q 0J J F W z Q 2 J a Q J Q D ❑ J w c=a OF O Z F ZE W Ln Ln z1) p,w =0 LL ❑ O ~ J 3 LU Qm F-i Do LU ZZ W wmw �• Q Vl 0 ❑ •�• LL J • f• -m Om vl y/ y••'t• • ro LU W J Z O d �• ,•�'r•• 'y �1 •��• �❑ WQ ZD {f y D W m F- W W ••�•#,� tom•..: wa mZ >m 7'r s. m D w m m .� w •`r K, d F ti�•,' . }Z m2 ❑� +a i . Z W 2 w +� OQ jru QZ ± I'�ss! QQ mD W J _ O = _ VI> FQ� 0Z• M U a w tY > Z x LL 0 uj LL Q 2 Z W Q LL CA O V l Ln z Y w J W Z W Q Y Z c F W Y W F- \ C9 cc m F- F Z F Q 11 F Zi Vl V) a: r r•; • o o I Imo. Q ��� a CA O O O Z J O u� F- LU F- m z m Q w vl `n J ac vl z Q 2 U N O D O 66 J D Z O J Z 0 o gF= aZ 0 o 0 oU 0 d C z Z d Z ag a o06v axo pz QQ 2 a z u Iw o Ln w F- cr N ❑ Vl W a �d LU _ O V u u;LL N0-O° Z Q Q a w Z F- D J F ul F- w V ¢ w m LU w m J 0z gg F Q o o z U i U K LU O J Z W u z 9 D0 ¢ z 3 r U �0w Q Q LL W LU_ Z F LL V O O Z Og LL Q Q a= w O w LA Q Z J U = ¢ Z N ODw ❑ I{� > co Iwy 2 U 00 Z Q a D 'i LL y D lD z z D U z0 Z F- 0 D J F Q ❑ m W 0 J J 0- rn W =H S Q Z N 2 O m 3 c Q F- F U m COLLJ J w N O > a ut ui Z D m g o ❑_ m m u z > Q O CL Q x OC C' x J OP a C)F- p w Q Z J O LL p - O Z w U m IQL O O O LL Z CC 2 Z 0 F- S w� J W J F F ❑ C Q Z - Q F- O Vi J D >¢ Y F N F Q ❑w J r O p u z W Z D m D 0- Q 0 O W J Z y c O J O ¢ cc LU -j z O J LIJ x u v7 u Z �. F Z F- Q _ Z ¢ H LL O g ~ Vl Q O z O F F Q u Lu Z m> z N U V1 tn w N W QD ❑ Q F CC Z w F- V Q G F' V LL Vl Ca.. K In W F W LLJ W w OC 0 ❑ Z_ LL Q O ❑ W D LU w LL O V d c F F- > Z z L O CL Q> O V D W ❑ C7 Q W J J w N D Z Vj F } a Z w Z c O O Z J_ Cc �' 4al W Z W U w z C Z O m 0 W 2 z w O D Q Q= O D d ❑ z u m Q w x LL W LL W F V ut Q w W J Q D ❑ Q D E m z w F Ci o 0 Q F- Y 6n z O z Q O m un Q Q D ❑ W D cC WF ID Q nmLU a m H F a z w F m O O Z u D z_ Q Z Z a w ✓1 F- 1^ w u }> Z Z❑ v U w Uj LU cc. O u ❑w F- >j z Z z m ¢ Q V, J ❑ oa wW o � 3 L) Z x a a a a N W Q Q Q } Q Q a w �� �� ❑ x m O J ❑ ¢�� co O ❑> v D- m Qo 9 Zw mCU � FU ZZ W u o z� Q w p m x F Z O JO ❑ O K WL 2 U N z gJ Ln Z V1 O W o w o< w 0 a w W J LA- Z viQ - W W 2 J F-g w❑ W V > > m z ¢ vl m W W J Z❑OQ ¢ZZ� W x le ❑ wD w ❑W a ..' Ym ❑ F Q 'c - < W J LU w> o U V ¢w Q a z z Q > m Q Z Z w W m a w F F- � H U 0 g w O Z �Z H W w wx O a Q x le D x mF- W w Z F- U -' F- LL W O m = C)cc❑ H_�m� BOLL O ❑OC70 zm aCD o g0 3 wZ m c� U FQ- IL 3 aZ Nw Z u Qm Z lD7 ZLL O Qv, U o z = ❑ } � Cr Q to Q m LL m U a aw ❑� cr O a 00 g ac = o m cr p w vl F� m C) z vwlLL D�F-- OF D o w wo 00< W W cr- z m W W F- a D to Fx- ¢ Q wW Q 5 0n L k z- as mQU vuip � w w m CD LU w Uw °`n� Du O N Oz x m w `^O Q U LL x x m N [r U Z U Q Z F w D 2 F O w F z m Q 2 Q Z F z m 2 J Z> w ` ❑ oK Ln Z D W U N = W Hz W Z W U Z J Q om cG OC F- Z x� F- � W D D W D D Vl Q Z Z m LL Z J U vlp DOW v) K 3 U F-F-Vf Z z D z z to r g LLgD OC Oz N Z = Z D Vf F- w 0 } LLO F �m OD ou F- J Z Q V z�? m J g m Q w cFil w Z W �D Z ] W OD m vl i Z x Z U CC cc w zU x w - O m z WCG Zcn1%I m F Z �D gWo- F- Q O O_ZZ F WQ cc Ne FAD0 wD Vl wv v LU D 2D ❑ a>'Z a F> F ~� W } ❑ it ZGp 3 a 2 w w a w D zQ J z ¢ LLD' Q ¢? O F- W Z3 Q ❑ j w= CW G} W F- D- O J Z X= W' V) LLJ > W Fes- D D Z 0 w H- w D O O j m Z W~ N J 2 = = w O � tFn N W U J w a z m O D O z Z ~ W D- In p Z❑ r Ln w I x LU < 0 W Q mQ U� F- N aFa O J O DJ m OC Q V O G °� w g Z U N Z 0 Z O D U F- N D D U 0 F- Q D V7� Q Z J Q 3 x w LL W2 '' O Q vl InJ QDI Z a W O W Inw Z DW_ o Ln W CO D 2 ❑ F Q CC Z O "' F Q J D W Z Z LL W W Z K F- W W J J D F LLI Q CL' F- w `$ W W a C) z F- In D N d K V U W Q m coQ w x wQ O QN w J Z(D `Z Q Z F W N a Q W V I Q F- - Z U O ❑ Z Q H 2 N D > pw Q ZU O S U Z F. Vl ~ O ucc:riV) }} J J In ❑ F- > 0 Q Q Z D =,vl OF- w Q m > x vl a O Ju m Q F- z x w w m m❑ w D O z ❑ O m> Z m vl-K D m a J vi ¢ D Z vl Y Vl rr D U ¢ Q 0 O z `n O w Q❑ D D Q O z H > vl w w CJ w U p z O � w w ua w m > wv_i z ¢ DD FO ww wg Omm N xZ 0 U(7 Q wQza o r Z) C) z- F Q.0 InaC7� D m 0 QUl U W Q a w w W cf m n' 0� m W W ui o f Q w> QFD- a� ng m u x }w v� ONQm m LU C N 0 O o� W On. J zm F Q ❑Q V U >CJ UZ Zb cL w F g0 J m } (7a ¢ O z F- w Q W >_ w W �lnC'm > w O�ZQ c>z~- LL Ww O �m Z UD v DLLJ mY Qm t 00 uD ❑ _OW D Z D V LL m Qa m oCQ D Q 1^ DN D z zm F� DUZ z 2 W F z� F-� W O wam F wpD Om J a m ❑ LL 0 J J Q OJ Z OV W z �n o v� > m�i O oF�Wwo Q Q o o �Q a Z uQ go Inag m D }OZQ cDugU oyaLL J OU- J > ❑❑ D acQ ? WZw p> z � Q Q❑ �0 Oa Z J-F O zD W J C]' Z x 7O = xU CC Z S O J W u Q� p W or Q J Q c Z W Q ❑ 7 Z W m D mx w m JJ} O Z O F- (� O V w Q a❑ ❑ Q mJzU m F- LU D D. = D ❑ W J LLCr n In 0— N ca L" W ~c N F a' Z F- W N D = J ❑ Z = Q CQ L N D W U LL Q w �% W O Z~ W W z 5 W Z D F w m FW' W N O Z D F C VI Q W 0 x F K u z> w a� o �u p D Fa�Q o zUN�❑w o i <„ Za W a� FF- F�0 F' o 0w Q F N N Q VI O0-00 D N- Vl a❑ Ul 2 K Q w w WWI 2p NJ ZQ v~i b H ZujO Q xo m O z N w = ❑ Q� Z > wa ¢ zF-a Q ❑ F~ gw gZ Q F-U F-Zp- �u Q m N W 2w mQ Q F F QZo m Q i%I D J m 1 D J w K m U D J F ul >j W N C/1 Z C U W ❑ D U ❑ W a x m Z W D Q Q W i- J0 Q} -' F- D Z�Q�n w w��`n0 U z 0 D -uj W F DO Ina D D Z vlN0� Q❑wVl aw. W OC Q ¢Fw H Fp w Ln a. v Q wm� Wn. x U m x Q w 3 F� ❑ IjUj O FF- F-Q C F- Z V7 K� fr ❑�'"I VI wU J w >Q Z D W Ln F W cc Q O W ULL = F Q LL N U U V D Q Z F- = CZ U ~ J U = -� '� n. J U m J- F O J } z z_ F W Q a vl L Z m J J m Q J U J m O ZN n0 DZZ U W W O S Q V } x z O Q W < u t lit ❑ F J F- Q E D m Q W w J F- U Jylu0 J J Q O Q W LL m m F Y LL J Q O V O D Q W- D W 1!1 D F O Q Q J Z F D. J D J J a' x ❑ W W W Y w m Q W z c QQ QQQ Q O J Z0 W Ww W w Qvl w a D Q a0 J u �x 30 wCCF - Qz W L J x w Q L O m Y m m m F_ J - O x x F- F F W W Q x Q ZQ Q D W a O w D �Nn w ❑ a J W Q Z Ln LL lfl O a F Q me Z ?=? J Z 1' m O m Y z W ¢ a a Vl {FNn a 90 VI 30� z 0QD0 VI Z F- J O W� m❑ W W QOz Iwyl ci W LL W O VI O z 2Z Z Y F- Q Y lD Ql z Z IFFS J V F'Z ,nD J Q J a0QZ mQ Qw 00 n OM Vl U C 7D J W J x J Jv 0. O- c O F- W} Q VI Q F- - p Vl W m LL LL Vl M W Z D Vl Z w Q z m LL Q V J❑ D Q Q U Q G D gig z W zDm G7 mJ aU Vl x wF U JO W z W D d W J D- W W D W LL tFn :_r a J J O O W x F- W ¢ Q = JLL, Y Q Q F- U W W Q �i OOQ J F-, Z OC J Q Z 0 Q OW .l C} tan Z w W N= In O J Z U Vl O g V1 J Vl ) d Fw F-F QWJ F- F- F_ F W J J_Q JQ� Dm uN Z a mQ 2z Q a' Z Vl F_ a' Q Q F_ Q Q a' J Vl a Q m D D W J w ❑ (,j J J D F- U g J vl z 2 Z O-❑ O 0 2 J D W D J z o CL O Q❑ Qac VIgz F- F'J x Q N O1 m W w Q Q C7 U N Q Q- oC F cG cL mp v) F- F- Z O OC QF vl QDO Q= O C >a In C a[ K CC '� Q 1D 7 5 Q m CO_Z Vi .. o r- Z Cl. V1 Z LL F Q Q acc it Z N Ln N N Q = Q Fx-- m Q N z cc Q U Q❑ ¢ W F- ❑ Q OF} lt/ m�) Z Z O z O Z m Z D Z w- VI U U Vl 0 C Z F- In O D U W W W❑ W W � z z Q w❑ u Q Q Z Z LL Q U O 0 c Cl Z z 0 O a vl F- z D D D w ❑> m ❑ Q vl 2 g0 HU F- F a FHa a� �Z wZ K V O O W CL < r Q ¢Q¢~ d U w U ❑ w Ol 0 C O �3: d LL J m z 0 �❑ Q N x 00 O> a a � D vl D- a 0 00 D� Fu �O Z to Cr OFC�W a w °CF > > >"' F vwi FQ- - Fm-`n m a- cc a Z❑ O V _O D F- J z a o Z Z O O Q J 0 Z 0 0 O Q O 1n K z J F z D Z U z J J Q o m� Q J g g 0 F- u In Z m g a m = CL 0_ 0 U O J Q V] K O W g J J W O O m❑ F- Z p N 0 z 0 w ~ C7 -' w 0 -' ¢ O c m N t ar W LL W Q- LL Q D. V D ei ❑ COL a -J a. O D Q D. Z m C. D- U D a s 0. a CL VI a D- Z W .4 N M VI lD 00 Ol O .-I N M -1 U O O O O O O O O O ri 'l e-i r'1 H Z V Q Q D. u Z a Q Q} In l0 r 00 al O 11 .-i r-1 11 e-1 el N N N Vl Z u N N C O r1 N n1 Vf O O O 0. OZZ9-61S(6i£) I WOO'NOO•WOIXV'MMM MVID Hd3SOF'9 HD13M I t16ZO-OZ S.LiII IJNY� 3WVN 1N311J ♦7 1 �/ V✓ :IVNOISS330'dd NDIS30 ON 1J3rolid NV]d Sd32IV 3AlilSN3S N`dld 3dVDSaN`dl p 0 '8 adO ANJVNIWIl32]d 9NIAll bOIN3S J 0 31V0 S39NVH:) dO NOI1dIa0S30 AI'd S31d1S3 11Vi AEI ONDI H Z 101 Z 4;I'al�7ril 901 DNIMt/Na 3WVN ll3fONd '3WVN 133HS AdVNIWll3bd Z O a wz O 0 OLLI w �x w � 2 2 H W z W K 7 w �a Z Z Y H w W 4 F 0 Q J ((n LU Z W O H Z LLJ m w O Z w w w coo J } w F- U } v (7 O LLI w p < Z as a O J Z > O F O 2 Z Z W LLJ 0 o a w w U ~ Ln w of K Q w Q W Q x K IL a F C7 w m 0 w F Ln ww x O Q w H w w w I 1 F- -z X w mZ (9 Q LU LL a ~ 3 W N cn U)i 0 0 w • a P o U N oQ =a w Z_ 00 w ✓3 Q0 N� p N w cn0 I� Cl)00 O 0 N ( Ox 0 ss cn, \ - LL O) N \ U \ \, a s5 wG wry \ �N \. - - x� L LU u ... a o I \\ 1_ wa J I w w w mot Folw w yy i L 'T' w W 3 ' ,s o0 : Y / 3 - Cl) Q J J co ( V A N CD 4 ( ' A Q N oo O \ f o J I OZZ9-6TS (6TE) I WOD'NOD-WOIXV'MMM )I2IVID Hd3SOF '9 HD13M ti6TO-OZ S1NdlinSNO� 3WVN1N3117 1VN01SS33 UNOIS30 ON1J3fOhd 1 1 1J NVId SVRIV 3AIlISN3S 31n(13HDS'8 S310N 3dVDSaNdl p 18 ddO AUVNIAMUd JNIAII 2IOIN3S ? J 31V0 S39NtlH�3ONOIl�d/121�534 A38 S31` iS3 11`db1 kUO>IDIH Z 1O1 z :i133NION3 901 JNIM Vd(I :3WVN 133fOdd :3WVN 133HS N AUVNIW113ad u o wo 0 "L v U h C:) Q W LU z W W C Z 00 Lu N 7 7 p N w 3 c) �3 0 I � 0 ommmCIO mm mmmmmm J J LLI N F Q F U U Q to x U x U W N N N z LLI COofg fu F J U w w Of J Z W J LL H W o w a LL¢ w w0 mQw OU Q U O w U¢ J OO (D w � Q Q mai¢xzY H w m LL w5 � o 0� z } r0Z)¢XElf x x Q of0-0 Q Q H U)LL fo >_ = w - O p J Q U) J } W 0 m Z ¢ M U) Q Q Q w U U K ? w W z O fY Q 0 0 w w m¢¢ziu�F C7�Jw00< X U LL U O w O U W fY fo z F- ill xv)Qwaw Z n J a- to ¢ awzU)U) W Q (7 J J LL fZ Q ¢ ¢ } Q U U } a- U Wy. U)X X <Y Q U U LO O N N r M wY § ZD0Z J m F F C7 Z d%X�O �N rzo �Jco zw 00xj w >� �Qp ¢J g > OW. a0 �z Z) LL J F U J z p Z Q J �� x J J� 7 d Q A LL' 0 0�~ LL y LL z O J E LL' W p z 'If z W= LLO a d Q U d Q w N 2= U U 2 a fl ~ F 2 Z O Q z 6 H m U CO W. m Q F U J U fi U? y LL O a O_ U Z U g z p z Q f >> r O r m w O Z Q x UZ afjLL PZ O Olz U~za¢ W0_'aZ g �Ox O��J Jam° W o0- ZQm �¢ Wa w¢ Oviz'). � Wmg Ww2waw wL3g W LLz (wjZ Z w r zw pp 6a wwd Jw zz2w0 x �xz ¢- �_� cLLi»L�i2 zv �OLL(7 p�x� U =� ;F 02 wU ¢� pFW�� H �z0 Oww�p �a F p) FLL ¢OOK gzLL Mi- xoz m� Oz }w �Owz Y x zw�o OHULLH zwoo z0 O W FO w m W ow fug Fu wQ LLw- vOwoo >�_ w=� �g'01) g>oo u~i g� ���_F �Jw o �� ymLL z} �z W J p LL LL U a > H~ Q 2 LL' Z J 1 LL O O Q LL� Q LL J- LL' J a m H H w < O J g a Z O >�UW oW w¢LL LL OwLi0 m0 W?z OOTF-z =wz w 0 mzo LL¢ aw ¢0 QWOWw Z Wz¢0 89pQO z¢<a �i a¢z �woirO ��m �O Od~ OF °°°° zwz z Q¢U =moJw mLLm �v�a�cyi oaWz (�F a0 in OrpF -2E W wz� p9UWL �x aw O F= O 5 -0 -00 O �? Q O Q LWi 0~ w j J= 0 0 z 0= 0� OF a W Q U W p LL m> Cn JZU JOapcn w Wzw J(yimLLu mOfJiY H0 LQiUz mw¢mcn zmzJ W OHO oWw wg mfu w aJQ Q6 0�w 00 mJ Qozwx xFF� �� paW 'o�JO 80WgO F �mH WUW H> >U O �O�Q �ujLai�Q Q U=� Q>-0-w- OgQW �z O�U ��}2Q Q0 z w .FQ Wes} O? Z O w OF U Om U w m o z 0 W W W w O x O Q~ w ui U fw W 0 z Q o 0 w U z O o� W x z d rn Q O F C 7 UIYZ UDZ w of =02 z a�O O~=J W fYN OZ� Q�QmH ��xg z O W W W JQz W 0 wJ Z log �0 O W Uz C) JZ W Jm a�(')O~ W W yJ L) ��(L Jfo�LL W Q ODa Oj aFU �~ D_'0 zWw zz�o} �0 pew a�� } }o¢ocxi zLL aww zwY�Q wzoF Jw Qpp 0¢LLJ �z F} Z OZ= oKooz Jm wx JO}(?Q zaDfzW 0} F-TT OLLw�O x0�- z0Y Ow 0Y Wz) Wg Oz Q ()ZiF- UdJLLa Q� �0� aLLCo Q2m¢Q OH mFF U0LLOz F-U(3: p¢ Pam? LL?02 ZW za J N M V L6 6 N 00 m C; cli c Lb 3 z a d W z F z a a a I d N V O O N 15 N J U m 0 0 a u v 0 (7 z cc O z u N V O O N N U O d N E 0. O rl V r-1 N O N Ol N o. Q 11111 ti OZZ9-6TS(6TE) I V40YNO:)-WOIXV'MMM �IdV]:) Hd3SOF'J HJl3M ti6Z0-OZ SlNvli 1SN0:) 3WVN 1N3113 :IVNOISS3308d N91S3O 'ON 133FONd N`dld Sd3UV IAWSN3S SlIVi34 3dVDSaNVI N YvviXv 18 ad0 /lddNIWll3bd 9NIAll 2101N3S � J 31VO S39NVH:)dONOIl�dfNDS30 A321 SliViS3 llVdi J�HOAD1H Z 10l w :833NIDN3 901 JNIMV OQ :3WVN DMONd 3WVN 133H5 N woJ J J J W O ==Q ==9 ==Q ==Q t �LO U (n m U m D) m m m ` H Q KOO V J ZOO o J ZOO U J KOO (=J J ¢ h LL Z O J O LL Z O J O LL Z O J O LL Z O J O O O wQ= O m WQ= O U) WQ� O Cl) wQI O CO) Q nw �z >aLL o z o 8n-LLO o z o �a� O wo >aLL O o F-Z 00w ogo 5 a g 0 z Ogo o z ° V) N� Q�LL O F co�LL O F Q�LL O F 9 Q=LL O z 9 -6 w� t2 Nm= g m ivm= 3 m i m= m Nm= g m ^l c v)3 w W a o a = U) 0 W W a O a � W W w O d = w W LL O a = I O N w g>0 =� w ~ O :50 =W W F U) 0 o g00 =U) W 0 g00 =U) w H o _ c�0 �Wo oW w Iwo ow of Iwo oW 9 C9 Iwo oW 0O'x WZ J ��j (r WZ J (/I�� = WZ J m WZ J LL DY C9 J F ow� U Y :.� J F V L. U Y U J F Z O W DY C� J F O W O U = ILL y z O U = LL U) Z O U = LL O U = LL �O W w= N y _ LL'O W w= y _ �O W w= y wow w= y w�Q 2~ Z Q z ~ w2Q 2~ Z Q Z w�Q 2~ Z U U Z FIC7 �F U 0 u) 0 L) (n N LL m D Q m U' U U) LL m Z) Z U) 0 0 (n N LL m Z Q U C9 U (n N w m 7 1 1 d a. a w w w w i� z / 0 w w Z w a J w fXV >� R. w F w F N = F %\III O z %\\III w z %\\\%\\ o Z %\\ III Z U J g w Z L 0 C9 p m Z O w � Z Q w 0 w F m LL W W Z J m N O F DU m x¢ LLIZ = > H Ow a m v z M(D ? CD Z_ dz - ~ Z \\ 1110 zco "ONIOV8S - - '0'0 85' nr1 i 1W F Lo iUV SHEET TITLE: 10 BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBIT CONSULTANTS PROJECT NAME: WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM 1 (319) 519-6220 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES Apr - am esign ivi - urvey eets CONSERVATION EASEMENT 9 0.59 AC 25,716 SF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: PROJECT NO.: WELCH 20-0194 DATE ISSUED: 04-29-21 SHEET NUMBER: CURRENT REV: 1 OF 4 uildable Area txhibit.dwg SETBACKS FRONT SIDE REAR LOT 10 LOT SIZE BU I LDABLE AREA LOT 11 LOT SIZE BUILDABLE AREA LOT 12 LOT SIZE BUILDABLE AREA LOT 13 LOT SIZE BU I LDABLE AREA LOT 14 LOT SIZE BU I LDABLE AREA 15' 7' 20' 24,769 SF 51600 SF 23,821 SF 51600 SF 22,874 SF 51600 SF 17,145 SF 6,860 SF 221063 SF 4,760 SF 0 25 50 1W F Lo iUV SHEET TITLE: 10 BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBIT CONSULTANTS PROJECT NAME: WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM 1 (319) 519-6220 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES Apr - am esign ivi - urvey eets CONSERVATION EASEMENT 9 0.59 AC 25,716 SF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: PROJECT NO.: WELCH 20-0194 DATE ISSUED: 04-29-21 SHEET NUMBER: CURRENT REV: 1 OF 4 uildable Area txhibit.dwg SETBACKS FRONT SIDE REAR LOT 10 LOT SIZE BU I LDABLE AREA LOT 11 LOT SIZE BUILDABLE AREA LOT 12 LOT SIZE BUILDABLE AREA LOT 13 LOT SIZE BU I LDABLE AREA LOT 14 LOT SIZE BU I LDABLE AREA 15' 7' 20' 24,769 SF 51600 SF 23,821 SF 51600 SF 22,874 SF 51600 SF 17,145 SF 6,860 SF 221063 SF 4,760 SF 0 25 50 90 901 SETBACKS FRONT 15' SIDE 7, REAR 20' LO LOT 15 Ln LOT SIZE 21,389 SF BUILDABLE AREA 410900 SF LOT 1C 901 LOT SIZE 20,716 SF 90, BUILDABLE AREA 51040 SF LOT 17 LOT SIZE 20,042 SF BUILDABLE AREA 41770 SF In Ln LOT 18 ' LOT SIZE 191368 SF BUILDABLE AREA 4,770 SF 901 90, LOT 19 LOT SIZE 18,694 SF BUILDABLE AREA 51040 SF LOT 20 cn m LOT SIZE 18,020 SF Ln BUILDABLE AREA 51040 SF 90' 90, r+n m Ln Ln 90, 90, CONSERVATION EASEMENT Ln Ln 90, 89' Ln 851 iL 85' mimimiododmim SHEET TITLE: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: PROJECT NO.: 10MBUILDABLE AREA EXHIBIT WELCH 2O-0194 O 25 50 DATE ISSUED: 04-29-21 CONSULTANTS PROJECT NAME: SHEET NUMBER: CURRENT REV: WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM 1 (319) 519-6220 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES 2 O F 4 pr 29, 2021 - am esign ivi - urvey eets 200194 - Buildable Area Exhibit.dwg 0.24 AC 10,624 SF 0 0 85' CONSERVATION EASEMENT Ln Ln 85' 86' 90' SHEET TITLE: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: PROJECT NO.: BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBIT WELCH 2O-0194 DATE ISSUED: 04-29-21 4 *�� PROJECT NAME: SHEET NUMBER: CONSULTANTS CURRENT REV: WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM 1 (319) 519-6220 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES 3 OF 4 Apr - amDesign ivi - urvey eets - Buildable rea Lxhi it. wg SETBACKS FRONT 15' SIDE 7' REAR 20' LOT 21 LOT SIZE 171347 SF BU I LDABLE AREA 41901 SF LOT 22 LOT SIZE 181468 SF BUILDABLE AREA 41761 SF LOT 23 LOT SIZE 181273 SF BUILDABLE AREA 71373 SF LOT 24 LOT SIZE 181839 SF BU I LDABLE AREA 7,690 SF LOT 25 LOT SIZE 201409 SF BU I LDABLE AREA 51081 SF 0 25 50 CWZ ) CWIN 4) C W24) 115` �.�,..�f777� 00 J1 120 ///��� 0.27 AC 32 � / \ 11,6I9 SF 33 / 0.23 AC 9,959 SF 92► y4 92_ SHEET TITLE: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL: PROJECT NO.: BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBIT WELCH 2O-0194 DATE ISSUED- 04-29-21 �, *�� PROJECT NAME: SHEET NUMBER: CONSULTANTS CURRENT REV: WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM 1 (319) 519-6220 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES 4 OF 4 Apr - amDesign ivi - urvey eets - Buildable rea Exhi it. wg 0 25 50 CONSERVATION I EASEMENT FRONT 15' SIDE 7' REAR 20' SIDE ON SCOTT 40' LOT 26 LOT SIZE 191300 SF BU I LDABLE AREA 51306 SF LOT 27 LOT SIZE 26,975 SF BUILDABLE AREA 6560 SF LOT 28 LOT SIZE 241788 SF BUILDABLE AREA 61026 SF LOT 29 LOT SIZE 241413 SF BUILDABLE AREA 61106 SF LOT 30 LOT SIZE 351939 SF BUILDABLE AREA 61112 SF LOT 31 LOT SIZE 151811 SF BUILDABLE AREA 61758 SF ll M:L ✓, 1 7- 4,j lb 7TtY rw" ILI, Iwo yF' I! y b� I� I t � ♦#, rrn ti C yi Il n N� ' a 1w 1 l• MY k k\ F� 11A' t• i fsl — � r 4 t -j 1�lam:. 'F� M ' a1 s1 r ■� �� !a YFa ■�� Flu = ,. �Mt �i�!�-"- _ -�aaiat , � 1, ' 4 • n kk Va Rr W ' 1a 1 F ! fts Tx-wv , ii i i i i 9 �i� IMIM i tttltii i i MAMA i MAMA MAMA ?�i MAMA MAMA ti MAMA iMAMA li ii i MAIM t i MA MAMA ti MA ii ii ti MAMA MAMA ti MAMA ii Jtt1 "IM J onMAMA t�i ii ME mm J! ii ii WIM ii mm ii ii ii mm MAIM ii mm MAMA i i MAMA MAMA MAMA WIM itttl i i mm itttl i i mm ittl ii ii ii i i MIM ii ii tttli ii ii MIM iti MIM =IM mm MIM ii ii == ii -- WIM MIM ittl ittl ii MAMA itttl MAMA WIM MAMA MAMA WIM ii itttl itt■ ii MAMA itttl IMi MAMA MAMA ti MAMA iti _. IMtttl MAMA iti IM MAMA iti ,, iti MAMA MAMA itttl ii tt1IM MAMA ii itttl MAMA MAMA ii itt■ MAMA MA MAMA i MAMA MAMA ii MAMA MAMA ti ittl ii iti i tttl iti MAMA iti �tt1 MAMA i tttl iti MAMA IMi ittl iti MAMA itt■ iti itt■ iti MAMA MAMA MAMA itt■ i i i MAMA MAMA i i MAMA tii �i MAMA MAMA MAMA MAMA MAMA MAMA MAMA iti iil MAMA i� iti iti iti MAMA P71• !- �i • � . i�'i;p,';j1�j11 11 "9� � MAIM ittl MAMA i iti MAMA 1�+ { I t�i MAMA - i �VV � lu� �� • Ir �1J' I'= ittl iti — tNti F7i II' iti ii ti tt� ! � MAIM ii tttiIM + tl MAIM mm ii MAMA E ittl ittl itt■MIM iti IMIM WIM ' -- -- IF i— itttl i— MAMA -- MAMA I �I .' f , -- itttl IMIM ii MAMA MM; mm i IMttt1 tttl itt■ MAMA MAMA MAMA i MAMA MAMA i i MAMA ii ii itttl MAMA itttl i>. itttl iti i � ' itttl ittl IMi �: i i MAMA MAMA iti MAMA ii i� IM itttl IM MAMA ' s'' 411�^� MAMA itttl MAMA MAMA MAMA MAMA itttl ittll ills mm ittl7mm MIM iti IMil hht` it' � 4jjFt'1 "I MAMA MAMA MAMA MAMA iti MAMA MAMA ititl MAMA � Ipl :I " iiT itttl itttl itttl itttl MAMA MAMA MAMA i i MAMA it11< �� IMIM �� . i i MAMA i i MAMA MAMA MAMA itttl itttl itttl ��� � MAMA MAMA MAMA r14 ON u (31 LLJ Ln 64 I - Ln LU I LU � 0 LU x LU 00 mom mom d� �l �mm �r MIM I Imo' 4 11 .� It� I ti Iwo II I __ WIM MIM �mm ply' on 1 _ !11 ■ 0 mmm r CITY OF IOWA CITY mile ���� MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Re: REZ20-0016 — Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission Background Information: On February 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting on a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development — Single Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). Staff recommended approval with five conditions related to approval of a Woodland Management Plan, provision of trail connections, incorporation of traffic calming devices, installation of right-of-way trees, and platting requirements. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of 0-7. The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 17 LLC., has submitted a revised OPD Plan and Sensitive Areas Development for the Commission's consideration. Revised Submission: The revised OPD Plan contains the following changes to the layout from the plan that was previously reviewed by the Commission: 1. The removal of five lots from the west and south side of Hickory Trail (as seen in Figure 1 below). The former submission contains 19 single-family lots along the west and south side of the street. The current submission contains 14 lots along this stretch. The applicant is still proposing to make a connection to the Park trail system in the middle of this undeveloped stretch of land. 2. To offset losses along the street's west side, the applicant has reduced lot widths along lots on the east side of Hickory Trail to add two additional lots on the east side. The total number of detached single-family residential lots has been reduced from 43 to 40 lots. 3. Enhanced landscaping is proposed for several hundred feet north of the Lot 36. The proposed landscaping in this area is detailed in the attached OPD Plan. 4. The acreage in Outlot A, that is proposed to be dedicated to the City for the expansion of Hickory Hill Park, would be increased from 10.86 acres to 11.66 acres. 5. Per staff, the applicant has shifted the proposed traffic circle and the pedestrian raised crosswalk connecting to the park slightly to the south. These changes were made to more efficiently distribute the spacing between the traffic calming devices. 6. The percent of impacted critical slopes went down from 19% to 17%. However, the percent of preserved woodlands went down from 48% to 46%. March 12, 2021 Page 2 Figure 1 — Former Hickory Trail OPD Plan t 6 $ co Q Staff Comments: 1 Figure 2 — Revised Hickory Trail OPD Plan The applicant has revised the OPD Plan to include initial feedback from staff pertaining to street tree spacing and some minor map symbology issues. The revised plans have been shared with Public Works and Parks staff for additional comment. Attachments: 1. Revised OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan (03.12.2021) 2. February 18, 2021 Staff Report Approved by:sk+-b� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Parks W--1 MRecreation TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation Tyler Baird, Superintendent of Parks & Forestry DATE: March 17, 2021 RE: Staff Recommendation for Acquiring Outlot A of Hickory Trail Estates for Neighborhood Open Space Parks and Recreation staff recommends the acceptance of Outlot A of Hickory Trail Estates to satisfy Neighborhood Open Space requirements while increasing the size of Hickory Hill Park. This recommendation is based upon the high quality of the woodlands which the City wishes to preserve and manage. In addition, because the area is connected to Hickory Hill Park, it will add to the eco diversity of the park and provide additional area for public recreation. As proposed, Outlot A of the Hickory Trail Estates Concept Plan would add 11.66 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park. This would increase the total park acres from approximately 186 to 198 acres. Staff does not intend to use this acquired area as public active use recreation area, but rather as a passive use nature area, as is much of Hickory Hill Park. Management activities will focus on restoration and preservation of the savannah woodlands and wetland area. The parcel has ecological integrity since it has never been cleared for development or used heavily for agriculture. The addition includes areas of savannah woodlands that were prevalent in the area before development. Hickory Hill Park preserves this ecosystem while providing the public with a natural area to quietly hike and explore. Outlot A is consistent with the character and of a quality equal to or greater than other sections of the park. The wetland in Outlot A further increases the ecosystem diversity of the pa rk. The preservation of the land could be accomplished through a conservation easement. However, staff recommends dedication to the City due to the location next to Hickory Hill Park. Public ownership will easily allow for ecological management and restoration, as has been happening in recent years throughout Hickory Hill Park. Another benefit of acquiring Outlot A is that access to Hickory Hill Park will be increased by the long stretch of park frontage planned along Hickory Trail. This access includes two trail entry points that link to the existing trail system in the park. Early in the development process, staff was also asked to consider dedication of Outlot B. Staff did not recommend acquiring this area because it did not have a connection to the larger park, has topography that would make maintenance very difficult and does not contain the remnant high value trees and wetland found in Outlot A. The acceptance of Outlot A is contingent upon approval of a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City. From: JOE CLARK To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Cc: Mike Welch; Jacob Wolfgang Subject: Hickory Trail Estates - Comments from Development Team Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:40:49 AM Attachments: Outlook-blkfcbmu.png ZR I!K Anne & Ray - Please consider the following comments from our Hickory Trail Estates Development Team: 1. Claim: Project does not protect viewsheds of the park. -Those who spoke in opposition of the project provided no proof of this at the meeting but only spoke in matter of fact terms. -Architects & Engineers of the project contend that due to the steep slopes at the edge of the park, our site is not visible from the park. As an overarching theme, the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan state that environmental protection is a basic tenet of the plans. "Growth and development should be managed such that the environmental quality of the community is not sacrificed. Measures should be taken in all private and public projects to ensure that any impacts on regulated environmental features are minimized." Comprehensive Plan, Pg. 19. Similarly, the NE District Plan states that "protecting the environmental quality of the district is a high priority" and that preserving natural features is one of the backbones of the NE District Plan. To this end, the Conservation Neighborhood Design is recommended in the Bluffwood Neighborhood quadrant (where the subject property is located), especially in areas characterized by a topography of steep, wooded ravines. However, the standards and recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan are merely guidelines, not legal requirements. "The land use scenarios are intended to be general guides; an indication of how development may occur neighborhood by neighborhood. It is possible that specific land uses shown on the land use scenario may not develop in the exact locations depicted, but decision regarding development should adhere generally to the planning principles set forth in this plan." NE District Plan, Pg. 11. As such, deviations from the criteria set forth in the plans can be appropriate and acceptable in certain instances. To the first contention of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park regarding the viewshed of the Park, the NE District Plan does call for some sort of buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property in an attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park and to preserve the natural integrity of the park. Pgs. 8, 15, and 17. A definition of what constitutes buffering is not given in the Comprehensive Plan or the NE District Plan, leaving much room for interpretation. Nevertheless, the Commission determined (as set forth in the staff report) that the development will not adversely affect views any more than would a conventional development. Staff Report, Pg. 6. There are sufficient separation distances from the Park and the condominiums and senior living facility, with the down slope from these properties lessening the visual effect on the Park, and trees can also be used to soften this transition to the east. The proposed homes also have a 35' to 263' buffer with the existing Park boundary (this does not include the additional buffer from trees on the Hickory Hill park side of the property). While a few homes may be visible from the Park, the staff determined that the placement of these homes will not adversely affect light, air or privacy anymore than a conventional development. This buffer should allow for sufficient viewshed protection. It sounds like this was not one of the major concerns of the Commission, but if there continues to be disputes from the Commission or Friends of Hickory Hill Park regarding this point, a mixture of trees could be proposed along the rear yards to provide additional screening from the Park's view. The Developer also has offered to lose 6 single family lots (over 500 feet of frontage) on the west side of the development in efforts to accommodate this viewshed issue. Lastly, City Staff has put most emphasis on providing a buffer and extra access points into the park more than they have on the single loaded street issue. These two issues are thoroughly addressed in the current plan. 2. Claim: Project does not use cull -de -sacs - Cul-de-sacs are not mandated for all residential roads in this plan, only where necessary to protect sensitive slopes. We agree that cul-de-sacs are not warranted in this development (and it appears the Commission does as well). The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of interconnected streets. It further explicitly states (without qualification) that "Cul-de-sacs are discouraged." Pg. 39; see also Section 15-3-2A-4 of City Code ("Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterial streets or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision."). Likewise, the NE District Plan encourages streets that enhance neighborhood quality through street design that foster reasonable traffic levels, calm traffic, and provide landscape buffers along major roadways by developing interconnected street systems that disperses vehicular traffic by using multiple means of access into and out of a neighborhood. Opposite of the assertions of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park, "'cul-de-sac streets [should be used only] on a limited basis, such as where topography or other sensitive features prevent practical street connections." Pg. 10. Further, "interconnected streets are proposed where feasible" in the Bluffwood Neighborhood. Pg. 13. However, the NE District Plan does state that "to preserve sensitive areas, cul-de-sac streets and single -loaded streets are proposed where appropriate." Pgs. 13 and 16-17. Based on the staff report from the Commission, it appears the Commission is comfortable with the through street proposed by the developer. "Staff encourages connectivity within this neighborhood and supports the idea of having a continuous street extension in this area instead of two separate cul-de-sacs. The City subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it is can be demonstrated that streets cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that this street can continue and connect with Scott Blvd." Staff Report, Pg. 4. "The applicant has demonstrated that a through street can be provided in this location without impacting the protected slopes to the east of the proposed street extension, or the wetlands that exist on the property." Staff Report, Pg. 8. 3. Claim: Project does not use single loaded streets. -Single loaded streets are only required in certain circumstances. This would mean that double loaded streets can also be used in certain circumstances. In an effort to improve overall access to and awareness of parks, the Comprehensive Plan "discourages parks that are surrounded by private property, and encourages development of parks with single -loaded streets." Pg. 47. Similarly, in an effort to preserve natural features, the NE District Plan "encourages the use of single -loaded streets when necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas." Pg. 8. Single -loaded streets used "to open up scenic vistas and provide public access to preserved natural areas" are also encouraged under the NE District Plan. Pg. 9. The NE District Plan further states that, in connection with the Bluffwood Neighborhood, "to preserve sensitive areas [such as areas containing wooded ravines and stream corridors], cul-de-sac streets and single -loaded streets are proposed where appropriate." Pgs. 13 and 16-17. However, as you are already aware, these are merely guidelines and not absolutes that must be adhered to for all development near parks. It is important to point out that the guideline of encouraging single -loaded streets is set forth in the plans as an effort to improve access to and awareness of parks, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and to create public vistas. A deviation from the encouraged guidelines in the plans would be appropriate in instances where these goals can be achieved in other ways. Further, these are recommended guidelines (not requirements) only for situations "where appropriate." Based on a developer's proposed development and layout, there could be situations where a single -loaded road would not be appropriate and more detrimental than a double -loaded road. In support of the proposition that single -loaded roads are not appropriate in this instance, we make the following notes: • Access to and awareness of Hickory Hill Park will be increased in other ways by the proposed development (rather than using single -loaded roads), including Developer's dedication of open space to the Park which will result in the Park increasing in size by 11.35 acres and having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. These are the underlying considerations in the plans, and the proposed development will not discourage or prohibit access to the Park, but will instead increase access and availability to the public. The current "unauthorized" park trails that allow a person to enter the ACT land without permission will now become two additional "legitimate" park trail entrances for patrons of the park to frequent any time. A pocket park with vehicle parking could be added near these trails if the City chooses to do so in the future. The developer's are in strong support of increasing access to Hickory Hill Park and have made that one of their focal points of the project. • The map of the Bluffwood Neighborhood (Pg. 14 of the NE District Plan) and the map of a Conservation Neighborhood Design (Pg. 12 of NE District Plan) both show some single - loaded roads in the vicinity of the Park, but also double -loaded roads as well. As such, it would be contrary to the terms of the NE District Plan to require single -loaded roads for the entirety of the proposed development. At a minimum, a partially single -loaded street on the west side of the development should be acceptable by the Commission and City staff. The Developer has given up 40% of the single family lots (6 of 15 lots in question) on the west side of the development in efforts to provide a partially single -loaded street in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. • As noted above, single -loaded roads are "encouraged where appropriate." Considering the squeeze from Outlots A and B (which are necessary to preserve other environmental conditions), single -loaded streets in this area would likely make development financially unfeasible, and as such would not be appropriate in this instance. The loss of 6 additional single family lots has already put a financial strain on the project. • While "environment" is one of the key elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan considers two other inter -related factors (along with environment) that create healthy and thriving communities, namely economy and society. As such, focusing on only the environmental concerns and ignoring the economic and societal impacts that the development will have is an unfair and incomplete analysis. For example, one of the main visions of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and provide attractive and affordable housing for all people (including singles, couples, families with children, and elderly people). "By allowing for a mix of housing types, moderately priced housing can be incorporated into a neighborhood, rather than segregated in one or two areas of the community." Indeed, one of the housing goals under the Comprehensive Plan encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods by "ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes." The Comprehensive Plan also identifies that population growth indicates the need for more homes, condominiums and apartments throughout the city, including in locations "close to recreation." The NE District Plan likewise seeks to encourage reasonable levels of housing diversity by using traditional neighborhood design to locate various housing types near parks and upgrading neighborhood parks by improving or expanding existing public parks and open space areas for neighborhood use. The Bluffwood Neighborhood contemplates a variety of housing options, all adjacent to major open spaces. Additionally the project would bring employment to many in the community and increases the City's tax base by up to $1,000,000.00 annually once it is fully built -out. The proposed development satisfies all these economic and societal goals and provides significant benefit to the community as well as allowing additional access to and use of the park by new individuals. • Developer is proposing to gift approximately 23.28% of the total development site (11.35 acres out of 48.75 acres), which would extend the existing boundaries of Hickory Hill Park and increase the total Park acreage by approximately 5.5%. It would also allow the Park to have street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. (which increases visibility and use of the Park, as well as increased access by the public). Developer is also taking other measures to preserve environmentally sensitive areas on the property (see Outlot B). These are significant environmental benefits that will preserve the environmental integrity of the property into the future. • Overall, the Staff Report supports the development and states that it satisfies the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan ("It provides an interconnected street system, incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an additional 11.35 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park."). It would be helpful for City Staff to highlight and emphasize the many other benefits that will be created by this wonderful development, rather than focusing on the one issue that is (arguably) being partially satisfied by the development team. Please share these comments with your staff and P&Z Commission. Thank you, Joe Clark Commercial Realty Iowa City, LLC 221 E. Burlington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Cell: (319) 631-1894 / Office: (515) 519-LAND Licensed Real Estate Broker in Iowa C R COMMERCIAL REALTY TAMARACK R I D C A9CT` Janet E. Godwin Chief Executive officer March 151, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: We have read the reports and the notes of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) commission meeting on February 18t". our reaction, in a word — disappointing. ACT purchased the subject property, known as the Larson property at the time, in 2008. Jeff Larson approached ACT to gauge any interest we might have in developing the property. While we had no interest in expanding the ACT campus onto the Larson property, we purchased the property with the intention of eventually selling it to the "right" developer at the "right" time. At the time ACT purchased the property, certain senior staff of ACT met with citizens interested in Hickory Hill. They wanted to better understand ACT's intentions regarding the property. ACT communicated to that group that 1) it had no intention of ever developing the property itself, 2) the property would be sold — eventually — to a developer, and 3) ACT had no intention of donating the property to either a land trust or the City, but that concerned citizens could purchase the property if they so desired. In addition to those items, ACT stated that it would consider stop using the property for row crop purposes, and invited members to future discussions on how that would come about. Since that time ACT has, in fact, ceased using the property for row crop use and converted it to hay ground. The hay helps keep invasive species and erosion to a minimum. We've been good — and consistent — neighbors to the city, the park, and the surrounding developments. After 12 years of ownership, ACT believes it had found the "right" developer to develop the property at the "right" time. ACT is not interested in continuing to hold this property indefinitely. Mr. Clark's plan has clearly met the intent and spirit of both the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. Mr. Clark has made numerous revisions to his plan and obtained the City's recommendation to approve prior to the most recent P&Z meeting. Mr. Clark has also worked in good faith with community members including the Friends of Hickory Hill Park. As we understand it, a point of contention is that Mr. Clark's plan proposes some double -sided streets as well as single -sided streets. As you know, neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the NE District Plan require new developments to exclusively have single -sided streets. In fact, double sided streets are the 500 ACT Drive P.O. Box 168 Iowa City, Iowa 62243-0 1 68 ianet.godwin @.act.org www.act.org Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2021 Page Two norm in the neighborhoods directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Imposing a requirement for all new developments to have primarily single -sided streets would have the unintended consequence of doubling urban sprawl, devaluing the land, and making development financially unfeasible. In a continued effort to alleviate concerns, Mr. Clark's latest proposal has eliminated an additional six single fa m i ly I ots in efforts to in reaw e buffers and aIlevi to viewshed concerns. In the spirit of preserving the character of the area, Mr. Clark"s plan has considerably more buffer than required. ACT's land is currently being used as a de facto extension of Hickory Hill Park. There are walling trails warn on our land and portions of our fences have been removed —not by ACT. Should the developer not be allowed to develop the property as proposed and the property reverts back to ACT, ACT will take steps to ensure this trespassing activity stops. Additionally, we will be required to find alternative uses for this land — including potentially converting it back to crop land. I am writing to the P Z commission at this time to express our full support for Mr. Clark's development. As neighbors and as owners of the property, we have always been concerned with how this area i developed. That's why we purchased the property in the fiat place — and why we are choosing to sell it to Mr. Clark now. Please proceed to approve the Clark development — it has our full support. Sincerely, Janet E. Godwin Chief Executive Officer cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Bruce Teague, Mayor Joe Clark From: Jason Napoli To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 5:02:36 PM Attachments: image001.png ima_eq 005.pnq ima_eq 004.pnq ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 002.png A Greetings Ray - Thank you for reconnecting with this. My initial thoughts about this come from many angles. The first being how the public finds out about this at the close of business on a Friday with less than a week before the meeting. A meeting being held during our community's spring break. The bias the city planners have toward this project have disadvantaged the opposed since the good neighbor meeting back in December. Initial feedback was never shared with the Commission, rezoning signage was poorly placed and now, after being shut down less than a month ago, we find ourselves with less than a week's notice before this goes before P&Z again. Have the minutes from the meeting last month when this went in front of P&Z even been published yet? The public should have more time to respond and more information about the previous meeting. Lots 28-41 remain unacceptable. The Commission endured hours of public feedback. The Commission told the developer to come back with single -loaded streets. Removing lots from the middle is a good start, but having those lots 28-36 still against the 1 st Ave. Loop trail and then heading north defeats the purpose. I ask you to share these initial thoughts with the Commission and reconsider having this on next week's agenda with such short notice and one of the few weeks of the year more people in our community are on vacation than most other times of the year. Thank you again, Jason Napoli Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPh On Friday, March 12, 2021, 17:05, Raymond Heitner Raymond-Heitnergiowa-city.org> wrote: A11, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning th Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18 at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: httDs://www.icgov.org/city- Tovernment/boards/Manning-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: httDs://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzMj GtHRYdNFfGxUsOm 1 baWmr681 Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. Thank you, Ray Heitner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 raymond-heitner(&,iowa-city. org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 p�-40WACITY a; U Z 5 C0 CF 94 0P iirLP.RA,FiU A,9' WWW.ICGOV.ORG F,f I=V(QM Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. From: Russo, Andrew F To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Maureen Russo Subject: Re: [External] Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Sunday, March 14, 2021 3:18:52 PM Attachments: imaae001.png ima_eq 002.pnq ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png i RISK Thanks Ray for the heads up. Could you please forward the following comments/requests to the commission for consideration? 1. Removal of the homes that closely abutted the park is a great change that makes the plan closer to the vision that was designed to protect the park. While ideally, some more would be removed on that side of the street, this removes the ones that would have had the most impact. Thanks. 2. It was mentioned at the last meeting that the Parks Dept did not want Outlot B. Is the developer willing to donate that to the city? If so, that would be fantastic in my opinion and should warrant discussion as to why Parks said no. Can the P+Z still make that recommendation to include Outlot B for public access? As a frequent user of the park, the ability to explore up that ravine would be an excellent addition to the park that would also decompress pressure on the rest of the park. 3. Should we be able to set aside Outlot B, then my final request for consideration is to include a small right of way access at the crosswalk planned at the trailhead, around lot 17, to allow hikers to loop from the current park to Outlot B and down to the other entry point at the bottom of the hill next to lot 28. Thank you for forwarding these requests. Andy Russo From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@ iowa-city.org> Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, "Weis, Adam J" <adam-j- weis@uiowa.edu>, "'allisonjaynes@gmail.com"' <allisonjaynes@gmail.com>, "Russo, Andrew F" <andrew-russo@uiowa.edu>, "Synan, Ann" <ann-synan@uiowa.edu>, "'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com"' <asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com>, `b3n.berger@gmail.com"' <b3n.berger@gmail.com>, "'bamcquillen@gmail.com"' <bamcquillen@gmail.com>, "'brian.lehmann@icloud.com"' <brian.lehmann@icloud.com>, "'hickoryhiker@gmail.com"' <hickoryhil<er@gmail.com>, "'clbuckingham@gmail.com"' <clbuckingham@gmail.com>, "'cjkohrt@gmail.com"' <cjkohrt@gmail.com>, " clarcy128@aol.com"' <darcy128@aol.com>, From: Ben Berger To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:54:45 AM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png A Thank you for sending this along. I still feel that there is too much disruption to the environment with the amended plan. If I remember correctly it was asked that the developers recommend a plan with housing along one side of the road only. However, unless I am reading it incorrectly, this plan is still proposing houses on both sides. I would suggest that the developers return to the plan and amend it to match what was requested of them to move forward. Thank you. Ben On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Ravmond-Heitnerna,iowa- city. org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: httDs://www.icgov.org/city- government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: httDs://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrazMj GtHRYdNFfGxUsOm 1 baWmr681 Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. From: Anne Russett To: "Katherine Beydler" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18 Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 9:11:03 AM Hi, Katherine — Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission. Anne From: Katherine Beydler <I<beyds@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:26 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18 I'm writing with comments regarding the development by Axiom near Hickory Hill Park. I would appreciate it if these concerns could be passed to the Planning and Zoning commission. was under the impression that the developer was going to comply with the Comprehensive and NE District Plan requirement for single -loaded streets facing parks, as requested by P&Z in the last meeting. I am very disappointed to see that their new plan removes only six homes, leaving lots 36- 28 in particular as double -loaded streets very close to the park. The developer should remedy this by redesigning for single -loading, and also promise never to attempt to add new homes to make that space double -loaded in the future-- perhaps it should also be added to the park. am also disappointed that to try and retain a maximum profit (rather than maximizing what is best for residents of Iowa City) the addition of other lots has reduced the preservation of wooded area on the development further to only 46%. If the developer is not able to comply with district plans and requirements for the preservation of sensitive areas while making what they see as a large enough profit, maybe they should reconsider this purchase entirely. Lastly, it was not clear how expanding Outlot A very slightly addressed the concerns from the public that that addition of land would not significantly expand the area in the park usable by the public, and rather represents an attempt by the developer to offload land they don't want to manage. Furthermore, the new figure of 11.66 acres was used inconsistently throughout the revised document, making it unclear how committed the developer is to this promise. Many thanks, Katherine Beydler From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Anne Russett "David Deardorff" Raymond Heitner RE: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:50:03 AM Hi, David — Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the Commission. Anne From: David Deardorff <davidjdeardorff@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:21 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill /RISK Hello Anne, I'm writing with comments regarding the development by Axiom near Hickory Hill Park. Please pass my comments along to the zoning commission. At the termination of last meeting, the zoning commission made an explicit request for single -loaded streets as a condition which would be an acceptable change to the plan making it something they could potentially pass. The single loaded streets is one of the major requirements of NE District Plan, and something that is vital to maintaining reasonable density and minimizing disruption of important natural areas. However, the developer instead removed only 6 homes, and then left everything else as double loaded streets. It is important that the city hold developers to the stipulation of the NE District plan, because no one else but the city government can do that. I understand the city wants revenue and the developers want profit, but the needs of the developer to turn a profit should not supersede the needs of the city, previous agreements, or the concerns of the constituents. am also disappointed that to try and retain a maximum profit (rather than maximizing what is best for residents of Iowa City) the addition of other lots has reduced the preservation of wooded areas on the development further to only 46%, which violates another city requirement. If the developer is not able to comply with district plans and requirements for the preservation of sensitive areas while making what they see as a large enough profit, they should reconsider their plans and goals relative to the sites available and perhaps choose a different location. Natural parks are an important component of a city, and cities which can protect them will ultimately draw in desirable residents as cities continue to become more dense and lacking in substantial nature areas. Lastly, it was not clear how expanding Outlot A minimally addressed the concerns from the public that that addition of land would not significantly expand the area in the park usable by the public, and rather represents an attempt by the developer to offload land they don't want to manage. Furthermore, the new figure of 11.66 acres was used inconsistently throughout the revised document, making it unclear how committed the developer is to this promise. Thank you for your time and consideration, David Deardorff From: Mary Winder To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: letter about Hickory Trail Estates rezoning Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:10:40 PM ZI Ray or Anne, I would appreciate it very much if you would please forward the following letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you. Mary W. March 16, 2021 Dear Anne, Ray, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members: I am writing to you about the proposed zoning change for the land near Hickory Hill Park for the Hickory Trail Estates development. On the evening of Feb. 18, 1 attended the entire Zoom meeting of the commissioners that addressed this topic. I was quite impressed with the commissioners' patience and care in discussing this issue and in listening to all of those who had concerns about the issue. At the very end of that long meeting, I was very excited and very pleased when the commissioners voted against recommending the proposed zoning change for this development and invited the developers to revise the plan so that it would follow the recommendations listed in the City's Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood area and the City's Comprehensive Plan. I understand that these recommendations support using single - loaded streets to provide a buffer between residential development and a park, such as Hickory Hill Park, which is a concept that makes perfect sense. However, when I recently viewed the amended plan for this development, I was utterly dismayed. Yes, the old plan has been somewhat tweaked, but there are no substantial changes from the first plan and there are still many houses planned for both sides of the street closest to the park, with some very short distances (35 to 55 feet) between the residential property and the park boundary along quite a stretch in two directions. respectively implore you to also vote against this revised version of the development plan and to request that the developers revise this plan again the way you asked them to do in the first place —so that the guidelines are followed, which means that the street closest to the park be changed to asingle-loaded street (resulting in no home lots labeled 29 through 41 on the most recent plan). Perhaps the third version of the development plan for Hickory Trail Estates will be the charm. I hope so. If this development is going to take place, it needs to be planned carefully and by following the City's own guidelines. I consider Hickory Hill Park to be a treasure for Iowa City, and I hope you will make certain that any development taking place around the park be done in a way that causes the smallest negative impact on the park as possible. This can be accomplished, I believe, by following the City's wise guidelines. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mary Winder 785-985-2519 From: Kristen Morrow To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:32:39 PM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png A Greetings Mr. Heitner, My comments for the commission regarding the updated proposal are that the developers made very little attempt to account for the encroachment of the houses to the park. The entire development should utilize single loaded streets (at the very least), and as is, the new proposal would not eliminate the harm posed by the housing to the viewshed (not to mention the soundscape) currently found in this section of the park. The developers (many not from this area) have made only negligible updates in response to the overwhelming public outcry to their plans, leaving me with little faith that they have a vested interest in this community or in the concerns of the park users. The commission should not approve the updated proposal, as it does not comply with the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commision, nor the IC Comprehensive and NE District Plans. Thank you for sharing my comments. Sincerely, Kristen Morrow On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitneraa,iowa- city. org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: httns://www.icgov.org/city- government/boards/Manning-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: httDs:Hzoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzMj GtHRYdNFfGxUsOm 1 baWmr681 From: Allison Jaynes To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: New Hickory Hill development plan Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:53:50 PM ZI Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner, It appears that the board is poised to approve the development of land adjacent to Hickory Hill without listening to the concern of the many citizens who benefit from this land daily and weekly. I suppose that should not be too surprising, but I had hoped for a different outcome. (You have 69 pages of objections in the current packet alone!) I think of our city as unique when compared to other areas, and one that has the foresight to see into the future and preserve the aspects that are really worth fighting for; but it seems not. I make one final plea to this board. The development of this land will not only ruin the park aesthetically, but it will contribute to the overall decline of the abutting land and watersheds. I noticed that the development company did not provide a conceptual rendering of the rows of houses that will be visible on the ridge across from the West Prairie at the lookout point some call Sunrise Bench. I submit a very amateur rendering at the end of this letter, although it would be ideal to receive this from the developers since I'm not sure on the orientation and size of the houses to be built. Notice how the houses, visible from the lookout point for sure, all have yards that angle into the newly restored prairie on the slope below. A small list of detrimental activities that will occur at these locations: (1) Drainage of lawn chemicals directly into the watershed and prairie landscapes. Chemically -treated lawns are known hazards for native, beneficial insects and small animals -and the runoff is no exception. (2) Absolutely no buffer exists between deer and fox habitat and the newly -developed houses -this will only increase animal -human conflicts. New homeowners will complain about deer browsing their landscape. (No mention was made that these new developments will provide deer -resistant plantings.) Cat owners will stress about the number of foxes in their yards. And the negative impacts on the wildlife of Hickory Hill will continue to compound. (3) Near constant lawn mower sounds in the summer months on the weekend -with no buffer between the adjacent backyards and the valley between the prairie areas where residents go for peace and quiet. (4) Finally, the aesthetic effects of having the valley ringed with houses on the ridge above while trying to enjoy a respite from city life. Please reconsider the approval of this development based on the arguments above. Perhaps there could be an agreement made with Friends of Hickory Hill or Bur Oak to purchase this land, or for the City to purchase with a lease to these groups. At the very least, please consider rejecting the plots labeled 28 through 41, as those yards will have the most direct impact on the park. Sincerely, Allison Jaynes Hotz Ave, Iowa City ORIGINAL PICTURE: CONCEPTUAL RENDERING: From: P G To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hil development, P&Z meeting March 18th Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:34:25 PM ZI I am emailing you to voice my opinion on the upcoming development adjacent to hickory hill park. I advocate for no development at all. I hope you will ignore the plan. One of the buildings is too tall for zoning code, they only removed five units from the rejected proposal. At least, approve exceptions that must be met regarding the zoning standards. Letting this go forward will effectively ruin the only preserved piece of nature in Iowa City. Hickory hill wont be the same. When you're walking through nature you're not supposed to see residences, driveways, garages, more people, more cars. You are opening up a doorway for the elimination of our cities most blissful, quiet parks. Do you feel content with this? I for one, would have a hard time sleeping at night. From: Tanner King To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:27:43 PM zI Hello, Mr. Heitner! I hope you are enjoying yourself despite the weather. I'm just sending you this email in regards to the "new" proposed plan for the development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I hope it doesn't need pointing out that this new plan does nothing to address any of the problems that we sat for 4 hours discussing last time. This is still a plan that cashes in on a taxpayer -funded park to increase property value for a select few people at the expense of the park itself. See you (virtually) Thursday! Tanner King From: david purdy To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:35:09 PM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png A Thanks for alerting me to the meeting. Did you include my correspondence to the P and Z Commission for the February 18th meeting? I don't see that in this week's packet. It was in an email I sent to you on February 15th and you responded to on February 16th. If it was not, can it be included with this email? If it wasn't sent to the P and Z Commission then please include it with this email. Either way I would like to provide just have a couple of thoughts for this meeting: "After reading the meeting minutes from the February 18th meeting, I want to thank the commission for listening to all the input concerning the development. I agree the P and Z should not keep changing the goal posts for the developer. However, several commission members clearly said they would approve the development if lots 26-44 were removed from the plan. I would agree with this suggestion as it clearly matches the intent of the Northeast District Plan. Yes, the plan is over 20 years old but it was designed with many people involved and many different viewpoints represented. City planning staff creating a blueprint for the NE District Plan did an excellent job of balancing development and buffering the park. It can still weather the test of time. I would also agree that the view on cul-de-sacs has changed and that they should not be required in this development. I would like to thank the developer for having a higher density near Scott Boulevard and for removing a couple of lots to protect the view from the open area in the field. However, as several commissioners have indicated being 100 feet from the closest trail means the houses backed up to the park are still visible. Having lots 28-41 removed from the plan will most closely resemble the intent of the Northeast District Plan and provide a buffer. This change will definitely make a big difference. Yes, a person can see the houses on the other side of the street but there is a much bigger buffer and more closely resembles the area on Bloomington and Cedar Streets. I would urge the commissioners to reiterate to the developer their ideas from the February 18th meeting so that they know what the commission will accept. Having served on city commissions before I know that the process might take several meetings but the end result usually comes out the better. Agreeing to the current development and sending it to the City Council for their review is not what the P and Z Commission is supposed to be doing. Getting a solution that meets the Northeast District Plan and the expectations of most people on P and Z and then sending it to the City Council is a much better process. Thanks! David Purdy 1434 E. Bloomington Street" On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitneraa,iowa- city. org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: httns://www.icgov.org/city- government/boards/Manning-anal-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: httDs:Hzoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzMj GtHRYdNFfGxUsOm 1 baWmr681 Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. Thank you, Ray Heitner Associate Planner I (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 From: david purdy To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Trail Estates Date: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:55:34 PM Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.mso Hickory Trail Estates proposal letter.pdf zRISK Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Greetings - I have attached a letter regarding the Hickory Trail Estates development to be discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission this Thursday. Could you please make sure the P and Z Commission members receive the letter? If it is too late to include in their packet, I would be happy to send it to them directly. Thanks! David Purdy February 15, 2021 rtin- would like to comment on the proposed development Hickory Trails Estates. I was actively involved with the Northeast District Plan Development and can provide some insight to the discussion between city planning staff and participants in the workshops. There was approximately 50-60 very involved participants. Many were there because f their concern about development surrounding Hickory Hill Parr. This was an exhaustive planning process involving many compromises by all participants. Reviewing the Northeast District Plan I would like to emphasize several key points: • Incorporating and maintaining a green open space buffer between Hickory Hill Park and urban development to preserve the natural integrity of the park (page 8) • Encouraging the use of single -loaded streets (development on only one side of a street) when necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas (page 9) • The future land use scenario for the Bluffwood Neighborhood reflects the planning principles developed at the citizen workshops (page 13) • Encouraging the use of single -loaded streets (development on only one side of a street) when necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas (page 9) • A conservation residential design is proposed on the property between First Avenue and Hickory Hill Park to provide a buffer between the residential development and the park (page 15) • In the Bluffwood Neighborhood, the plan calls for buffering green space to be provided between Hickory Hill Park and residential development on the south and west portions of the Larson tract. One goal of this buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. This can be accomplished by shifting density on the Larson property away from the park and aligning it in slightly higher densities (townhouses and small apartment houses) along the adjacent arterial streets. (page 17) • No direct vehicular access to the park or through streets adjacent to the park are proposed. Instead, the residential development nearest the park is shown on cul-de-sac streets and pedestrian access to Hickory Hill Park is encouraged (page 17) I believe the staff report for Hickory Trail Estates minimizes the citizen participation and compromises developed during the planning process and outlined in the report. 1) "Staff recognizes that the proposed development does not perfectly match with the conceptual vision presented in the Northeast District Plan, particularly related to the single - loaded streets (i.e. streets with housing only one side). The plan shows housing on both side of the street near N.Scott Blvd and the remainder of the area with housing only on one side. The preliminary OPD plan also shows housing on both sides of the street near N. Scott Blvd and a single -loaded street east of the stream corridor. The proposed lots that do not perfectly match with the vision are the 15 lots between the two proposed trail connections an the east and south side of the Hickory Trail extension. The plan also encourages a buffer between any new development and the Park. The applicant has attempted to incorporate a buffer by showing a separation between the existing park boundary and the new lots. This buffer ranges between 202' and '. At the narrowest sections, the applicant has incorporated landscaping that includes deciduous trees. 2 staff indicates that no definition of a buffer is outlined in the Northeast District Plan. "The closest distance between the proposed home and the existing park boundary is approximately 3 '. Each lot would have a ' rear yard setback, which would put a minimum buffer distance of ' between any house structure and the existing park boundary.l, 3 staff acknowledges that the homes along the west side of Hickory Trail will likely be viewable from the eastern portions of the Perk. The city Forrester has discussed putting in additional landscaping with a mixture of evergreen and shade trees along the rear yards of the western properties to provide additional screening from the west. 4) The preliminary OPD shows housing on both sides of Hickory Trail, which departs from the Bluffwo d Neighborhood Map. The applicant is proposing at least 3 ' of separation distance between the rear yards of the western properties along Hickory Trail, and the existing eastern park boundary. 5) Additionally, pending completion of a woodland mitigation plan, the applicant intent to grant the entire 10.86 acres of Outiot A to the city as neighborhood open space. This will technically remove the buffer distance on paper, but in practice, will keep a woodland buffer in this area. 6) The Northeast District Plan does call for buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property, in an attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park. The Plan directs to accomplish this by shifting density away from the Park to the north, where small apartments and townhouses can take advantage of slightly higher prescribed densities. Buffer distance dimensions are not provided in the Plan. The applicant is showing a range of buffer distances between the rear yards of the oPD Plan and the existing eastern Park boundary. Mill, it is the applicant's intent to grant the "buffer area" of Outlot A to the city for future use as an enlarged Hickory Hill Park. Reviewing the NE District Plan and the proposed development, I would agree the proposed development does not perfectly match the NE District Plan. I would say some parts of it are not close. It is true that there was not written in the plan a specific buffer amount. However, from reviewing the items mentioned earlier in my letter it is obvious that the goal of the plan was create public vistas, protect the natural integrity of the park, and minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. Reviewing the materials presented to the city council at their 3/30/1999 meeting where they approved the plan can give us some insight it what was discussed at the workshops. In a memo o from Senior Planner Bob I liklo written on December 29, 1998 to the Planning and Zoning commission it mentions buffers of up to Zoo feet (page and `dwellings would face the park rather than have private backyards abutting the park." (also on page . Further, in the 1/13/99 Parks and Recreation ation Commission minutes Mr. I i to says `the plan calls for up to a 150 to boo foot buffer between the park and where development would occur." Granting 10.86 acres to the park does create a buffer for a small section of the park but the buffer is in an area where most people cannot walk. I n addition, a good part of the buffer wouId actually benefit the Hickory Height Development -where if a person did go in the wooded ravine and turned around- the first thing they would see would be the houses in Hickory Heights. Creating a 11 unit senior housing building along the stretch of the park probably most viewed by casual walkers in the park is not protecting the integrity of the park nor rninirnaliing the visibility from the park. am not opposed to development in this area. As mentioned at the start of the letter I worked diligently to compromise on the NE District Plan. However, I do not believe the proposed development is ghat was envisioned by the Northeast District Plan, its planning participants, or the city council that passed the plan. would encourage the developer to create another concept plan that allows for development of the parcel but more closely follows the NE District Plan. This would include larger buffers between houses and the park, development on just one side of the street, 2 cul-de-sacs, more density towards Scott Boulevard, etc. I would be happy to assist. Sincerely, David Purdy From: Glenda Buenger To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:50:24 PM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png A Dear Mr. Heitner, Would you please send my letter concerning the rezoning request for Hickory Trail Estates to the Commissioners? Thank you. Sincerely, Glenda Buenger RE: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning The Hickory Trail Estates proposal complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan in several respects. It does not offer the affordable housing the City so desperately needs, but it adds to the City's housing diversity by offering elder housing which the City does seem to need. It offers connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. However, it does not comply with the Northeast District Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan in regards to protection for Hickory Hill Park. As discussed on pp. 7-8 of the updated Staff Report, the Northeast District Plan clearly aimed at protecting Hickory Hill Park by keeping development away from park perimeters. In an attempt to give credit, during the 2-18-21 PZ meeting Michael Welch of Axiom Consultants described how Axiom Consultants, in response to public concern, had sought to increase buffer between the project and Hickory Hill Park. At the same time, isn't it a little misleading to focus on the distance between houses and existing park trails rather than houses and the park itself`. Hickory Hill Park is more than trails. Similarly, the updated Staff Report seems to make much of the 11.66 acres of Outlot A to be donated to the City as mitigation for other project impacts. Outlot A may in fact be desirable, but as the updated Staff Report acknowledges on p. 8, it no longer counts as buffer if it is to become part of the park. The re -submitted proposal still shows a double -loaded street and buffer zones of only 35 feet along parts of the west and south project borders that abut Hickory Hill Park. This is unacceptable. I reviewed the commissioners' discussion prior to the 0-7 vote on 2-18-21. A couple of the Commissioners expressed a desire to provide direction to the developer to create a more acceptable proposal. As I see it, Commissioners clearly told the developer what could be done to make the application more acceptable, but it appears the developer chose to not heed their advice. Hensch stated it was reasonable to ask that the landscape buffer be extended or to just go to a front -loaded street in the area adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. He stated a front -loaded street design is a legitimate issue from the Northeast District Plan. Craig clearly stated adherence to the Northeast District Plan. "Build houses facing the park not backing up to the park with a street in between," she said. If the developer removed Lots 26- 44, she stated, the large single-family houses would be on the far side of a street, creating a buffer she could live with. Elliot stated that even if park users could still see the houses, a single -loaded street would make a big psychological difference. Nolte plainly stated adherence to the Northeast District Plan and that if the proposal just had the single -loaded street, he could support it. A single -loaded street with houses on the far side of the street, away from Hickory Hill Park, would permit development while adhering to the Northeast District Plan's intent to protect the park. The current design makes the park vulnerable to possible runoff from chemical lawn treatments. It puts houses too close to the park. People have parties and cars and dogs and kids and operate noisy gasoline -powered yard tools such as mowers and leaf and snow blowers, and they cook animal flesh on outdoor grills. A design that allows back yards to abut the park allows all these to invade the park, degrading the public's enjoyment of the park. In contrast, a single -loaded street with houses on the far side of the street would abate park users' perception of human habitation next to the park. As Craig pointed out, a single -loaded street with houses placed on the far side of the street would impose a physical and psychological boundary between HHP and human development. Additionally, a buffer zone between the street and HHP would screen the street from HHP, helping to protect the view shed. This project needs to replace trees, and many of those trees could do double duty as both street trees and buffer trees in a zone between the street and park boundaries. Once it was more mature, this buffer zone would also help mitigate noise. It could be designed to provide some wildlife habitat, especially for birds and insects. Thank you, Commissioners, for your public service and all of the time-consuming work you do. I appreciate your patience and receptivity to my concerns for HHP. I hope you will consider that citizens participate to create a plan in the expectation that city officials adhere to the plan. I trust you recognize you are making a momentous decision for decades and generations of Hickory Hill Park users and visitors. This rezoning request places you as stewards of our beloved park. Please be good stewards and protect our park by insisting on a single -loaded street. This would allow development while minimizing harmful effects to the park and degrading users' experience of the park. It would allow private gain while protecting the public good. It would stick to the Plan. Could we please stick to the Plan? Sincerely, Glenda Buenger 318 S. Lucas St. Iowa City From: Leiana Arcenas To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Opposed to the revised rezoning plan for the area by Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 6:54:06 AM Hi Raymond, The revised proposal to rezone the area by Hickory Hill Park is insufficient because it still does not comply with the Northeast District plan. Among several points of non-compliance, the buffer between the park and the residential area ranges from being too narrow to non-existent. This proposal should be denied, as well as any future versions that do not FULLY comply with the Northeast District plan. Thank you, Leiana Arcenas This email is from an external source. From: Parker, Adam G To: Raymond Heitner Subject: REZ20-0016—Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:00:11 AM ZI Hello Ray, Thanks for passing along meeting information. Once again I am opposed to the recommendation to rezone REZ20-0016—Hickory Trail. Based off the feedback and discussion of the previous rezoning meeting held February 18th, I do not believe the developer made adequate concessions to adhere to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan as single -loaded street adjacent the park were proposed. The Iowa City Comprehensive plan discourages parks that are surrounded by private property. The plat as currently presented does not adhere to this principle. Double -loaded streets as currently presented, would allow few property owners to benefit from the rest of Iowa City residents by allowing their private property to abut a wooded public park. These homeowners then have financial arbitrage of having property directly on public land which can never be developed. Leaving residents to feel as if they are trespassing while walking on public trails in what feels like their "back yard. A single -loaded street would create the appropriate separation between the park and private property creating greater access to the park and not allowing private citizens to benefit from a public good. NE District Plan Concept Drawing 1 st Ave l sit. i MI 11 Hickory Hill Park The NE District Plan drafters were even so diligent to create a drawing of how the land could be appropriately developed buffering the park with single -loaded streets and offering adequate buffering from a public good and private property. The drawing also shifts higher density buildings closer to First Ave and Scott BLVD. allowing more socioeconomic statuses the opportunity to benefit from the proximity of the park. The current proposal does not adequately accomplish this goal. By passing the plat as currently designed the city would be once again rewarding the wealthy and well- connected over the diverse diaspora Iowa City needs to cater additional housing opportunities to. A year of political and social upheaval revealing the vast inequities communities face, we have seen these communities need opportunities to be closer to expansive green space higher densities closer to 1st and Scott BLVD would accomplish this goal is the drawing above demonstrates. This rushed development is especially troublesome in a year where Hickory Hill Park has been a refuge for those seeking safer solace outside their own four walls. The pandemic has created an economic crisis for many including current property owners and low -interest rate incentive for the developers. As we are approaching the tail end of a chaotic year, I would hate for the city to concede a short-term wind fall to the detriment of long term vibrancy of the community and its most expansive, wild park. We are currently shaping what the Iowa City community will look like 50,100, 250 years from now. We have seen access to public green space not only increases property values but continues to attract community members to new areas. I encourage the planning and zoning commission to take a long term approach in their thought process. Reject this proposal as currently presented and demand the developers follow the vision of the Iowa City Comprehensive plan and NE district plan. As it is the groundwork for long-term development. Thanks for all you do, I appreciate your participation in moving the community forward! Adam Parker 1302 E. Bloomington St. Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. From: The Rutherfords To: Raymond Heitner Subject: please continue to protect Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:52:51 AM ZI Dear Planning and Zoning Commission. I was so grateful for your 0-7 vote against the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning proposal. I've seen the most current submission and do not feel they've done enough to address the concerns raised in the first meeting. More needs to be done to protect this absolute treasure of a park. I live where I do on the east side of IC because of the proximity to the park. Thank you! John Rutherford 1717 E. College St Iowa City, IA From: Lut. eq ndorf, Philip A To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Lut_ eq ndorf, Susan K; cikohrt(&gmail.com Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission and Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:24:52 AM Dear Mr. Heitner, commend the Commissioners for their vote against approving the developer's rezoning request for 48.75 acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park at last month's meeting. However, the slightly revised request now before the Commission continues to ignore both the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive or Northeast District Plan with regard to the Park, that was developed with much input from the community. My wife and I will try to attend the virtual meeting tomorrow night, though we will be traveling. However, in case we are unable to "show up" (virtually), we would like to be on record as urging the Commissioners to continue to reject the developer's plan, until it is further scaled down to incorporate only single - loaded streets and the stipulated 175-200 feet buffer between house sites and the parkland that so many of us cherish. Thanking you for your attention, Philip and Susan Lutgendorf 2 Glendale Court Iowa City, IA 52245 From: wobtj(&mchsi.com To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:36:10 AM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.gng ima_eq 005.png A Good Morning., Ray, My Wife Gaylen and I appose the second proposal by the developer for the area near Hickory Hill Park in Iowa City for there was little change to his proposal and it does not provide a sufficient "Buffer" between this proposed development plan and our Iowa City Hickory Hill Park. We would at a minimum support a plan which discourages Parks surrounded by private property and allow only single loaded street access!!! Sincerely yours, Tony and Gaylen Wobeter 2605 Bluffwood Circle Iowa City From: Raymond Heitner Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:05 PM To: 'adam-parker@uiowa.edu' ; 'adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu' ; 'allisonjaynes@gmail.com' ; 'andrew- russo@uiowa.edu' ; 'ann-synan@uiowa.edu' ; 'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com' ; 'b3n.berger@gmail.com' ; 'bamcquillen@gmail.com' ; 'brian.lehmann@icloud.com' ; 'hickoryhiker@gmail.com' ; 'clbuckingham@gmail.com' ; 'cjkohrt@gmail.com' ; 'darcy128@aol.com' ; 'dpurdy2@gmail.com' 'liztracey@gmail.com' ; 'emilyakim05@gmail.com' ; 'emily.schacht@gmail.com' ; 'eric.gidal5@gmail.com' ; 'durian.erin@gmail.com' ; 'florence-boos@uiowa.edu' ; 'buengerg@gmail.com' ; 'hannah- molitor@uiowa.edu' ;'Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com' ; 'heather.w.mcknight@gmail. com' 'hbschofield@gmail.com' ; 'perkins.i.t@gmail.com' ; 'jackiehockett@gmail.com' ; 'jameshirsch@gmail.com' ; 'j.k.bradbury@gmail.com' ; 'jasnap23@yahoo.com' ; 'jessemacfarlane@gmail.com' ; 'kjrutherford0l@gmail.com' ; 'moffitt.julie@gmail.com' ; 'karen.nichols@protonmail.com' ; 'tomkatymclaughlin@gmail.com' ; 'kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu' ; 'kelly.teeselink@gmail.com' 'kelseyturnis@gmail.com' ; 'Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com' ;'krisanne-ryther@hawkeyefootball.com' ; 'krinelil@hotmail.com' ; 'knmorrow@gmail.com' ; 'laurajclaps@gmail.com' ; 'lauridi@hotmail.com' 'iheartsteak121@gmail.com' ; 'libbysue.c@gmail.com' ; 'lilysmithjensen@gmail.com' ; 'loalbrecht@gmail.com' ; 'mms246@gmail.com' ; 'mgedlinske@gmail.com' ; 'markrenshaw@me.com' ; 'embenbear@gmail.com' ; 'hortgal@hotmail.com' ; 'mwinder73@yahoo.com' ; 'matthew.def@gmail.com' ; 'modemo403@gmail.com' ; 'maureen.russo.pt@gmail.com' ; 'nfootner@gmail.com' ; 'pholden@iastate.edu' ; 'phillip-lutgendorf@uiowa.edu' ; 'riley.gardam@gmail.com' ; 'robin.kopelman@gmail.com' ; 'roslynn-ellis-1@uiowa.edu' ; 'rukieb@gmail.com' ; 'rwestfa@yahoo.com' ; From: Shellie Miller To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory hill Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:45:14 AM Dear Mr Heitner, Please do not rezone. Hickory Hill park is an important stop for migrating warblers and other amazing birds. We'd love to take you birding this spring before the leaves pop out to show you all the wonders. Shellie Miller Kettelkamp East Side, Washington st Sent from my iPhone This email is from an external source. From: Carol Tyx To: Raymond Heitner Subject: development proposal Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:51:51 AM zI Hello Mr. Heitner, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed development near Hickory Hill. The plan does not provide enough of a buffer between the park and the proposed development. In order to preserve the wild aspect of Hickory Hill, which is so precious to many of us, any development should adhere to the buffer guidelines set up in previous plans for this area. Sincerely, Carol Tyx 1128 4th Ave Iowa City, Ia 52240 From: Ruth Westfall To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill and the rezoning question Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:32:57 PM Dear Mr. Heitner, Hickory Hill is near and dear to my heart, as it is to so many in Iowa City. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners need to follow the Northeast District Plan and to deny the rezoning request of the developer. Here's why: • Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. It represents a consensus. • The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect H H P by transferring development away from the park toward 1 st Avenue. • The proposed project ignores and does not comply with the guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single -loaded streets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural areas. • The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Plan seeks to: -Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. Please deny the rezoning request because it does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. The citizens of Iowa City expect the Commission to follow the plans that were approved and to do what they said they would do in 1999. Reject this rezoning request. Sincerely, Ruth Westfall 418 5th Ave Iowa City From: Karin McKeone To: Raymond Heitner Subject: HHP Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:52:16 PM ZI Dear Mr. Heitner, I could write endless stories and state so many reasons why it is important to protect Hickory Hill Park. Development continues to squeeze and encroach upon one of the city's great assets. Especially during this time of COVID, nature's offerings have been a source of comfort to many. Hopefully, you have heard many people provide personal accounts of the importance of protecting Hickory Hill Park. I have spent endless hours of volunteer work in Hickory Hill Park to enhance, maintain and protect this natural setting. Tree mulching, fencing and watering were my speciality. In years of draught, I know that I personally saved a number of then wilted oak trees from their demise. Having spent those many hours there, in addition to taking school groups to the park for work sessions and to learn the beauty of the park's offerings, I now plead with the city (again!). Please, please be mindful of the original district plan and why it was developed. Also keep in mind that many citizens were encouraged to give their input to that plan. There are reasons that District Plan provided some restrictions to the encroachment of development around this natural area. One reason is about the senses; what we see, hear, smell, and sometimes taste and touch in the park is restorative; this is a place away from everyday hustle. This natural space is a gem, beloved by many. For those of us who have tried to protect the park in the past, we learned that the city spends years in anticipation of projects, getting public input, and putting those plans into writing. While we lost in our past efforts to protect HHP, many citizens found some satisfaction in knowing we had contributed to the DISTRICT PLAN that would effect future development. This plan was designed to help protect future encroachment. And now, here we are with a possible rezoning which negates all the past efforts in making that plan in the first place. Please place citizen interests at a high priority when you consider double loading streets in the area. Citizens worked in collaboration with the City to assure the HHP area would be enjoyed by many. Please honor that work and limit the huge impact that will occur with the building of large, multi -story homes along nearby park borders. Please consider that as natural areas shrink with the pressures of development, Hickory Hill Park is worth protecting for future generations to enjoy. Please do not allow requests that impact the solice offered by our beautiful Hickory Hill Park. Sincerely, Karin McKeone 4703 Inverness Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245 From: pat bowen To: Raymond Heitner Cc: *City Council; Anne Russett Subject: CaseNo. REZ20-0016 Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:07:59 PM r Z! $It To the Planning and Zoning Commission: We are writing today to share our opposition to the rezoning near Hickory Hills Park. The development does not appear to adhere to the Comprehensive Northeast District plan in which the public participated in good faith. We would like to believe that public officials would adhere to those plans. Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. The proposed project appears to ignore the principal of single loaded streets to preserve the area as a beautiful public access that provides access to the natural areas. By ignoring the City's agreement with the community to provide a meaningful buffer for Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the vision that was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Final question for the P&Z Commission and all decision makers, are you working for the developers or are you working for the citizens of Iowa City? Pandering to the public by allow public meetings for discussion of future projects then ignoring them is not what citizens want or deserve. The rezoning request should be denied. We are demanding the Commissioners stick with the Northeast District Plan that the citizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith. Sincerely, Pat Bowen Kenn Bowen 1210 Village Rd IC 52240 From: Bruce Tarwater To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:42:49 PM Z! $fit Mr. Heitner- I live in Iowa City next to Hickory Hill Park. The rezoning request should be denied. The developer and PZ Commissioners and staff should consider a plan that adheres to the Comprehensive Plan including the Northeast District Plan. I will be at the meeting as will many of my friends who use and revere our park. Please tell the commissioners that I am one more citizen requesting the request be denied. Below is another letter which I support and have copied and pasted because the gentleman speaks more eloquently than I. But these things I also believe. Do the right thing. Do not turn your back on the will of the people. Herein are my reasons for wishing this zoning request be denied: I am not opposed to development per se. I am opposed to this rezoning because it does not adhere to the Comprehensive or Northeast District plan in which the public participated in good faith that public officials would adhere to these plans. Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. The proposal to construct 1st Avenue east of Hickory Hill Park was very controversial and the planning process was used as a way to reach community consensus, allowing 1st Avenue to be built while also respecting the park. The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring development away from the park toward 1st Avenue. A guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single -loaded streets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural areas. The proposed project ignores this guiding principle. The proposed project still includes adouble-loaded street (houses on both sides of the street) with inadequate buffer zones between development and the park. The buffer shown in the Comprehensive Plan is at least 175 to 200 feet wide (based on using existing lot lines for scale). The proposed plan offers only 35 feet of buffer between the backyards of houses and the park in a couple of spots along the west and south boundaries of the development area. Additionally, once Outlot A is ceded to the City and becomes part of HHP, there is no buffer between the park and the 10-unit condo proposed for the NW corner of the development area. One goal of the buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. The few trees that the developer offers to plant instead of a wide buffer will not achieve this goal. Concerning the developer's conveyance of Outlot A to the City, Outlet A is undevelopable due to steep wooded slopes, wetlands, streams, and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part of the developer. Outlot B is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it is not clear that the open space that is being dedicated for required Neighborhood Open Space meets the criteria for being usable as required by the zoning code. The staff recommendation for a through street ignores the Northeast District Plan's vision of keeping an open connection between Hickory Hill Park and the wooded ravine in the proposed Outlot B. The street connection in itself may not be objectionable, but there appears to be little effort to preserve the amount of open space shown in the Northeast District Plan. The developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a large senior -living complex in an otherwise single-family zone. The developer is seeking zoning incentives from the City but is not adhering to the Comprehensive Plan's vision in exchange. By ignoring the City's agreement with the community to provide a meaningful buffer for Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the vision that was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Plan seeks to: -Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. The rezoning request should be denied. The developer and PZ Commissioners and staff should consider a plan that adheres to the Comprehensive Plan including the Northeast District Plan. To this end, I am advocating a single -loaded street design for the proposal. This means houses on only one side of the proposed Hickory Trail, on the side away from the park, with adequate buffer between the street and HHP boundaries. Commissioners need to stick with the Northeast District Plan that the citizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith. Sincerely, Bruce Tarwater 2669 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA 52245 hickoryhiker@gmaii.com From: Tgell5 To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: Hickory Hill proposal Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:55:10 PM ZI Dear Mr. Heitner, am very concerned about the traffic in and out of the development, not because of the homeowners, but because of the large number of employees at the proposed assisted living/memory care business. A building that size with that capacity will require a HUGE number of employees working around the clock shifts. This will add considerably to the traffic in the area, especially during the usual busy times of the day and when kids are walking to school. In addition, this traffic will depart not only via First Avenue but also on to Scott Boulevard via the development where I would expect a lot of children will live and play. am certain the traffic study did not take into account the volume of traffic from this business. Also the new design still goes solidly against the NE District and Comprehensive Plans!! am also very concerned that this meeting was scheduled with less than a weeks notice and during the communities spring break. It smells a little fishy! Please share these comments with the P&Z Commission. Thomas and Melanie Gellhaus 906 Tamarack Trail Iowa City, IA From: Casey James Kohrt To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; fhhp-board(&google_ roups.com Subject: Friends of Hickory Hill comments on proposed development Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:14:41 PM ZI Anne and Ray, please pass these comments on to the commission Commissioners, There is no reason for the City to settle for less than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for on the proposed Hickory Hill Estates. The Comprehensive Plan clearly lays out a vision for what a property owner/developer can expect to achieve when the property is rezoned. At the time the Northeast District Plan was adopted, the Larson estate owned the property. Both the current owner, ACT, and the developer were aware of the officially adopted plan when they purchased the property, or offered to purchase the property. The price that they paid, or will pay for the property, should be based on what the City has told the public and potential developers what can be expected in terms of development. The developer could recoup costs of adhering to the plan by increasing density at the north end of the project. This would also adhere to City objectives of increased housing diversity and affordable housing. The Northeast District Plan was developed in public: the City— including the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council —invited us, the public, as well as property owners and real estate developers to participate in the planning process. The Plan was thoroughly discussed and well vetted when it was adopted in 1999. Again, as part of that process the City made a commitment to preserve a significant buffer for Hickory Hill Park to get community buy in for the construction of First Avenue. After the plan was adopted there was a referendum on whether the City should build First Avenue. Proponents for constructing the street used the Northeast District Plan to assure voters that Hickory Hill Park would be protected if the First Avenue was built. The public voted to build the street. What has changed since the adoption of the Northeast District Plan in 1999? The contentious debate regarding the construction of First Avenue has been settled. The City at great public expense built the street along with Scott Boulevard providing street access to the Larson property which is now proposed to be developed as Hickory Hill Estates. Prior to this public investment, the Larson property was only suitable for agricultural uses. It was us, the public of Iowa City, that invested public funds in the infrastructure to make the Larson property developable today. But that public investment was based on the plan to protect Hickory Hill Park with a significant buffer on the east side of the park. Why should ACT and the developer reap the benefits of our public investment if they are not going to adhere to the Plan? Friends of Hickory Hill Park founders had significant input into the NE District Plan. It was intended to protect the NE part of the park. Since 2004, FH H P has spent 14,882 hours, or 7.15 years of time service in the park restoring habitat, building trails and improving the park. This is a $320,000 value, in addition to thousands of dollars we cost -shared with the City on other management projects. In total, we have engaged almost 5000 persons in over 1000 events. We have also raised funds to purchase the Pappy Dickens Property, protecting the Northwest corner of the park, now held by Bur Oak Land Trust. We never pursued the purchase of the NE tract because we thought it would be developed in accordance with the NE district plan and the Comprehensive Plan. We now ask the City to step up and not approve plats that do not conform to the City's own plans. Casey Ko h rt, Chair, Friends of Hickory Hill Park From: Anne Russett To: "hannah rapson" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Hill development Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:26:26 PM Attachments: image001.png ima_eq 002.png ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png Hi, Hannah — Thanks for your comments. We will forward them onto the Commission. If you'd like to discuss any of these questions with Ray or I, please feel free to give us a call. Thanks, Anne CITY OF10"IA C'ITy Anne Russett, AICP U N ESCO � l TY OF UITE RAT U IRE Senior Planner She/Her/Hers WWW.ICGOV.ORG p: 319-356-5251 0 0 0 0, 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: hannah rapson <hannah.letisha@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:56 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill development Thank you for taking the time to read my entire email, as the 273 page -packet took many hours to digest and consider. Below are my concerns as I can best convey them, based on the plan, which had limited time to review and respond to. sincerely hope we can work together as a community to build a thoughtful development that adheres to the city's comprehensive plan. Simply put, the plan should make sense given the location and the environmental impacts of this development, which neighbors such a unique asset to our city, Hickory Hill Park. start by sharing my concern in the presentation of materials at the last meeting. • Presentation of Application o No slide images presented during presentation — do not allow for a point of reference while on Zoom o Rotated maps — cause confusion for viewers ■ 1 am working on putting together an overlay of proposal v. comp plan in aligned orientation to help viewers better understand o View of senior living and residences — no elevations presented "as seen from park" perspective o Staff — lack or awareness of wetlands on property shows dismissal of sensitive lands, which is very concerning o Wetland/Environment Survey — lack of research on watershed impact does not consider developments overall impact on other neighborhoods along the Ralston creek, ie. other city residents o The comment made by a commissioner "Why does the community care only when in their backyard?" Because we are experts on where we live. We rely on the city to put together thoughtful consideration and to listen to the people who actually live in these spaces and consider their experiences and valuable point of view. In case I have missed something in my three points, I have included a list of questions that I believe are unanswered at this point and should be considered as part of figuring out how to carefully develop this land, taking into account the potential impact of this development on many community residents near and far to the park. • Stick to the Comprehensive Plan o Obligated by law to do so, unless a good reason not to ■ Thru Street Concession —there is a good reason (while opposed I remain opposed) to consider continuation of the street, given the proposed senior living facility. Another solution would be to preserve a cul-de-sac for residential and orient the Senior Living Facility toward 1st Ave, where service needs and additional vehicle traffic would not flow along the park. ■ Increased Population Density Concession —the senior living facility increasing the allotted density. This is already a concession and there is no reason not to uphold the comprehensive plan for single loaded streets along the park. ■ Single -loaded streets • There is no good argument for eliminating single -loaded streets • Lots 28-41 are too close to the park and should not be approved per the comprehensive plan • Due to the nature of this development being built on a sensitive area, the environmental impact of a thru-street should be considered. • Raised crosswalks do not slow traffic and they are bad for plowing. What other measures can be taken to slow traffic if a thru- st re et is approved? • Senior Living Facility ■ Per the city assessor's site, the house currently at the end of Hickory Trail adjacent to the meadow, which many complained about during last month's meeting is roughly 6800 sq ft and two stories high. The proposed senior center is 10 times that size at 69,000 sq ft and will be built on a similar fall - away slope where the 4-story side of the building faces the park, in effect appearing twice as high as the current residence bordering the park. The 35' variance request should not be granted. This building is too big. ■ Non -permeable surfaces. The added roadway and parking lots in addition to the massive roof line of this building create a significant amount of non - permeable surfaces at the top of the hill. The Ralston Creek went under major erosion restoration just this past year (I will bring images to the meeting). The Commission should consider the potential impact of watershed from this portion of the development in considering approval of the size and scope, including parking lots. Considerations of permeable pavers or underground parking lots should be explored as part of reducing watershed to the creek and neighbors down -stream. ■ Assisted Living and Memory Care usage means that these residents will not use or access the park, therefore an orientation otherwise, that does not negatively impact traffic around the park should be considered. The current senior living facility does not benefit from this location and the services and high traffic will negatively impact park patrons. This should be noted when considering the orientation of this facility to the park and the traffic flow. ■ Is this the best location for this type of senior facility — it is furthest from the hospital system. • Woodland Buffer to park o Tree -lined with streets are not enough o Woodland hillside should be planted at developers' expense to protect viewsheds based on concession or through street and housing visibility. o Trails should be included in the development plan and mandated via a Conditional Zoning Agreement, so that it is sure to happen. Intention is not enough. Note that the trail agreement made with Hickory Trail development was never implemented. This should be mandated via a conditional agreement. o 10.86-acre buffer between developments does more to protect the developments from each other than it does to protect viewshed from the park. A similar green screen should be included in the developer plan and at developer cost due, given the thru-street, which not only improves city service access, but also allows for more houses to be built than the comp plan lays out and impacts park viewsheds. This buffer is required through Open Land mandates — how does this impact the park's ability to use this space? o Noise pollution should be considered as part of protecting this natural park. It will impact the experience of park patrons, as well as wildlife. Questions • Why is the retirement facility not counted in the density limit? • What is the city getting for the height variance? • Has the city considered a watershed study given the number of sensitive slopes? • What will the impact be on Ralston Creek, which has had significant erosion issues, recently repaired? • How will the wetlands on the property be impacted by a significant increase in concrete runoff? • How will the watershed increase without trees to soak up run off? • Why would the city leave the northside/woodbluff plan (aka, proposed development site) in place in 2013, if they revisited the entire master plan? • What other natural areas are there in Iowa City that are comparable to Hickory Hill? • Is Hickory Hill an asset to our community? If so, why wouldn't we want to protect it as part of considering a thoughtful development plan? • Could the city or a private donor still buy the land instead of the developer? • Why didn't the city parks system identify this as a concern sooner and recommend a buy out plan that would protect the park? • Why can't cul-de-sacs be considered in this area, even if not elsewhere —there is no other area in town like this area, which should be considered a "special feature" per comp plan language? • Can a true environmental study be done to understand the impact of this development? • This is not a Natural Area —the comment is unnecessary and meant to degrade the quality of the land. These areas would not be called woodlands and sensitive areas, if they did not have value as natural land. Beyond that, the argument is not necessarily even about not developing the land, as much as it is about preserving the park adjacent to the land with regard to tree covering, watershed and viewsheds. The argument that this is not natural land is irrelevant to the conversation of how to preserve and protect the park, which is natural land. Thank you, Hannah Rapson 1415 E Davenport Irish Tract Home From: darcy128(abaol.corn To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Cc: darcy128(@aol.com Subject: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning - again Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:28:29 PM r R! $It Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett, I'm am very dismayed to be writing to you again so soon with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed as Hickory Trail Estates. I find it impossible to believe that there was ample time to thoughtfully consider all the issues raised at the last meeting and to draw up a proposal that would in any way justify overturning a 7-0 vote against. Lots 28-41 still violate the single -load street requirement for development adjoining parks. They still impinge on the buffer zone. The removal of five lots from the park -side of the development only to jam them into the north side hardly addresses the concerns of the attendees at the last meeting nor does it follow the NE District Plan or the Comprehensive Plan, already in place. Much time was spent discussing the nursing home size, including height violations at the last meeting, and it isn't even mentioned. Why does the city have these plans in place if they are not to be followed? People within the park will be subjected to so much more noise from people not to mention car traffic. This road could easily become a cut through for people coming from Scott Boulevard. With that in mind, the removal of lots 28-41 would create a single -loaded street, which is to be used in city development close to parks. An aside, why am I having to write this under such a time constraint? I've only been notified five days ago if you count last Friday night, and the meeting will take place within a week of notification. If you have any fewer participants or emails than last time, it might be accounted for by the fact that this meeting was scheduled during a major school break for this area. Hmmm... might this have waited one more week? This development is already going to severely impact the enjoyment of the park. This park is a City of Iowa City treasure and should be kept that way. I have been a user of this park for at least fifty of my sixty -plus years and I have seen the many changes that have come, some of them very good but this one, as proposed, will be among the worst. I am a wheelchair user now and we often go to the end of Hickory Trail on a nightly walk. The beautiful prairie grasses and abundant animal life is a joy. Make no mistake. First Avenue traffic behind us is still plenty loud but if this were a street with houses on two sides, the north side of the park will never be the same. Please do the right thing and minimize this development by keeping within the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, already in place. Please forward this comment to the Planning and Zoning commission. Darcy Lipsius 2639 Hickory Trail From: Cherie Haury-Artz To: Raymond Heitner Subject: rezoning the ACT parcel Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:01:42 PM ZI I would encourage the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to deny rezoning the ACT parcel until Joe Clark, the developer, presents a development design that respects the City's Northeast District Plan and Comprehensive Plan to protect Hickory Hill Park. Hickory Hill Park is an important natural resource for Iowa City and Johnson County and the City has spent time and energy developing a comprehensive plan for good management. This plan needs to be respected and followed by ALL developers to protect our valuable resources. Sincerely, Cherie Haury-Artz 1104 Yewell Street Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Robin Kopelman To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Trail rezoning Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:26:41 PM ZI Dear Mr. Heitner, I am writing to you again as a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to Hickory Hill Park, daily user of the park, and co -leader of the Iowa City Trail Sisters. Our family of six remains opposed to the rezoning proposal, with its (clearly) minimal revisions. Our concerns remain its incongruence with the Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan. Lots 28-41 in particular would negatively impact the park experience, with an objectionable buffer adjacent to well -traveled and highly beloved trail paths. Developing single loaded streets near the park is the only appropriate proposal. Sincerely, Robin Kopelman Todd Kopelman Robin Kopelman From: Synan, Ann To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett; Synan, William J Subject: Comments for Meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2021-- Hickory Trail Estates Planned Rezoning Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:55:12 PM ZRISK Dear Anne and Ray, Please forward our comments below to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for the March 18th Meeting. Thank you. Ann Synan Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: We were encouraged by your 7-0 vote at last month's meeting to deny the developers' request to rezone the 48.75 acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. We are thoroughly disappointed with the miniscule revision to the revised plan that the developers and the Planning and Zoning staff are presenting to you at tomorrow night's meeting. The revised plan to build single-family homes along the west side of the parcel next to the park and an assisted living/memory care facility in the East part of the parcel, continues to ignore the Comprehensive and Northeast District Plan, disregarding single -loaded streets aimed at preserving areas such as Hickory Hill Park, and featuring a massive three-story building and complex that would take up almost nine acres (1/5) of this proposed residential community and which would abut on Hickory Hill Park and the adjacent Bluffwood and Hickory Heights Neighborhood. It appears to us that the developers and the Planning and Zoning staff are trying every way that they can to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Again, we ask that you deny this proposed request and allow the property to remain under low density, single family zoning -- not medium density, or low density single-family with a "planned development overlay". We entrust that you will do the right thing and take the appropriate steps to help preserve the integrity and serenity of Iowa City's Hickory Hill Park and the character of the Bluffwood and Hickory Heights neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. Ann and Bill Synan 833 Cypress Court Iowa City From: Jane Bradbury To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Rezoning land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:58:43 PM ZI Hello Ray, I am writing to ask that you please vote against the proposed development by Hickory Hill Park as it currently stands. The resubmitted proposal does not satisfy the criteria outlined in the NE District Plan, which was created to protect Iowa City from development that is not in the best interest of the entire community of Iowa City. I would like to be clear and state that I am speaking about the entire community, not just those who live by the park. It is currently used by Iowa City residents from all over the city as well as many other Iowans who visit the park to enjoy birding opportunities that exist in the park. I am one such visitor. I do not live by Hickory Hill Park, and I must drive there to walk there daily. But it is worth it, because it is the only natural place in Iowa Clty of its kind, a place that gives visitors a real feeling of wilderness. Thank you for your time. Jane Bradbury 316 Dartmouth From: Riley Gardam To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Regarding Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:30:17 PM Z! $fit Hello - I'm contacting you as a resident of Iowa City and a lover of Hickory Hill Park to express my concern regarding the development of the land adjacent to the park by Axiom. I've highlighted some points below that I believe need further consideration by this committee. I've also included some questions I would love to see posed to the developer and to this committee. Question # 1: What projections for long-term use of assisted living facilities are informing the development of the senior living facility proposed for this area? I am concerned that the Baby Boomer generation is much larger than the following generations and that we, the residents of Iowa City, will be left with derelict buildings in sensitive natural areas that will no longer serve their intended purpose in just a few decades. Question #1A: What considerations, if any, have been made regarding the current pandemic in the development of the proposed assisted living facility? It seems irresponsible to consider building a facility like this with shared dining and bathroom spaces when we have recently identified assisted living facilities as a huge contributor to the spread and deaths related to COVID-19. Question # 1 B: Will these units be affordable for average Iowa Citia ns? Question #2: What have the costs associated with erosion control and deer management in Hickory Hill Park been I i ke for the past decade? And can our budget for such expenses handle the increased expenses that will likely result from this development? (See note in the plan citing 19% of critical slopes in the park will be impacted by this development). Our plan states an emphasis on groves and woodlands in new developments in sensitive areas should be considered. I have not seen any grove or woodland included in the plan, other than Outcrop A which is not viable for development anyway and therefore does not represent any concession on the part of the developer. The new proposal only sites that 115 of the required 132 trees will be planted by the developer - not only has no thought been given to creating a "woodland" or "grove", but the bare minimum for this type of mitigation has been completely overlooked. Question #3: Has the fact that the traffic study was conducted during a pandemic when traffic through the area is at an all-time low been taken into consideration? I know several major employers located immediately within this area are not requiring employees to work from the office at the time the study was conducted. It seems completely inappropriate to cite any traffic study conducted during this period, especially considering the fact that the fire station is located immediately adjacent to the major intersections that would be affected. This seems to pose an immediate threat to safety and response times in our area. Question #4: Why has the waiver for the height of the assisted living facility been considered reasonable? What is reasonable about building a 4 story building in an area our comprehensive plan has placed a 2-story limit on? Other ooi nts of note: The buffer shown in the Comprehensive Plan is at least 175 to 200 feet wide (based on using existing lot lines for scale). The proposed plan offers only 35 feet of buffer between the backyards of houses and the park in a couple of spots along the west and south boundaries of the development area. Additionally, once Outlot A is ceded to the City and becomes part of HHP, there is no buffer between the park and the 10-unit condo proposed for the NW corner of the development area. One goal of the buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. The few trees that the developer offers to plant instead of a wide buffer will not achieve this goal. Concerning the developer's conveyance of Outlot A to the City, Outlet A is undevelopable due to steep wooded slopes, wetlands, streams, and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part of the developer. Outlot 6 is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it is not clear that the open space that is being dedicated for required Neighborhood Open Space meets the criteria for being usable as required by the zoning code. The developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a large senior -living complex in an otherwise single-family zone. The developer is seeking zoning incentives from the City but is not adhering to the Comprehensive Plan's vision in exchange. Thank you for your consideration. Riley Larson � Riley.Gardam@,gmail.com cell: 515.249.2545 Iowa City, Iowa From: Lauren Katalinich To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:41:13 PM Dear Mr. Heitner, Hickory Hill is near and dear to my heart, as it is to so many in Iowa City. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners need to follow the Northeast District Plan and to deny the rezoning request of the developer. Here's why: • Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. It represents a consensus. • The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect H H P by transferring development away from the park toward 1st Avenue. • The proposed project ignores and does not comply with the guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single -loaded streets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural areas. • The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Plan seeks to: -Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. Please deny the rezoning request because it does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. The citizens of Iowa City expect the Commission to follow the plans that were approved and to do what they said they would do in 1999. Please reject this rezoning request. Sincerely, Lauren Katalinich 418 5th Ave Iowa City From: Eva Adderlev To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:35:42 PM zIS Dear Raymond Heitner, am writing to express my concerns about the new development proposal for some acreage of Hickory Hill park. The first proposal was denied because it failed to demonstrate a plan to develop thoughtfully, with minimal harm to the park. The new proposal protects fewer acres of Hickory Hill, and includes double -access roads that would greatly expand damage to sensitive natural habitat, one of the very things that was decided against after the first proposal. Hickory Hill is deeply important to our community and our ecosystem. It is one of very few forested parks within the city limit, and it provides vital natural habitat for our animal neighbors. Nature is precious, and it is finite. When it is gone, it is gone. Iowa is one of the most developed states in the entire country, due to sprawling farmland that has eradicated a horrifying percentage of natural prairie and forests. The effects of human impacts on the environment are becoming more and more keenly felt every day. Climate change rears its head each year with record -breaking polar vortexes. Destruction of natural habitat may even have contributed to the coronavirus outbreak, as animals lose their habitat, move into the cities, and bring their diseases with them. Never has there been a more prescient time to talk about --and work towards-- healing our planet than now. Never has there been a worse time to recklessly develop sensitive natural habitat that we will never get back. But it's not too late to protect the natural bounty and wonder that still remains. This starts small. It starts local. It starts with us. hope that you will join myself and everyone else who seeks solace in the sunlight filtered through the snow -dusted branches, or strength in the green shadows dancing through the leaves, as we work to nurture this irreplaceable part of our planet. Sincerely, Eva L.0 Adderley From: Anne Russett To: "Kristi Thiel" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:28:39 AM Hi, Kristi — Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne From: Kristi Thiel <kwthiel@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:46 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation ZRIK Dear P&z Committee, would like to respectfully request that you strongly consider denying the updated plan to develop the Hickory Trail extension. This development does not appear to follow the city's master plan. Specifically, the street along the park is not single loaded and includes 14 lots that directly back into Hickory Hill Park. This park is a resource that is widely used by the community, with precipitous growth of use due to the pandemic. Please preserve this natural resource and deny the developers revised proposal. Thank you for your attention to this email, Kristina & William Thiel Residents - 2755 Hickory Trail On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:43 PM Anne Russett <no -re ply(@ zoom.us> wrote: Hi Kristi Thiel, Thank you for registering for "Planning and Zoning Commission". Please submit any questions to: Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org Date Time: Mar 18, 2021 07:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: Click Here to Join M Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Add to Calendar Add to GOOLiIe Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar Or iPhone one -tap From: Anne Russett To: "Nancy Smith" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:43:03 AM Hi, Nancy - Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne -----Original Message ----- From: Nancy Smith <nancyjsmith2@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 7:28 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa- city. org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park To the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Committee: I understand that the Committee will meet tonight to consider a development close to the Hickory Hill Park on the present ACT land. I beg of you to consider what unchangeable damage approval of this would do. No longer would the park be the magical escape from city life that it is, with views on every hand being natural ones. It would become just another trail through the woods. The esthetics would be badly damaged. Please consider the quality of life we enjoy here, and save one of the few places that there is in town to go where one can get away from development. Thank you. Nancy Smith 609 Larch Lane Iowa City, IA 52245 319-338-3332 This email is from an external source. From: Anne Russett To: "Rachel Garms" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Trail Rezoning Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:45:07 AM Hi, Rachel — Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne From: Rachel Garms <rgarms@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:35 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Trail Rezoning As a former resident of Iowa City (now Solon resident) and a frequent user of Hickory Hill Park both past and present, I am writing regarding the proposal of a development near the park. Hickory Hill park to me is the crown jewel of Iowa City. Once this land is developed, there will be no other options for future expansion of the park. I hope that the city has considered purchasing this land as an extension of the park. If that is not an option, I hope that you really consider what this development will look like. The reason our family uses the park is to experience nature, utilize the nature trails, and get away from urban life. If this development goes in as it is currently proposed, we will be looking at exactly what we are trying to get away from (urban sprawl) and the reason people come to enjoy the park in the first place. Thank you, Adam and Rachel Garms From: Brian Richman To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: Proposed residential development abutting Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:35:30 AM ZI Mr. Heitner, Ms. Russett and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, am writing to register my opposition to the proposed development in its current form of land abutting Hickory Hill Park. Hickory Hill Park is an exceptional natural resource for the people of Iowa City. When I moved here in 2001, it quickly became one of my favorite destinations —a spot where I could explore trails, see wildlife, meet friends, walk my dog and simply get lost in an area that felt wholly apart from the city around it. The current proposal threatens that sense of separateness. The overly dense and improperly buffered residential development represents nothing less than a transfer of a valuable asset from the people of Iowa City to the developer. That transfer is also inconsistent with guidance the City has previously provided in its Comprehensive Plan and its Northeast District Plan. encourage you to reject development proposals for this parcel until the landowner can come up with a plan that meets the City's established guidelines —one that does not deprive the citizenry of Iowa City of its enjoyment of this irreplaceable public natural resource. Very sincerely, Brian Richman 20 Ashwood Dr. Iowa City From: Marybeth Gardam To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:58:00 PM ZI Dear Mr. Heitner I am writing as a citizen of Iowa City to express my concern over the development plans for the Hickory Hill Park area. For one thing, it concerns me that the planning and traffic pattern study for this development was conducted during a pandemic when many people are NOT driving who will ordinarily be on that part of the roads. And there is a firehouse near there, which means that it could endanger drivers and citizens needing fire protection if the traffic from a new development is added. Secondly I'm not convinced that long term the city will need more senior living facilities. The baby boomers are a much larger part of the local demographic than younger aging populations. We won't always need so many of these facilities, and they will become derelict and hard to care for. Third, what have the costs associated with erosion control and deer management in Hickory Hill Park been like for the past decade? And can our budget for such expenses handle the increased expenses that will likely result from this development? (See note in the plan citing 19% of critical this development). Our plan states an emphasis on groves and sensitive areas should be considered. slopes in the park will be impacted by woodlands in new developments in I have not seen any grove or woodland included in the plan, other than Outcrop A which is not viable for development anyway and therefore does not represent any concession on the part of the developer. The new proposal only sites that 115 of the required 132 trees will be planted by the developer - not only has no thought been given to creating a "woodland" or "grove", but the bare minimum for this type of mitigation has been completely overlooked. In summary I urge the city planners to reconsider this development. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Marybeth Gardam 68 Eversu I I Lane, Iowa City IA 863-651-4888 From: Anne Russett To: "nancy footner" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:37:53 PM Hi, Nancy — Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission. Anne From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:34 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation #DISK --- �=b Dear Ms Russett, and P&Z commission members. am writing to express my opposition to the "revised " plan presented by the developer for the property adjacent to the N/E border of Hickory Hill park. I do not see that the developer has altered his plan sufficiently to stay with the guidelines of the Northeast District Plan, and I do not believe the plan, which came as a result of a great deal of citizen input should be adjusted to suit this (not local) developer's goal which is clearly to take advantage of proximity to a public, tax supported resource, Hickory Hill Park, to maximize their profits. Hickory Hill Park is a rare and precious resource, an urban park, and the commission must protect it, for the benefit of the citizens. Nancy Footner 2008 Dunlap Ct Iowa City, IA 52245 On Wed, Mar 17, 20211 8:30 AM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> wrote: Hi, Nancy — No problem. Their new proposal is included in the Commission's agenda packet, which can be downloaded here: https://www.icgov�.org/�city-government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission The staff memo for this agenda item starts on page 52 of the packet. The Zoom link is: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzMiGtHRYdNFfGxUsOmlbaWmr681 Let us know if you need anything else. Thanks, Anne From: nancy footner <nfootner(@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:15 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation zkK Anne Your colleague sent me notice that the developers will be presenting a new plan for the HH project Thursday. I deleted his email by mistake. Please send me the link and also a way to see their new proposal prior to the meeting. Thank you. Nancy Footner M On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:57 PM Anne Russett <no -re ply(@ zoom.us> wrote: Hi Nancy Footner, Thank you for registering for "Planning and Zoning Commission". Please submit any questions to: Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org Date Time: Feb 18, 202107:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: Click Here to Join Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar Or iPhone one -tap US: +16465588656„92275977904# or +130171585921192275977904# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 Meeting ID: 922 7597 7904 International numbers available: https:ZZzoom.us/u/aeCRNowgfc� You can cancel your registration at any time. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. From: Rachel Kilbura To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: FW: Preserve the park! Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:50:35 PM Sent to City Council today. From: susan oliver <susan.oliver@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:08 PM To: *City Council <-43dfb@iowa-city.org> Subject: Preserve the park! 2 RISK a Hello. I am an Iowa City resident am writing in regards to the proposed development alongside Hickory Hill park. This should be an easy decision, no more buildings. HHP is a very special natural oasis inside an ever enlarging city. We need to protect the park. There is so little natural land left in the entire state of Iowa, and here in the middle of Iowa City we have a beautiful gem. Think of Hickory Hill as our version of NYC Central Park. Can you imagine how sad it would be if we permitted builders to start nibbling away at the edges of Central Park? In short order, there would be no park. I plead with you to do the right thing, say no to big money, say no to destroying something that can't be replaced. There's lots of places to put new houses without encroaching on Hickory Hill. Thank you for your service to our city. Sincerely Dr Susan Oliver, DVM From: Hillary Schofield To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:52:20 PM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq 003.png ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png A Hello Raymond, I am writing to express my objection with this (barely) revised OPD plan. This is honestly insulting considering the community discussion that went into the last meeting and the expressed reasons for the Commission denying the developer's original plan. It was made clear that single -loaded streets are the point of possible compromise between those of us advocating for HHP and the developers. I imagine the developers are hoping that the public has lost interest. In this time of ecological and climate instability, every last effort should be made to preserve and restore wild areas. We cannot keep going this way, developing every last piece of land that someone gets their hands on and can make a dollar (or millions) off of. It is not working, we are in dire straits. Honestly, this land does not belong to ACT or the developers, nor the City, despite what papers say. If any humans have the true rights to it, that would be the Indigenous peoples who thrived here prior to colonization. They are the rightful stewards of this land. I am not an expert on these matters, but as I understand it, these are primarily the Ioway, Sauk, and Meswaki peoples. Is this development thoughtful of long-term effects? Largely, no, not at all. And it largely plays into systemic power privileges that are already dominating (and, might I add, harming) everything. Please try and open your lens very wide. There is no reason to indulge these developers, the City could say no to the whole thing. That would be the truly smart move: thinking ecologically long-term. In order for humans to thrive we need other creatures thriving as well. If we keep putting humans front and center we will no longer exist. Thanks, Hillary Schofield Iowa City resident On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitneraa,iowa- city. org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. STAFF REPORT - UPDATED To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ20-0016 GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Date: February 18, 2021 Originally nally Published: February 12, 2021 Republished: February 16, 2021 Applicant- Axiom Consultants 60 E. Court Street, Unit 3 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-519-6220 MWelch@Axiom-con.com Joseph Clark 221 E. Burlington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Nelson Development 1, LLC ATTN: Jacob Wolfgang 218 6t" Ave., Ste 200 Des Moines, IA 50309 Jacob _Nelsonconstruct.com Property Owner: ACT, Inc. ATTN: Jason Happel 500 ACT Drive Iowa City, IA 52243-0168 Jason. Happel(a-)-act.org Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development —Single Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). Purpose: Development of single-family housing and a senior living facility. Location: South of N . Scott Blvd, West of N . 1 St Ave. Location Map: 2 Size: 48.75 Acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Open Space, Interim Development — Single Family (ID-RS) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-12, Low density Multi -family Residential RDP, Research Development Park ODP, Office Development Park South: P-1, Neighborhood Public East: RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential ID-RS, Interim Development — Single Family Residential ID -RP, Interim Development — Research Park West: P-1, Neighborhood Public RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: 2-8 units / acres District Plan: Northeast District Neighborhood Open Space District: C8 Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and expanded area residents received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. This included residents to both the west in the Hickory Heights development and owners east of 1st Avenue. Rezoning signs were posted on the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue. Staff has also worked with Friends of Hickory Hill Park to keep those involved informed of the application's progress and meeting notification. Additional signage was placed at kiosk locations at Park entrances (as requested by FHH). File Date: January 22, 2021 45 Day Limitation Period: March 8, 2021 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC., has requested a rezoning from Interim Development — Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone for 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1 st Avenue. The applicant intends to develop the property with a combination of approximately 43 detached single-family residential homes and 10 detached single-family condominium dwelling units over 39.37 acres. The remaining 9.38 acres would be developed with a senior living facility, which will contain approximately 135 bedrooms for its residents. The development proposes to extend Hickory Trail between 1st Avenue to the east, and Scott 3 Boulevard to the north to accommodate the detached single-family housing units and senior living facility. A smaller curved private street, Hickory Commons, is proposed to house the detached condominium dwelling units. The Hickory Trail extension would provide connectivity for pedestrians, linking existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue with trails within Hickory Hill Park. The applicant also intends to grant the entirety of Outlot A from the OPD Plan (approximately 10.86 acres) to the City as neighborhood open space. This would exceed the required open space contribution of 1.1 acres and would increase Hickory Hill Park's size by about 5.5%. Because the proposed development proposes removal of portions of a woodland in excess of the woodland retention requirements contained in section 14-51-9, "Wooded Areas", a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a Level II sensitive areas review is considered a type of planned development and as such, must comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)'. The applicant conducted a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on December 21, 2020. Staff has received several additional emails concerning the proposed rezoning, which are attached. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development —Single Family Residential (ID-RS). In ID-RS zones, only plant related agriculture is allowed by right. This zoning designation effectively pauses development for a property until a time that the preferred use can be developed, and the property can be rezoned. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property (48.75 acres) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). The RS-5 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone generally provides a collection of homes with larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density. While the proposed development does contain some single-family detached condominium housing and group living in the senior living facility, the OPD process allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4C of the City Code are met. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Density —Table 3A-1 from the City Code outlines the maximum allowable density for planned development zones. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RS-5 zone, which allows for a density of (5) dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-way). The proposed development would include 53 detached single-family dwelling units. The senior living facility is considered a group living use, as the proposed facility most closely resembles the following criteria for a group living use from section 144A-313-1 of the City Code: "Rooming units contain private space for living and sleeping, but not for cooking. Bathroom facilities may be private or shared. There may also be shared kitchen and dining facilities and shared common rooms and amenities for all residents. The rooming units are furnished with locks through which one member of the group may prevent other members of the group from entering his/her private rooming unit. The residents may or may not receive any combination of care, training, or treatment, but those receiving such services must reside at the site." The senior living facility is estimated to have 135 bedrooms. These bedrooms are not included in the site's density calculation. The site has a net land area of 44.52 acres and 53 detached single-family dwelling units. Therefore, the site's proposed density is approximately 1.2 dwelling units per acre. This level of density is allowed within an OPD/RS-5 zone. Land Uses Proposed — The applicant is proposing two different land uses under the requested OPD/RS-5 zoning designation. The predominant land use will be in the form of detached single- family residential housing, which is allocated for development of 43 lots along the extension of Hickory Trail. An additional 10 single-family condominium -style dwelling units can be found on Lot 45 of the OPD Plan. Single-family residential land use within an RS-5 zone can be found in various locations around the subject property. The Hickory Heights subdivision, another OPD/RS-5 zoned subdivision, can be found to the west of the subject property. Several other RS-5 subdivisions can be found east of 1st Avenue and south of Hickory Hill Park. The Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, located just east of the subject property, contains an OPD/RS-8 zoning designation. A group living land use (shown more closely in Attachment #6), which is intended to accommodate a senior living facility, is proposed in the southeast portion of the subject property. There are currently two different multi -family developments adjacent to the subject property. The first of which, Oaknoll East, can be found north of the subject property, along Scott Boulevard. The second of which, the Hickory Pointe Condominiums, can be found directly east of the proposed senior living facility. The addition of the senior living facility will help to satisfy an ongoing need for elder housing within the City, while increasing the diversity of housing that is offered in the Northeast District. The proposed senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi -Family Site Development Standards during Design Review. Mass, Scale and General Layout— The applicant intends to develop 43 detached single-family residential homes. A waiver has not been requested for these homes through the OPD process, therefore, the homes will be required to conform to the dimensional requirements for detached single-family homes, as detailed in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. All 43 detached single-family homes will be situated within the western portion of the subject property, all on the proposed extension of Hickory Trail to the west and north. Staff encourages connectivity within this neighborhood and supports the idea of having a continuous street extension in this area instead of two separate cul-de-sacs. The City's subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it can be demonstrated that a street cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that this street can continue and connect with Scott Blvd. The applicant also intends to develop 10 detached condominium dwelling units, shown in Attachment #7 as Lot 45. These homes would be developed on a new private street, Hickory Commons. Staff requested the applicant to show imaginary lot lines on the OPD plan for comparison to the RS-5 zoning standards as required per 14-3A-4K. The proposal meets the standards of the RS-5 zone and the applicant is not requesting any waivers from development standards. Lastly, the senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi -Family Site Development Standards during the project Design Review phase. At a ground -floor area of 69,060 square feet, the footprint of the senior living facility will be considerably larger than that of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, which has a footprint of only 1,499 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for the maximum height requirement of 35', requesting an allowable height of 40'. The senior living facility would be a 3-story structure, compared to the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, which is only 2 stories. 5 Open Space — The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards, outlined in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. The senior living facility will be required to accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 1,350 square feet of private open space. All single-family dwelling units will be required to accommodate 500 square feet of rear yard private open space. The open space proposed for the single-family uses on Lot 45 include a shared open space area along the private street. A neighborhood open space requirement of approximately 1.1 acres accompanies the proposed OPD rezoning. The applicant intends to eventually dedicate the entirety of Outlot A for future Hickory Hill Park, which is approximately 10.86 acres. City Code requires that at least 90% of the land required to be dedicated be located outside of floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than 15%, wetlands subject to federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations. However, the Code allows land in addition to the required dedication amount to include lakes, ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies and other sensitive areas including woodland areas. City Staff views the proposed 10.86 acres of dedication from Outlot A as sufficient abutting land that would be usable and extend the existing Hickory Hill Park. This addition would increase the Park's acreage by approximately 5.5% and result in Hickory Hill Park having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. Prior to the City acquiring the land in Outlot A for Hickory Hill Park, Staff recommends that the applicant submit a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City. In addition to the dedication of land from Outlot A, Staff recommends that the applicant provide the trail connections that are shown on the OPD Plan (Attachment #5). Traffic Circulation — The proposed development will be situated along an extension of Hickory Trail, from the existing stub at the western limits of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums site, west and north to Scott Boulevard. As this extension will result in a street with a block length longer than desired, Staff recommends that the applicant incorporate traffic calming devices to help reduce speeds and break up the long block length. Specifically, the OPD plan shows raised crosswalks at two locations that provide trail connection and access to the park. One location is between lots 40 and 41 and the other is near the senior living facility next to Lot 26. Staff also recommends that the applicant install trees within the right-of-way, as shown on the landscape plan (Attachment #5). The applicant's OPD Plan, shows a traffic circle on Hickory Trail, between Lot 8 to the east and Lot 45 to the west. During the final plat process, all traffic calming devices must be in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works has indicated that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Transportation Planning Staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined how the proposed development would impact traffic at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Hickory Trail. The traffic study (Attachment #8) submitted by Axiom Consultants (performed by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc.) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed development is 808 (404 entering / 404 exiting) split between the accesses to Scott Boulevard and No 1 st Avenue at full build -out. During peak hours this breaks down to a total of 58 AM peak hour trips and 74 PM peak hour trips split between the two accesses — or less than one additional car per minute, on average, utilizing each access. The study shows that all movements at the 1 st Avenue / Hickory Trail access currently operate at a Level -of -Service D (or better) and remain at a LOS D (or better) with the proposed development. The study further shows the same is true at the proposed access at Scott Boulevard. As none of the individual movements at either intersection are anticipated to reach a failing Level -of -Service, Staff is not recommending any off -site improvements at this time as a result of the proposed development. Furthermore, 2018 Iowa DOT Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts show an ADT of 7,500 on 1st Avenue near Hickory Trail and 13,100 on Scott Boulevard near the proposed access. Given that the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000-16,000 trips per day at a LOS E, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over -burden Scott Boulevard or 1st Avenue as currently constructed. Iowa DOT collision data indicates there have only been (3) total collisions from 2015-2020 ((1) involving an animal) at the 1st Avenue / Hickory Trail intersection, which indicates there is not a concerning collision trend associated with the current traffic volumes or roadway geometry. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. The subject property is bordered by two existing residential developments. The Hickory Heights Lane subdivision borders the northwestern portion of the property, while the Hickory Pointe Condominiums border the southeast portion of the property. The applicant's SADP plan is showing a minimum separation distance of 263' between the rear property line of the condominium dwelling unit lot (Lot 45) and the rear property line of the eastern Hickory Heights Lane properties. Furthermore, the condominium dwelling units will be down slope from the properties on Hickory Heights Lane, which should help to lessen their visual effect. Attachment #6 shows the proposed elevations for the senior living facility. The facility will be roughly four stories in height, which is about twice as tall as the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to the east, but similar in height to the Oaknoll East buildings off Scott Boulevard. Additionally, the OPD plan is showing a separation distance of approximately 185' between the senior living facility and the Hickory Point Condominiums property. A combination of shade and evergreen trees are proposed to soften this transition to the east. The majority of the property borders Hickory Hill Park to the west and south. The applicant's OPD plan is showing a range of separation distances between the rear yards of the homes along the western and southern sides of the proposed Hickory Trail extension, and the current eastern boundary of Hickory Hill Park. The closest distance between the proposed home and the existing park boundary is approximately 35'. Each lot would have a 20' rear yard setback, which would put a minimum buffer distance of 55' between any house structure and the existing park boundary. The parcels within the southwest portion of the subject property would also be situated anywhere from 10' to 24' above the elevations within the Park's east side area. Staff understands that the proposed proximity to the Park will allow for some of the proposed homes to be viewable from within the existing Park limits. However, Staff does not believe that the placement of these homes will adversely affect light and air, property values or privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. Staff acknowledges that the homes along the west side of Hickory Trail will likely be viewable from the eastern portions of the Park. The City Forrester has discussed putting in additional landscaping with a mixture of evergreen and shade trees along the rear yards of the western properties to provide additional screening from the west. 7 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. Staff finds that the combination of land uses and building types meets the public interest. Staff finds the requested height waiver of 40' versus the allowable 35' in an RS-5 zone to be reasonable. Lastly, Staff recommends that no building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: With respect to compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Staff looks to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan for direction. The Northeast District Plan features several areas of focus for the subject property's neighborhood (the Bluffwood Neighborhood) that are discussed in more detail below. Preserve Natural Features — The Plan emphasizes the use of cul-de-sac streets and single loaded streets (i.e. homes only on one side), where appropriate, to preserve sensitive areas. The Plan's intent is to preserve areas with ravines and potential wetland areas as a buffer along the eastern and northern edges of Hickory Hill Park. Additionally, the City's comprehensive plan encourages the development of single -loaded street along parks. The Bluffwood Neighborhood map (Figure #2 below) shows two cul-de-sac streets within the subject property. One cul-de-sac is stemming southward from Scott Boulevard, while the other is a westward continuation of an extension to Hickory Trail. Housing is shown mostly on both sides of the street on the northern cul-de-sac, with an exception for the southwestern portion of the cul-de-sac. The southern cul-de-sac shows housing only on one side of the street. A woodland buffer is shown on the map, but dimensions for how wide the buffer are not provided. Figure #2 - Bluffwood Neighborhood Map r ■ L a r ML r ■ 0 r A , PI IP + F �% * ■ PP 0 dw i C7 O Rather than constructing two separate cul-de-sacs, as is shown in the Plan, the applicant is intending to build one continuous through street between 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard. However, section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code states the following "Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision." In this instance, the applicant has demonstrated that a through street can be provided in this location without impacting the protected slopes to the east of the proposed street extension, or the wetlands that exist on the property. The preliminary OPD shows housing on both sides of Hickory Trail, which departs from the Bluffwood Neighborhood Map. The applicant is proposing at least 35' of separation distance between the rear yards of the western properties along Hickory Trail, and the existing eastern park boundary. Additionally, pending completion of a woodland mitigation plan, the applicant intends to grant the entire 10.86 acres of Outlot A to the City as neighborhood open space. This will technically remove the buffer distance on paper, but in practice, will keep a woodland buffer in this area, as it is absorbed into Hickory Hill Park. Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections — The Plan calls for an interconnected sidewalk system that is augmented by a trail system that will provide opportunities for people to walk, bike, or jog to various destinations. The applicant is showing 5' wide sidewalks along both sides of the Hickory Trail extension, which will connect with existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue. The OPD Plan also shows connections to the trail network in Hickory Hill Park at two different locations. One connection will be made about halfway through the street extension, between Lots 40 and 41 on the OPD Plan. The other connection will be made toward the southern end of the development, between the senior living facility and Lot 26 of the OPD Plan. Both trail connections will feature raised crosswalks to help slow down vehicular traffic on Hickory Trail and provide a more apparent connection from the crosswalk area to the Park's internal trail network. Build Streets that Enhance Neighborhood Quality — With respect to the subject property, this section of the Northeast District Plan focuses on providing traffic calming for local streets within the Bluffwood Neighborhood. As was stated earlier in the report, the applicant will be required to work with City Engineering Staff on providing the appropriate amount of traffic calming for this development as it moves to platting. Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity — The Plan acknowledges that detached single-family residential housing will be the predominant land use in the Bluffwood Neighborhood. This matches what the applicant is proposing, as the majority of the Hickory Trail extension would be occupied by single-family housing. This section of the Plan reemphasizes the need for cul-de-sac street design and single -loaded streets, where appropriate. The design of a through street will provide the connectivity that is emphasized within the City's subdivision code, while providing limited impact to the property's existing sensitive areas. The City's Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of interconnected streets as a means of reducing vehicle miles traveled each day within a neighborhood, providing more direct walking and biking routes to neighborhood destinations, and reducing the cost of providing City services. The Plan also calls for townhouses or small apartment houses at the edges of neighborhoods, where the increased density can take advantage of the being located near major arterial streets. In -lieu of small apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing condominium -style single-family 4J residential dwelling units, as shown in Attachment #7. The 10-unit condo unit along with the proposed senior living facility, help to increase the types of housing available in this area. Create and Enhance Neighborhood Parks within the District (Natural Open Space/Buffer Areas) The Plan does call for buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property, in an attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park. The Plan directs to accomplish this by shifting density away from the Park to the north, where small apartments and townhouses can take advantage of slightly higher prescribed densities. Buffer distance dimensions are not provided in the Plan. The applicant is showing a range of buffer distances between the rear yards of the OPD Plan and the existing eastern Park boundary. Still, it is the applicant's intent to grant the "buffer area" of Outlot A to the City for future use as an enlarged Hickory Hill Park. The Plan also calls for only trail linkages from the subject area to the Park, which the applicant intends to provide. Summary Staff recognizes that the proposed development does not perfectly match with the conceptual vision presented in the Northeast District Plan, particularly related to the single -loaded streets (i.e. streets with housing only one side). The plan shows housing on both side of the street near N. Scott Blvd and the remainder of the area with housing only on one side. The preliminary OPD plan also shows housing on both sides of the street near N. Scott Blvd and a single -loaded street east of the stream corridor. The proposed lots that do not perfectly match with the vision are the 15 lots between the two proposed trail connections on the east and south side of the Hickory Trail extension. The plan also encourages a buffer between any new development and the Park. The applicant has attempted to incorporate a buffer by showing a separation between the existing park boundary and the new lots. This buffer ranges between 202' and 35'. At the narrowest sections, the applicant has incorporated landscaping that includes deciduous trees. In summary, although the proposal does not perfectly match with the land use vision for this area, it does meet other comprehensive plan goals. It provides an interconnected street system, incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an additional 10 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park. Sensitive Areas Review: The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage. Outlots A and B contain the vast majority of the site's sensitive features. Outlot A will be protected through the dedication to the City as an extension of Hickory Hill Park. Outlot B will be protected by a conservation easement. The single-family lots along the east side of Hickory Trail include a portion of the Outlot B conservation easement area. Staff has recommended that the lot boundaries conform with the conservation easement boundary, to avoid having a conservation easement area on a private lot. The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features of this site. Jurisdictional Wetlands- The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to: 1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm water is naturally retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving water quality, recharging ground water resources, providing erosion control and lessening the effects of flooding; 2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife; 3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas; 10 4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond that provided by the federal and state government; and 5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands. For this application, the subject property contains two wetlands, which are shown below in Figure #3. The City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be maintained between a regulated wetland and any development activity (14-51-6E-1). The Ordinance does allow for buffer averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. The applicant has not chosen to request buffer averaging for either wetland, as each wetland and wetland buffer will remain unimpacted. Stream Corridors - The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage; Promote filtration of storm water runoff; Reduce stream bank erosion; and Protect and enhance wildlife habitat. The City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires the delineation of any stream corridor and its required natural buffer (14-51-7). The subject property contains two drainageways, neither of which have a delineated floodway, thereby requiring a 15' natural buffer between the stream corridor limits and any development activity. Both stream corridors are situated far enough away from the proposed construction limits that neither corridor will be impacted. Additionally, section 14-51-2D-2 of the City Code allows for Stream crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts, or stream bank stabilization measures, provided they are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying capacity of the stream caused by such structures and are in compliance with all federal and state regulations. Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes — The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to: 1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments; 2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides; 3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and 4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. The City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the 11 protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-51-8D-1). The buffer area is to be measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 321,719 square feet of protected slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. Approximately 19%, or roughly 62,125 square feet of critical slopes will be impacted by the development. Table 1 below breaks out the proposed impact to critical slopes. The City Code defines critical slopes as having a slope greater than 25% but less than 40%. Section 14-51-8E-4 states that a Level II sensitive areas review is required if more than 35% of critical slopes are disturbed. The applicant is proposing to only to disturb 19% of critical slopes, which is within the allowable threshold. Table #1 — Critical SIoDe Summar r-Alburig %.Puluudi 010pe5 irnpactea 010pe5 imvrl-irnpactea 010pes 321,719 • (19%) (67%) Woodlands — The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to: 1. Reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors; 2. Reduce erosion and siltation; 3. Minimize destruction of wildlife habitat; and 4. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and woodlands as amenities within a development. The subject property has approximately 30.4 acres of woodlands. The SADP plan (Attachment #5) shows that the development will preserve approximately 48% of woodlands. Table 51-1 from the City Code shows that the woodland retention requirement for an RS-5 zone is 50%. To offset the woodland retention requirement deficiency, the applicant must plant replacement trees at a rate of 1 tree per 200 square feet of disturbed woodland. This results in a tree replacement requirement of 132 trees. The preliminary SADP currently only shows 115 replacements trees. Staff has requested that the plan be updated to reflect the correct amount needed. Archaeological Sites — Attachment #9 shows an archaeological report that the applicant obtained from the Office of the State Archaeologist. The report shows that no previously recorded archaeological sites were recorded, and no newly recorded archaeological sites were identified. The report recommends no further archaeological work within the subject property. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the March 16, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council's March 2, 2021 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0016, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 11t Ave. from Interim Development —Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. In accordance with the subdivider's agreement at final platting, approval of a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species 12 removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City. 2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 01 /18/2021. The trail connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept plan and must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding subdivision are approved. 3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to raised crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to be planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right-of-way. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be consistent with the approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City Forrester. Trees shall be planted generally 30' apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot -by -lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot. 5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Rezoning Exhibit 4. Applicant Statement 5. Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan 6. Senior Living Facility Elevations 7. Lot 45 OPD Plan and Elevations 8. Traffic Study 9. Archaeological Study 10. Public Correspondence Approved by: S++ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services *� k a�� �. _+ � t� ..� tom• �� � �j ir �� .� �� - --- TAM ,� � �+�_�,�;•�J" �' � �� ,_.�• - ' 1 Ac mil EVE 4Q; 1. 4- SbWOHl 1S 44 - •� I •�. .I � r�^Z. a ,:.'t,.. ,, / •! • _,tom �+ . Aft to QO Ab 0 IL •-t. �• ry�•.,; Nti.• •. •,a . ',/ '••..; a �f �+ •r r4 It �O CD .f iAp t }. ot ca � � , � .Y , tp' � �' ...`Z • •�. -y. _-� .yam /� �. � � t• ♦ 75 ' 0 00 0 0 0 ► cz �+ 60,• CZ N VH f� r. '�_ w `'' '�'Y►.' `��7•�i fincz ♦f� ,r..... r '°1. .' .. • r cz oft t �' �• rN cz > O C) r w O y--� Cz CZ 4-j LLJ \ �..CZ U O � � `• • '�. W � '� ;fit: � �'.r•�'' � N LO '-4 bn8n0 N O N� NI�NNO� ~ �, Q CD a) ,•,' c� O Q l •�LO g ''1I _ LL. H -- �• EVERGREEN CT ', 10 3YPVOH171S >r of O pM Opcv m l _ St N - o CD N �1 • p� 0 w � � r R N cn O 4-4O m T (a)I+1 (z a- J 4 � O 4 O �5 O '� V 4-J O LO U '� Q) ems` 4-JoaU cu 00 , O w w r'�.., cn O cz cn O 4-J � V O 0� �; 1 CIO O � `0 �nbn8np ' : N N-1 NI��INO� ! cz w � '� 4 � c� C)too OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90J'N0J-1N0IXV'MMM o MVID Hd3S0f ' D H013M t'6Z0-0Z SIN` IInSN©D 3WVN 1N3I1J lVN0ISS3j0Hd NDIS30 ON IDNO21d r-I IW0v o �/nn w 0 OZOZ-LT-ZT NOIlVJIIddV ONINOZ3d V J ✓ c}7 ZZS , V , Y `OI �AlIO dM01 0 31va S3JNVHJ�•30 NOIl�d1INUJS34 n3a S31ViS3 I IV' 11 A210)0I H 1I81 HX3 EJN I NOZRI N33NDN3 DOI DNlMd214 3WVN1J3f0Nd 3WVN133HS N a Q Z U H U w 3 O t � �s o - w m6 <S s� N AMARAEA' o� NleW sQ E REEN o C, wd bw oNi COOw 08 _ isod O� OoOM 5T 0 153i10 N 1ST AVE ]AV 1S[ N EAV 1SL z 1,NNAV OOOR�ME AVE ao siH AaosOiA w � ti0 N d o Hi L N ;3 <3 so soiSVB s ENrsr o 0 RH ti 3gOO6" N Ni NIlNN00 V 1S 1NHS 31 5 is i3„V EE iHiivw is is ON3a is - Hi]O 113 co W Z J Q X Q W �� Z 0u zU� 0=° N w rC w J ¢ U O 0 0 z 0 Q ~ U Z O Z H = O Z Uw"Ln w LLB Q F- m N Ln O 0 0 �0 H =?��@j LLI U U 0 U U Q a �UQLw LJ m Q U w O m U U J F-: cI J 01 D ~ 0w Z Z�p�p0 zQ0oc~n oc OLn=U W LL N Ln Z O J LU J Q Q O w Q a Q 0 0 5 Z Q z 0 0 V ��cn00 vf.1w}� O H H w 0> w w H U}� w@ Z 0 0 0 Z Z Z= Z aZQ=O@) a co000 U Z a- z 00 Ln 0 0- z w Q d w H_j w Q a F— 0 0 0 QZQc'l0< Q�cQLncnm W o Z °a a� V)N °C CD �: (n w H Lr) c.jQZO �Yw�Q U — U cr- U vzQm2U LU a vN`°cj J M0rlIr'3: W Q � J a J Z LLi Q w a a a0No as°ro II II Z 0 a U Ln 0 J a N LLv=iQ z O z 0 w OM m U w 0 LL U 0 CC rl Z U LL w Q H U w z p U w H F- LU 'n ^ 2 w Z U Ln LU (V w p 2 w Oi Z w cr Q z 0 rl H~ _ mo w a 0 Q o LLB o~ w LL Ln U O W� C Q W N j OwH LUC) rnLQ 0 m 0 z 2 N- 0� 0 a z Z~ Lu u w O w '-i w 0 Z Z 0 U 0 � z LLB Q Z ro � Lu z ~ 2 o z N O m N a m n LU<LLJo 00(AF- LL 0 Q0 w Q F} 0 U O N LL LLLn Z O o Z)u 0 Z w 0(D� 0 0 u rl O Q 0= W z 00 z W CO p=O cailHOz w f»=F- r-4 N Zz wOLwwLQ Q�?O N w LL�- rr�oZ� oC 71 o Z u LuI'D=LL O��w Q Q LL D_ = Q�l H 0 V o = a) Ln NCLu H OoO= } oOc� of U o Ln H w— w- 0 Q O w N U w U m Ln F- w= w Z== Z w-1 r- D 0 ?> w LLB w �0L` 2�F- cc-�� Qin w0 D��OZ�000 z Ln Ln O w= w w two Q z� w Z LU �~ Q LL z �OLLI ~zo�oz Z^r'j"I O QDC7 QwM0UN�w Q C7 � Q w rn-1 Z w U w Lu w� O Q 0 Q Z= z w m LL U rvm v, Lu oc a=� w LL. O u i m w O m 0 t 0 0 cc M N rn U N F w Z W z G' rl M ^ W O V) w2ol 0LnOM Qc'j=Q ww mHr- U�1Oz,-I ocLr)HN 00 LL-1 �o � EVERGREEN �� r to N I .I 31 w o m z NO s i 0 I N L OO O 0 1J O O Z w Z ` I V d 0 d ON O N O � H 27 N 17;m' 7 I NNo m00 rJdiC` D z u_N I Iu¢ o Qwwxi l,OMo- zZ 8s/J/adI o z o da-(1l:9NINOZ 3nV 1'D,T008Z£TOOT S8'8983ZbCl13Javd 3nV1ST N 00 �9 Mw 2 O� o Z `2`s a O O r o O Z N N y" z 0 i Y �d I 000 n � a 0600 a Q o 0 0 ¢ a N N £S „MOZ TOI)l 6 '0 Z M, 8£ oTON ,9 b 0 .� IIII �'- tV U 2 0 \ U 7 Z z Nl S1HJ13H A80 x 0 ¢< 0 0 �IJIH i z < O��-- aoO -O02 - -� _ L) IIII O F- \ N I \ O i O a o� .\ zz Z �N 0 a 0 Ln cr c O cD z Z Z 0 O 0 H w Z Ln w O a D U a J ---F o—. m -dNr- SC F- TNOMA z k— o ? Y 0 �C � - Y O co � o 1 Q Z a :EJNINOZ Rj Cj TdIA AJIH T097 SSVP o� N K Td '9 INOZ 3nV 1ST £b9 Z N NOz m s z O o C7 3Z n w Z z J O a 0 J O m N D N m N O O , M Ln ei N I 0 iC--7 u1 N i p� z 3 00 O o N Y F O K z m Z_ � a � O = O d o 0 '- W Y m Z w U-.- Z N 0 I � 0 0 v1 I ' � 1 � w wz }J �000 Ouc LL o I0 I o 0 N F-1 11 Axiomc�ol 'NSUL,TAN'T'S CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL • SURVEY • SPECIALTY December 17, 2020 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT FOR REZONING The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1002476002. The area being rezoned is approximately 48 acres of private property located west of N. 1 St Avenue and south of N. Scott Boulevard. It is bounded on the south and west by Hickory Hill Park. The current zoning classification is ID-RS — Interim Development Single -Family Residential. The Applicant is seeking to rezone 36.60 acres of the property to RS-5 — Low Density Single -Family Residential and 12.21 acres of the property to RM-20 — Medium -Density Multi -Family Residential. The total area being re -zoned is 48.81 acres with 1,332.95 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. There are approximately 14 acres between the proposed development and N. Scott Boulevard and N. 1st Avenue that are not included in this development and are not included in the rezoning application. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information, including the legal description. Comprehensive Plan & District Plan The Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Conservation Design. The Conservation Design designation indicates the presence of sensitive features on the property. These features include wetlands, a waterway, steep slopes, and woodlands. The Northeast District Plan includes the property within the "Bluffwood Neighborhood" (Figure 1). The Bluffwood concept plan shows single- family housing and two cul de sacs on the south and west portion of the property. There is Neighborhood Commercial depicted on the southeast portion of the property (four red buildings on Figure 1) and Small Apartment Buildings shown on the northeast portion (five pink buildings on Figure 1). The plan shows wooded areas remaining along the waterway at the center of the property. Hickory Hill Park can be seen along the west and south of the property. The cul de sacs allow for a connection from Hickory Hill Park to the drainageway at the center of the property. Bluffwood f, �. NORTH r Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with Approximate Project Boundary Project Number 200194 Page 1 1 AxIOMCONSULTANTS Previous Projects A previous rezoning application for the property located at 831 N. 1 St Avenue (immediately east of this project) was approved as a Planned Development Overlay Medium - Density Single -Family (OPD RS-8) and a twelve -unit, 3- story building was constructed (Figure 2) in place of the Neighborhood Commercial shown on the Bluffwood plan. Project Overview The Applicant proposes to develop low -density single- family residential lots west of the waterway and a Senior Living Facility with Assisted Living and Memory Care east of the waterway. The south end of the Senior Facility building will be a single -story structure memory care, the center of the building will be a two-story structure 4 containing the main entry, dining, common areas, and administrative areas, and the north end of the north end of the building will consist of three stories of assisted living apartments. Refer to Figure 3 for a rendering). Hickory Trail, which currently dead ends at the east property line, is being extended to the west and turn north to connect to N. Scott Boulevard. 1■ i _ F, . I� 1 I- - :y 4. - --�- - OLCKC)RY TRL 1 --,.&L, i+ I L. Figure 2: 831 N. 1st Avenue Proposed Project Area Shown in Red Figure 3: Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast) Project Number 200194 Page 12 AxIOMCONSULTANTS Low -Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) The Low -Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the Bluffwood plan. The applicant is not seeking adjustments to minimum area regulations or setbacks. Instead, the applicant will enforce a larger front yard setback of twenty-five feet within the Restrictive Covenants of the subdivision. The proposed single-family development will avoid protected slopes, provide the required 50% woodland preservation, and meets other regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as required by City Code. Conservation Easements will be utilized to set aside and protect sensitive areas. A buffer will be provided between the rear of the single-family lots that are adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Medium -Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) The Applicant is seeking Medium -Density Multi -Family Residential zoning at the southeast corner of the development to support a Senior Living Facility. The project incorporates specific features to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding area and the vision for this portion of Iowa City. The proposed building and site have been designed to take advantage of the existing topography to prevent the building from dominating the view. The existing topography rises from the southwest to the north east corner of the RM-20 portion of the site. The building has a single -story on the south and three -stories on the north (refer to Figure 3). This prevents the mass of the building from dominating views from the park. The building is set into the existing site with a first -floor elevation of 735 and the eave on the tallest portion of the building is at an elevation of approximately 768. The elevation of the northeast corner of the property 768 and N. 1st Avenue is at an elevation of 760 in this area. This allows the natural grade along N. 1 St Avenue to block the building from view as pedestrians and vehicles travel along N. 1 St Avenue. Refer to the Site Plan included in the rezoning submittal. The proposed building and site achieve the density desired by the Applicant without a large footprint or excessive amounts of impervious area. The zoning suggested on the District Plan would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 1.0. The proposed site has a FAR of 0.3. Another measure of building density on a property is the amount of impervious surfaces (pavement, sidewalks, roof top). Impervious areas averaging eighty-five percent are common in commercial areas. This building and site combine for an impervious area of 40%. This relatively low amount of imperviousness is by design. The building features an interior courtyard within the memory care wing and a community garden space east of the dining and kitchen facility. Parking is located along the loop road, where possible, to minimize the pavement associated drive aisles in traditional parking lots. There is ample green space along the west and east sides of the loop road to help provide buffers to adjacent properties. Each of these features combine to reduce the imperviousness of the site. The Applicant is committed to planting replacement trees to achieve the 20% woodland retention requirement of this zoning designation. These trees will be planted along the west, east, and south portions of the Senior Living facility. These plantings will enhance the view from inside the building, provide unique spaces on the property for outdoor activities, and protect the views from those looking at the property from either the park or the single-family portion of the development. Project Number 200194 Page 13 AxIOMCONSULTANTS City Utilities There is city water along the north side of N. Scott Boulevard and water at the end of Hickory Trail. These will be connected to create a loop. There is sanitary sewer at the dead-end of Hickory Trail and along the waterway south of the project. These have been designed to be extended to serve this property. Private utilities such as gas, electric, and communications are also available. Storm water management is provided by an existing basin downstream of the project. Sensitive Areas Detailed Analyses have been undertaken and, in addition to the woodlands and the waterway, have documented the presence of wetlands and protected slopes. The Office of the State Archaeologist has completed a field investigation and determined that no further archaeologic investigation is required. A Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan accompanies this application. The development has been designed to avoid the sensitive features and minimize impacts. Protected slopes have been avoided completely and less than 20% of critical slopes are impacted. Hickory Hill Park The development team has met with the Friends of Hickory Hills Park (FHHP) to gain their insight to the development. The two groups are seeking areas where the goals of the development and FHHP align and are discussing how each can benefit from this relationship. The Applicant will also be utilizing the Good Neighbor Meeting process to seek additional community input. Sincerely, Michael J. Welch, PE Project Engineer Project Number 200194 Page 14 OZZ9-6TS (6TE) I V90TNOD-INOMWAAM 0 MVID Hd3S0PD HD13/V\ t16TO-OZ SIN` 0 :3VqVN 1N3117 :lVN0lSS330Hd NDISK ON IDNOU 0 NVId SV32IV 3AlilSN3S 0 wo I x 0 TZOZ-TT-ZO S1N3NN07 M31A3d),11701 GN0dS31J 9 0Z0?-LT-ZT NOliVDIlddV 0NINOZ3d v 13 OdO AUVNIA113dd S3�jniV33 3AlilSN3S rH 2 31V4 S3DNVHD JO N0lidlnS3(l A3U S31ViS3 I IVli A2l OND I H 11V13AO U DOI DNl/V\VdG :]VqVN i:MfOldd :]VqVN iAHS ---------- ----------- -- --------- o -------- ----- - 77C 'A 777�-zlS4 M ------ LU LU 11 It x Z z 'o, % 0 - = ... + -, + +% V) 1-oz CC rN4 Li e _j 0, Z, + 4 F U + + -------- �A LLJ >_ wwr <1 o Lf) u F_ u u Z Q< I- Z M Z + +\ +V/,I ---- CLL, z o , , L� _11- f- It 4 /, 1, T20 --- ---- + + Lu \ V\\ 7 a/l 0 . u Ln -i <1 Lu Cl- 0 0 (Y) i In ----------- 9 + 720 ---------- 0 - ------- , U A D C) F Z M C ;6 - F- L0 C14 < tv r Lon VZ1 cl Lr) LL < 0 0 < LJ 6 3: y + 0 In 2 " 3: o 7 /1 + ;4 z 0 Ft-rl LLI Lu 0, u J > co V� LU 0 > LU LU Z 34 + < LLJm u @) if ILJ 8 < C) co I I 'I � � 'i f AN + a. 0 717 LJ Q0 CL 00 CL Lu r LLJ u (D r4 < rV o +,+ + + t it LU zv+I\+9Ig + . A+ t ++- 7Z F- +/ 4 + /Z xlel 1 /111 + u + + + Vi+,.'. 'oz�l - + It 0"V \ 1+ + 4\+\+I +(+ CY) 0 ****X. /XZ\Z_'X+X%+++\ I.++ I++ ++ L ✓X-Z�4+h,+ +1 O + %+4 ?/ ++ /+ N\\\% ++++'I +\ LLI +++ IK F- + + +++t % Pup + + +,+ % +.' +i co 4rf, 1+ + + + e + + + + + + + +++ , )+++ + LL) LU + + v + + > jl�\ + 0 + Y, I!! ++++t cc + +//+ -+-r + + + + + u + +\+ +, 0 1 4 < + /+/ +++� + 1+ �'t ++ * 001q, t++ + T + ++,+,+ + \M,'. , cn +\ + T +1 r I + + �/ ./ +� I + 11 I +/ +/+ + + + /+ + + + ++++ * + + + r + A +l+ + / / ++ A + +\ 4 + + + I + + +" 0 + + + 0 u J;'l\,+ c2l + + 4 +,+ + tl+� LU + + F- Ll) % + +,�4 +: + + + N\+\+\�\ + \+\ LU t -Q+ +1 La,)cr LU A /A /I + rV+ U U a ++ X++ I + 0 + + z x < z +. LU > -i < + + 0 LU + Lu + +) + _? + UY), LU V) < < < + + V LLJ Lu Lu Lu + LU = cr cc of + p < < < + LU LLJ LU LU + t 1�- > > > + +14 ' +-- + + /+ Z z z ♦ t +,+,+\+\ \+ + LU Lu LU Ln Ln to + o6 w1l" LLJ cc or + +'09 -1 - to +1/+/++ - + Z_ z z , + t + t + -4-t + -4 + +y z < Ln < < LU < =0 0 < >- Lu LU CC < > - u z � a- o< 0 \-,e _j �: Uo z Lu LU > LU L/) LU or_ r) CL r 00 M o zQ z Z o z w w P: w 2 o < < u > ❑ m 00 R LU u P o 0 z LU Y + I�4\ 4 + +\ \+ + \\0 + + +.+ +wr 1�_ F j + +%++ \+\ + +\ + + + + ++ + + + + + + lob + + + ++ _P ti cl + u .5 I a, �o 0 T 11 o x o u T ILI] ii oo lo o z cz o E 'z --o < > u L" E '.- oo >E i2: o u :5 , ❑ o o . L :5 F < o c)rt _z LU I , u < Q F- u u u u z z c) o o (D o oLU _j OZZ9-6TS (6TE) I V90TNOD-INOMWAAM 0 MVID Hd3S0PD HD13/V\ t,6TO-OZ SIN` 0 3AVIN 1N3117 vIVINIDISSIJIUdd INDISK r ON 011"Odd 0 NVId SV32IV 3AIiISN3S r-H wo I x 0 TZOZ-TT-ZO S1N31AIA07 MTATUdID 01 GINOdSDJ 9 OZOZ-LT-ZT NOliVDIlddV DINIINOZMd v 13 OdO AUVNIA113dd S3d01S 3AWSN3S 31VC1 S3DNVHD JO NOUMS3,C] A3U U S31ViS3 I IV�Ji A�10)01 H SV3UV 3AWSN3S A�JVNIAIIR]d DOI DNIN\Vd(I :]VqVN i:MFOIdd :]VqVN iAHS ---------- ----------- Z -- --------- o M 0 im, LU 11.11.1 --------------- % z z 'o 'P ----------- x 0 0 - -------- 0 Lr) < -j 0, Z, 4.7 -oz -1 51 �j U Lu Lj < u u LL. I, L Lrl cA 0 ��e r- .2 �, "' .;m �m Lu F- Lu D >� U F- LLj Z Z >- 1 -7: -- -\, " " t / / r4 c.2� < M Z --71 < LU < 0 0 U co U co L/) ------------- ---------- ------ 0 ql� --- a- Lu 13- 1-- a- = 0 0 ---- --- ------ - = I`-- ---/ I 1� I -- a- - m - < Ln Ul ca Z j - — --------- - ----- 2F 720 ---------- ------ ----- o U Mlk D It ------- C) F- Z LO ------- < Lor, 1z r4 Lr) LL < 0 f I 0 -j 01, < LJ 0 3: L') 0 0 z 0 LU co ;4 Lu > u LU 0 > LU LU O� �34 Z D 1-- Z 0 u z Z u @) C) J , 911 Q0 Lu < z CL -1 — I / , 0 0 CL Lu L-1 7F- z < r4 90 �7 (D rrq' ;� 9,g J It I IT ljj� 7 17 V, �f r I i i oqL LA IT/ C, v\ Q, 1), -- \A, o\ '41 rr) lq 00 Lr) C CO0 00 r- C rr) C) rn r1j 0 Lr) rn -4 00 r4 1:T U) N )o rr, 0 Lr) CY) In lD ri oO Ln r- _q C �T 00 m 7 C7) I Ln m 0 o rj o L6 V Lu CF) 1 6 ry) r-, oc� , , , k\ I r, Ln �i r-i r� r-1 (o rN Ln r-1 rr) (o Ln r6 06 06 ry� .0 j f f I LU 0 0 \4 L') < 109 0 CL U LU LLI Ln -7-7--- j, ---- -- In � 00 3- rn 0 rn 00 rn rn r1j CY) 00 �.o �.o -1 00 -zl rj 14-INMII V� -i zT 1--i Lr) Ln (n r4 I)o Lu �6 ze �s Lr� ze lr,� zF Lrj QQ < ;IN V) cr LU 10- 0 Z LU u < U U ---- 9RZ /T 0 0--o i-ax ly 0- Sr TI 0 till I f 00 ww �\f 0 A\ IN It j �170= -j < :7 1 0 0 1 0 m zr 0 10 0 bl < c F-- 0 U u < > LU 0 0 0 < 0 cl� Cri lob < 0 10 ';T w -zr oo < < < > Lu LU < 0 ca 0 A, < 0 txc u 0 F-- 1� P: U= V) U o M > 0 0, u z 0 o 0 z z Lu mZ 1-- 0 L 0 T III 0 F- LU < (D 0 0 Ln LU Uu u z u LU 0 T F- F- U 0 u 0 2 u �4 I-- u u u or_ 0 0 mZ < 0 0 1 1 T wn Lu u L) wZ Z M C) F- z P: z E 0 0 E 0 a U Z Z U Lu F-- O, m 1-- 0 u P7 > 0 �7 > < 'U rI U Z -.1 u In 0 L :5 � 2 lu LU u < Q F F- I U I - � C 0 ) L c o rILU OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90TNOD-WOIXM'MMM o MVID Hd3S0f ' D HO13M t,6Z0-OZ SIN` IInSN©D 0 3WVN 1N3117 lVN0ISS3M0Hd N91S30 ON IDNO2d l NVId S`d32IV 3AlilSN3S N� wolx o LZOZ-TT-ZO S1N3WW07 M31A3i1 h117010NOdS3i1 9 .. OZOZ-LT-ZL NOI1V71lddV 0NINOZMN V 13 ado AUVNIWI13dd SVRIV 4NVI000M U 0 31Va S31DNMHJ��30N011�d.1lnS34 n3a S31ViS3 IIV2li A210)0IH SV3UV 3/�I11SN3S A2JVNIAIIR]d NM3NDN3 DOI DNIMVd(I :3WVN IJMOU :MWVN iAHS N AbVNIWll3bd CD W> ~ L fI�I� W S n l a +oov F0 L) Z z ado / / LVti :;` ©' I a J ��Da C, �O[� m IN n�0i"li NH OC OC z V7 _ x- x .. n 0 a � j Or o ° + Q Vl N Q +c++ rl Y w w Q N o r Y / - .. _ - / Q ' - / // //////'.'/ LL + r n} r u u F LLj °�Q �zm�c� �zmoao J� ji __ N ° J i z w Q J O z J ms� /ik o /// / a w x rl a r w Q %// — // / S - N r O Q cO ° as M� aYa��m��� j// N� + o C7 O/////// \ \ \. r z M � // // 1 Lr) L0 N w Q p O Z // j j////j//// I Z N N ( I /////////// os +� ++ I N vi N m o ,� u1 g w ¢ o // /// /�/ / 1 + °C � o o ii j/i/j// // / II II m o + o zLu =zouazz IG-/ i%jj/1 j Q w m U Q LL 1 QC7rN�10 QzQ�oa \ zC i �i%%//\j%/ jjjjl-\ + �' `�\a I / j/j/ . i ++a %// / I I• + a I� + +`+*+*+`+*+* Wit/ /� I m" /i \+�i%// I� + m /%////j/ // s = ///// 1 Lf) a 2 / ////////////////////////// /// /// / //// j// . /// M III + — .. ///j j////�/�/�/////// j// \ / j I Y j'�' '. I I� + / // \ ` / // +, \�i// I ^ II I+ �j/i I m m I� + + \�rj / I I+ ++++ 1 X. / m II /// ° / I \�/// I\ `N% j/ /// r. - �i� ; /i/j/ / \ /jj.; // / / \ \ ++\-Vj o /jj / \ i I I /// !'// o ++ IY /// ,�{j j /ji/jj/ \ +A+++ \ / / / //////, jj ++ /////i/ i i a /i + /� jj/ // Kj j / j/ /i/ y// \ ;+ i//// i/��/ >i/ : Q + j //i j / // /� /// // /i j/ / '%/ /j/ /j/ N // w o ri to / ° \ j/ j///i j j . / .. z N m ni R 4 of m / / i I /Y!x. ii jij j/ \ Q Q i Ln/ii w z O w ° j// �..uh..�_. /////. // /i/ / �/j/ / I \\ + 0- O + /// I T..� .jjj///j / / j J *+ram+ \� i// i I i j jii\j/ji y //i I I j /i///i// j/ // /// :*+ — — — /j + �+ +M`+ \ :.+ + i \S, ++g+ �.. ° N j~ Q p Z 2° [[ z z °J w� m - w°o =� � z 0 r � V) °x� w e o 0 o z�z „z, V J U~C7 a M C O °°Q w ++ J J H Q Z F ci Z U \ ++ d w '� w °O ~ +++++ A ° d 0 T ❑ = Z V w U \ O O W O~ VM1 N rn 0 a w ry Q H z o �n a o 'o E H w Z a m O r iri ° w N K m \ d W ��- a ° ° Ln w \ In �>��� O Z ztxc �� ? J s°a o z Q co mow o u all II o U � ( z z a ri O O o o LL a G W ~ o H O F w s d w w a II II m o _ _ ��w > J /^ w 0 N O J Q H w ° `/ J Z Z H W W° U _ �� o � O t u O O 0 �'w^w w O � 0 o *\� u or_ C) c J a "� Q Z w a w ¢ w in °O m j Q O w w cc w o z z z d H w a ce [[ Jp p [[ 0 Z d w � � LL w w w w H ¢ a w F � vi ww N m in H w °O w U U cc o w~ w > z +.+ p, N w w 0 u W H<< Hzz z v~i 0z z z as d 0o ez a O w � 0. a rc m u ,., w ¢ O O z c-I N M Z 0 0 .. Z O u O N O r w N o K V z 00 0 w V V u N V r O w > J OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90TNOD-WOIXM'MMM o MVID Hd3SOf ' D HOl3M V6Z0-OZ S1N`Y11nSN©D 0 3WVN 1N3117 1VN01SS3j0Hd N91S30 r ON 173f021d NVId S`d32IV 3AWSN3S W(M]WD WVRUS 3NI1 3mu rM woIx 0- LZOZ-TT-ZO S1N3WW07 M31n3i1 h117010NOdS3i1 9 .. OZOZ-LT-ZL N0I1V711ddV ONINOZMN V 13 ado AUVNIWI13dd (INV Sd NVl13M U 0 31H4 S3JNMHJJONOIl�d1INJS34 n3a S31ViS3 IIV2Ji A210)0IH SV3UV 3AWSN3S A2JVNIAIIR]d NM3NION3 DOI JN1MVdG :3WVN IJMONd :MWVN iAHS N O WW H ,� L fI�1� �( W S ,,� S��I M ;l.�nM of +oos F0 M;UI 5�5� M M L) VI 1 M Z Z Z (=/7 0 / / f,;�a ca, u�I�Lu ald N� I !J I)�a Il JOW nCJ �. JJ�OL� ` nI CJu Il I1H n�tJ o2ll 10 H aog`,00s`,00,� w v — x—x x— 0 J N O W O �zm�c� �zmOao J J Z W Q J O zLn J ms� ----- I _ d W= ci �j a W J Q _— —_-- \ y as°m- aYaLnuim —__— �� y / \�� cVn J I1 Ql D I \ LL C7 C C:� N \ z Q o v~i N N L0 N � N W ( Ln Z 1 I No\ C zL, gW a0 M" j Yoc °aQ I N LI Im�o2 0 ;4 z0 NLocLL" o z�D� zo�azz \ \ m Qa L'J rl IDO W Z= O @JU rq N0 NLL� M a0No azallo ti o<LUImpLu i ro -A _ I r4 I I \ I LL I+ Mo6 11 ... \+00, I i°°° Q ° a �I m� i Po° oho i LL I I� 00 r-jo �f 00 0 �� \ \ II o / zF N Q --- — oa 01, 00 .� 12 z z —— Q � Q 3 J � d w Q _ _ N 0 0 T Cr— LU `u ryo \ U Q F— z—all p Q ^ o '1 r� v, JW () v LL z I o a 1 I �1 D s� LU = o J w �I wnl u x N 1U z a r r ' N Q ' I I T ID I Li oZ 1 a aw z o Ou rni x z vi w 2i �n Q w a z 3 o as w U 'o a t Q K tG Q� u w W N Z Z Z OO O "¢ O H g N L 0 0 w w �� 0 �U z 3 w V V u N V r O W J OZZ9-6TS (6TE) I V90D'N0D-1N0lXV'MAAM MVID Hd3S0PD HD13N\ t,6TO-OZ SJLN'VilnSNO:) :3VqVN iN311D :IVNOISSIdOdd NDISK ON IDIfOdd NVId SV3�IV 3AlilSN3S W01xv 13 OdO AUVNIA113dd S3DNVHD JO N0lidlnS3(l S31ViS3 I IV�li A.l OND I H NVId id3DNOD 111MINI 11EM �0111010irlyffir, :]VqVN i:MFOU :]VqVN iAHs _T7 P'014 oll Owl, Mw ' �/ ��i1�ll- L NOW #F),9 IFMA Z r-4 j LU 0• < • LU u cn LU u < LL o ire 0 Lu U 0 r) �z a- �D J 75 Z LU InLn ui LU cc cc u u 0 < ry U) Lo 00 0 4 LU cc z < < LU LU `3 z < LLJ Ln z z < Lu u 0 0 z 1 0 u > LU < u u LU Lu > n in LU LL, LLJ LU 0 V) 0 z LU 0 �- < a- —i u OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90TNOD-WOIXM'MMM MVID Hd3SOf ' D H013M t,6Z0-OZ SIN` IInSN©D � 3WVN 1N3117 NVId S`d32IV 3AlilSN3S lVN0ISS3j0Hd N91S30 ON 173fO1d NVId 1d3DN00 W01x N LZOZ-LL-ZO 0Z0Z-LL-ZL S1N3WW07 M31�3i1 h117010NOdS3i1 NOI1V71lddV ONINOZ3d 9 V '8 O d O AU V N I W I13 d d : W n I N I W O4 N 00 .. U 0 31H4 S3JNMHJ30 NOIl�d1INJS34 A321 S31ViS3 I IV2il A210)0I H St, 101 N33NION3 DOI JNlMVdG I 3WVN1J3fMld :3WVN 133HS N AbVNIWll3bd V) C d O Q H Z ui V) W J � } > F V) to a w Z a ui w Q z o o 2 x Z U w a w � a Z z Q a � Z ON � o O } oLU LU L m z f � § LL Ln LU LU o w LL O Q V) U O i W W W W p O lO } U_ p W W W w J O Ln ^ W J LL F LL LL LL LL Q LU N g - z z N a-Q M z w V) Q z a Ln Q LL W O 2 0 Ln Ln V) ON � Q W LU p F W J N a O Q OC Q Q Z H } a w �7 w } Q x H w O �leU_z°Wa 0o Q >u U Lo J o u z z a�}} 0 o 0 0 0 0 Q a a LL Q z m z U O 0 CC z Q o o a cz_ cz_ cz_ cz c Q p Q LU J pZ) LU pi LU J Q d 0 N a--Z G G G G V) 11 V) LL' G LL Z co 00 N 00 4t _ tt V W _ 00 W LU W v W Z N J W LLJ LU V) W W Q-' Q O w Q w N W W O z N Q LL Ln 0 p 0 0 p a z O a 0 m H a LL } X p5 ~i } Z cr Q x Z LL LU LL Q J L a X p LU C J p LU O 2 z 0 GN p z W V 0° � U L9 J a �cr Q w U w w w p v E O p w O p LU o z� z}} o� } } o= V N w 2 2 2 w Q Q Z Q x Q Z Y z K L=L U U N� U U cn Q O N < 2 g w 2 K z w w Cl. Z N W Q Ln Q V7 Q Ln O F O ULn 0 VLn 0 U Ln 0 LU N N Q 0 0 Q 0 0 Q 0 0 LU 0 z LL Q O LL O LL 0 O Z Q cr O (D � 0 (D F- 0 Lu M (J 0 p o g z g z z_ LL g z z_ LL g z LU z a o p Q CC o 0 0 0 0 vi V LU a Vt V) H Q) ii V) V H U LL cn F 0 LL LU c N M 2 N z z z z O O O Ln 3: 0 0 0 O z z p cr LL O o z K K K W O V, z z o 0 0 w ° 2E o 0 0 I 1 I � jI I T STO Sr sy \ LU Q �J \ z JFM 10 z wam \/ I \ \ \ \ -71 i \ � � � 6•, � �� � � \ � \ � � INS u d H OZZ9-6TS(6T£) I V90D'N0D-WOIXV'MMM MVID Hd3SOf '9 HOI3M t,6Z0-OZ SIN` IInSN©D � 3WVN 1N3117 NVId S`d32IV 3AWSN3S vIVINOISSIdOdd N91S30 r ON 011"O 1d NVId 1d3DN00 0 N W01xv N (90 LZOZ-TT-ZO OZOZ-LT-ZL S1N3WW07 M31�3i1 h117010NOdS3i1 NOIlV7llddVONINOZ321 9 V 13 ado AUVNIWII3dd :JNIAII 2JOMS .. U 31H4 S3JNVHJ30 NOIl�d1INJS34 A321 S31ViS3 I IV2il A210)0I H Z 101 N33NION3 DOI JNlMVdG 3WVNiDNOU 3WVN133HS N AbVNIWll3bd a Ln V) oC o J a z W 0 in LU m } M z a W � a W H 2 C7 w 2 cc W U a J Q Ln LL o � rl m t- 0 0 Ln W W W m m W N m } m O r1 W o 00 CO II 11 II } Ol 11 > CL < C7 r) z W W W W W LL m m m m CO V) � W � W °� > z H w � C7 w 2 � W W H H LWi LLL o o LL)}LL m 00 N I, m m r �I fV m F- z cWc G W M O O m m : M m W K OC K U LLJ 2 F— Q � z W CL U I, N M CY) (0 a 00 Ol m V) Z O } i W } JLU 2 a L. LL' LL W W 2 V) LL LL o a O_ O to T Ln � 0O C7 \ F l00 Lu m Q CL d CL J J J F F F rl rl rl } O 0 LL O W > m 2 � a M p 0 zWO oc� w zO w wwwoJ H m W z O Ln of rLFN O ✓) Lin 2 O O J00 d Z N m CO W z O O N W O z O O W O N 0 0 0 0 N N Z l7 a a W W W C7 O H J 0 W V) O F W z Z W Y LLJ CL O< K LL > ad p w Q o W u> W z a a F— a >QJDo u - LL Q a U g° .--I Q } LLjU U> a SF a U z 2 < p a a> vz > o ° W> c� w a-jo il LL O z o V) F—>N oW 0z0 z o a occ o o> u Loa a�UCo 0> 0 a F—u W u LU o LLU NLLa cc g z m° W CL a o V) J a o m U z z Q � }}_ Qz N U > o w CraN p "a- U Fzou WU)CC:D a n o U Q so oo a w � z o o W J J F- o z z Q m W=� w oLULU zzzz ____a cc cc cc cc cc m o o ooa�o wp m J V) J LL Y a Z CL OZZ9-6TS (6TE) I V90TNOD-INOMWAAM MVID Hd3S0PD HD13/V\ t,6TO-OZ SINVIInSNOD00 :3VqVN 1N311:) :lVN0lSS]J0Hd NDISK ON IDIfOdd 0 NVId SV3�IV 3AlilSN3S 13 ado AUVNIA113dd 31VG S3DNVHD JO N0lidlnS3(J A3U W01xv S31ViS3 I IV�li A�l OND I H NVId 3dVDS(INVI H�ANF)N� DOI DNl/V\VdG :]VqVN i:MfOldd :]VqVN iAHS LL U) 0- coY U m G G fn UUC) < C0 00 L) q a_ A8o)lolq X U�) U) < x U) a - a_ 0'. Lr) C. Cl) d rq Co N rn c.q 0 FD m rN m LU 06 CO Lu > > C? cc r-4 M 0 0 . . . 0 oQ z 0 m z z z 0 2i z a o 'sQ 2 0 - o, z t JA w w JT z T W=Q -W 0 m z 21 0WxQ -0 z u z mu o < m z CL c E w. 0 Z v 0 .0 zm -0 > 2 2 o C, z -E I E �Ojaywj 7i w z W, 22 1� W- z 3 C > L< Fn .0 R . > F .0 o, < i2 0 = . = a � c �cc . x 0 20 L� 2: w C, 2 F . I .2 2 0 z 3: 0 R o 2 8 5 12 .0 0 5 E m E 0 co co Q z z co 0 <w cr cly VI lc� N< >- < 0 Z J Lr) m cr c < z U) y y m 06 00 r-1 9 < ? ro y to < Q < 0 y o 00 m cl� L) LL U) z Lralp ) g ZD LL z .).< OP Y Fs 'IQ LL U) y o z U) O y r-4 U) z 0 < U) 0 0 U) mm T* lr� 11 L) y U) z U) 00 - 1� L) w > UU) li 0 a9 LU > L>U ry Lr, 9 C) LU z L I Lr) U) L) M a- fy 0 0� LLJ < F- x LU 0 Coo>LU w co i F- z 0 LU LU C) 0 Yy C) Lu W F- z C/) U) QLLJLU /),:)R LLJ (D I I OJS. IV �-)00z LLJ ry U) LU U) co Lu o F- 0 z n C) U) < 0 LLJ 0 1 z < OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90TNOD-WOIXM'MMM MVID Hd3SOf ' D HOI3M t,6Z0-OZ SIN` IInSN©D 31NVN 1N311J 1VN01SS3j0Hd NDIS30 ON 01108d NVId S`d32IV 3AlilSN3S NVId 3dVDSa N`dl p 18 ad0 JlUVNIW1132id :WfIINIWO4N00 ? J 0 31V4 S3JDNMHJ��30 N011d.1lnS34 A321 W01xv S31b'1S3 llV2il A2�OJIDIH S� 101 w N33NION3 DOI NlMVdG :3WVN 1J3fOld :3WVN 133HS N AIVNIWIl3bd W w W Q LU p Of cn W W of w a W O H J � LJL E p D D W W ° d m (n a p U a Z U U W 20 W Z p p W U U J of i 7 w (n z F O H W w Lu w j w Z U p O w p w aa a �a p ¢ LU U) O O O U W Z O o 0w aO ) a a a d o O oo Z J �p 0 I1LU w I IG7 T STO sr Z I I ®r a LU a. m�< ° \\ U I o00 �� cl ° I O Z I w Z z w U W a fn J a 0 p w x U H a } w v7 z w U W a fn J a 0 p w x U H a r w U) z w U W a U) J Q 0 p w x U H a r w fn z w U W a U) J Q 0 p w x U H a r w U) z w U W a (n J a 0 p w x U H a r w U) z w U W a (n J a 0 p w x U H a r w U) z w U W a U J a 0 p w x U H a r w m z w U W a fn J a 0 p w x U H a r w m z w U W a fn J a 0 p w x U H a r w fn z w U W a U J a 0 p w x U H a r w m z w U W a fn J a 0 O w x U H a r w m z w U W a U) J Q 0 p w x U H a r w fn wi 0 J (� Z U A, Z w Z of Z Z a J a W w of Z Of Z w- Z T Z of z of z of Z of z of Z O .O N a+ 7 U) L to c0 4- 0 C el m cm E r Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w Z a J a W w z a J a W LU U) U U) U7 U) U) U) fn fn fn fn U) U) H ,� IS O i 16 N r O O 4L W N U) Z m m m m m m x m C] N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m i L o'' E y L Qi r o C tU) @ V1 0.2 O 0 3 L C w •0 i Q' '= C O d C O m F x _U` = M x U = M x m C] N N x m C] N N x m C] N N x m p N N x m p N N x m 0 N N x m 0 N N x m 0 N N x m C] N N W Q Z Z O w ° D a m �r w N n m O N U t ° w U a z z a a 0 Y a x C) U oa W Q a a N p (O m op m CU a p 2m U M u1 Z m- uJ a - , (o a c O C r O c i Q a Q Z U w d (o� O W .0 z Q O W o= E m U O3 e- (� 0 (p I— 0 (n �m a3 ° a N cr u w c N a vi r = (n w m W N w U Z + U Z z a�i(n W a�iU 0_j ma x �� a Y a f6 E Y a) U Wo nz F a p cx a Q ca w U7 Q� cu - Q O m co ca cr a)a U� aU N Q ca a�� 2O az 7 O = p �z 00 aJ j NQ �� 0(n j ° Np �w 0w j Q `° m� �x 0m Co Y e U �a OJ am O- a3 0 �Y;'QL� a)a mp U W N g NJ ULL U N w (D0 CULL O] z rn a ca `>.Q m� O- a' (o w Sa a)Q ma O] LO OD L (O M (DO) Cl)(O r V) CO d W H Z W w m m O W W W w F- H (A O x p a U 0 U a a a m C3 a C3 C3 a m LL m Q U U U m m a m W \ U Q Q \ oall txc ❑ D \ O W D W w o O o O \ O N O V O V N + ' " U + ' w + ' O d + n OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I WOTNOJ-WOIX'd'MMM MVID Hd3SOF 'J H013M V6Z0-0Z l ll� l J� SiNVIiI SN©D 3WtlN 1N311J N`dld Sb RIV 3AWSN3S IVNOISSAJONd N91S30 ON 103f02d Ndld 3dVDSGN`dl p 13 ado A2IVNIWI13dd JNlnll 210IN3S ? J 0 S31ViS3 l WK Ab10)01 H Z 101 w 31V4 S3DNVHJ 30 NOI1d11K)SM A3a DOI JNIMVb4 HAN19N3 3WtlN 1J3fOild 3WVN 133 HS N AbdNIWll3bd z p � uwi p w �x w r rZ: U w p N w co O U o Q Q J � Z_ W NCB U W W a nW H J W �' W Z U K W U QCO w L �_ O N w Z W Q ( ¢ W U w u co D H /1 U z w LL cn � W O H C� a w z cow g ZWLu v) W Q WOO JHH p O W W O J j z W � � (D O 0- a U w Q LU X 0� a a H C7 w U rn w H ww rj) X � Q w H w w �z _ a �x 0Y x xw x Ln Z w �_ Q + Q + 0 W 1 O \\ 1 ate' OZZ9-6ZS (6I£) I INOJ'NOJ-WOIXV'MMM MVID Hd3SOF 'J H013M V6Z0-0Z T , l SINVIInSNOD :3WVN 1N311J :IVNOISS330Nd N91S30 : ON 103f0dd p N`dld S` RIV 3AWSN3S 31n(13HDS'8 S310N 3dVDSdN`dl '8 adO A2IVNIW113dd JNIA11 2101N3S ? J HAN19N3 S31ViS3 l lb K Ab0)0I H :3WVN1J3fO'dd Z 1Ol :3WVN ALL w N 31V4 S3DNVHJ 30 N01id11K)S34 A31d DOI JNIMVb4 AbdNIW113bd N �O A W H Z W W V w _N w o O L 110 U U Q J o � Z CO w ` J J u "' O Q L L L � 7 Z 3 O N w u M H F O d' xi w'f c6 a6 m m m m m m m m J J W J Q Q J cn=U=U W (V - V ^ 40 � W z of m ° a w x U ~ J W WLU CO Z W = J 1L K H W 0 w a a¢ W W 0 U Y Q Wa Q W O Z U Z Q �2'' Z U Q O W' U Q J �U;W�a m W Z J Z 2 w z } 71 of W O z a 0 x Q x w 0 Q a n a n >_ Z W Y O L J z Q J } 0 m > z a � (n Q H J J Q W U U ¢ Z w m - z O ¢ of ❑ W [n Z J U a a C7 J w Z J X Z) O W U U K d U z LU U D Q zO�acna o c� ¢ Lu z z W a K Q Q Q } Q } a n Y Q U 2 2 H p n O N M O O� ?w ��O w J m0 -� �zU ZJZ� J2� w O0 U a z z = �p0 ON z¢� aW ¢ w U�� �Z Z) LLFx 0 Z �� tz z Q z 0 J a Q � a�� v� = w U Q � a s �} ��ca �W z li p m Q O� U z u) � Z p Z K Z z a W u O z O O� z U~ z a¢ W 02¢ z ¢ O w� c-, 6 wma W W WU W W OmJ d W O J� zzg��0 2 ��Z ¢�K=� cnJ�2 z� ¢a OF J� F mZ0 O W w�p �¢ F F W LL W ¢O W ZO 2 Z W Cn HH�LLH Zw6t QO a8 a U x z J O J p J m d x 0 2= z O Q Z Cz-7 O Q U a m W ¢ co 0 �� Y U J m 0 W O p F E = z F E ❑ m J J 7 w ❑ z Q �° ¢ w a Uzi? W �O z z w OZ uia cna �O W C� p'w U Jam~ �O OUH a O� �? W �70 �❑z ❑=FO W �(n m W Z W J ALL �Q J~ Q ❑w O Lu m Y U, a Q¢ z 0 o= wwVU� w z❑7m �00�� OzOO U �zz OWO=OFz =Wz w 0� °��¢ d¢ do ¢❑ ¢ W❑ W W z W z¢ O U p 0 z¢ a O r a Q zwz z �¢ cnJJ o waw ¢ LU Z U J p J Z d' m J m p N Q Y o p z U W OU1 Q W (`J ❑p()FU ❑OW W 2Z W 0 2 Z z w n o 0 n p O a o o w m m w� Jw a m O F x O z a W w _z m❑ w o x ¢> OF U U ❑Z U' H- J w0 O Z F O, W m z 3 z O F W W Q ~ 8-w- x U 7 p 0 U X H Z U Y O¢ Cn W O x z Q x d ❑ O w p 9 p z zi J w ¢ Q w p W (0* i- a¢(n m E � z g m M.0 O u> r^Z v) J U J❑ W 0 w W Z I J J J U� W m O LL� H p W U W ¢a¢ ¢p22w m u»= ¢Dz'.x ",J) VZ OQw O 0O W W,Ud W z J _W a~ W fj QN� pZm W jp W z f n ¢ W H Z m Z J W p W' w W ❑ m W Lu❑Um0 UW�O = �❑O ❑Uw Fx pU W (nZQQ J w�dcn O �2� U¢d c ¢ �OW�¢ Q U=J Q}UU- 2 W, �z dp Z O K U O~ o w O Q p w w o 0 a x Q uwi Q Q U ��LLi IL Z -}xQ ap02Z �_HQ uj Oz �� W O p Q m z U H F o w z a <n O OZ UO2 pW �QZ QKD Qpa(.7L) d'� �OW zC Q O~=J W mN 0z� Z �w ���z- Ow UZU ¢pwam a�VQ� wp w g �WQF❑ 3: �3� wzx wz x w N� Z W W Z Z U O} J Q p W J d' F U} }❑¢❑ U Z a Q W Z �x Q m 0Z)7Q ❑ W W W ❑ LULL p �¢g�❑ ��a �� p�� ❑EL �� wH ��a�❑ :� wa >>a >J�� Z �� W Z W W' a W Z O F J W a O❑ 0 Q n- J a } z 0zx O-OQz J W' Jp} zQ�z� Hxx oaw-O x0�- zw O W 0C W wJ 0z Q UJF C) W Q Q� LL❑� Q W Ma2 Q2m¢Q O� (nF1- 00mQ I-O(7� x¢ �? d?❑2 za zQ J N M V l0 O n W d7 6 � � � � bA 3 z a d m z F- z a a a1 d N a 0 O N C N J U m 0 0 U C O l7 Z_ OC O z u N C O O N N U N 0 a` N E a N M c-I N O N O N 0' m W F O Z H O O � m m c�S xS m m m m o� US m m m m otf xf m m m m ce5 cg m m m m � ctf m m m m m � ot5 ce5 m m m W N F J = Q c0 N J J Q Q N N J J Q Q N N J F ¢ N tD F F t0 c0 J J F Q Q = N N c0 Z W� W U ~ Q w� W � px W U W � Q F V � U O Y } ¢ z x p O W � Z O Y U Ul W W w W W W O U Y Z Y a Q OV W � � � W Q U o� a a U Q O m Z W U a cn J w U H ¢ = m � Y � Q w p x J Q� � o F U � Q (n m W O J U H mp Q z m � U U m O Z W a � ¢ U Z }YJ fn O a� z Q 0 U U�❑�> ¢ Q H p w❑ K U C7 O � � w (Y W x o� p w � � J O Y z O � U C}7 � a U H V (n Q vai w [n U z M. Q ¢ z p tJ7 Q m Q O U � w� U Z�� d d Q � w a d z p z U W' � O Q U� z U U U w w Q � 0 0� } y� U O Z d d d 0 O F H 0 N GO GO 00 0] l0 M M 0 M V OZZ9-6LS (6LE) I WO:)'NO:)-WOIXV'MMM )NVIJ Hd3SOF '!) HD13M t16ZO-OZ S1NVIISN©D 3NVN 1N311J IVNOISSI]Qdd N91S30 ON 173fONd J 1 i ' N`dld S` RIV 3AIlISN3S SlIVi34 3dVDSG IVI p yy 3 18 ddO AbVNIWll3bd JNIAII UOIN3S m M � J 31V4 S39NVHJ 30 NOI1�dIU1JS34 A3b S31ViS3 I NK AW)IDI H Z 101 w FI33NION3 DOI JNIMV210 IMN.11ONd IMN133HS N AUVNIWll32id J J J x�m xofm x�m zoo U J z❑O U _J z❑O U J LL z 0 J O LL z 0 J O LL z 0 J O 0x U w O v> >dLL 0 w >dLL 2i C7 w >aLL g O w 0<0 ❑ z ❑ 0<0 ❑ z ❑ OQO ❑ z ❑ p] J ¢jQ O z ¢�Q O z 0 ¢� Q >O z N co < m N07x �i < m NCO2 > m Ewa a Ewa a Ewa a <0 =U w o <0 =U LU 0 ¢>0� =U w 0 awl ❑w a m aDf wl ❑w ❑❑� m aaf wl ❑w ¢ m 0aa ❑Y C7 J x C) 0aa ❑Y C�70C ow ❑Y of J x Z OuiLL ❑O = L Z Ou LL ❑U = � Z Ow LL ❑O L K❑ W W= Y a' ❑ W W= U Y K❑ W W= Y �¢c� �F L) o �<(D �F ❑ o �<(D ccF L) ❑ Z W Q x _ Z (n U` U (/J N LL m D Z (n C7 U u) N LL m D Z Lo U' U U) N LL m D Q Q Q J J J � a d W W W W � ==i=\i/ 0-1 J In W II m °¢ II III- �LL,a II to wQ - - 0 co 0 III=0 0 III=0 Q 0 �( W H x w H N Z H > O \//\= j\== N � 0 \\//\= p _ Oz z \\\\\III wz \\\\\III O CV M x U J Q W W ❑ K O Z (D 0 m z ❑ W Z) H ll� J U) Z a Q W ❑ J w 2 W❑ W IL Z ❑ W J H W m LL W W z J CO N O F D U m X Q LUz LU _ > U Q a O m J ❑ Z U Z - ~ ou III III= Q W z a vv - z Lu III II� "' vII �0 ONiOvds \i/\\i/ i � .0.0 wC LU LUo 0 Cn m U Q Z p ~O U J z Q O W Q (D' LUV Z >aLL � 7 LUO �Z cow O Q O ❑ z ¢ N n N LL ¢�Q O Z Ca7 N COx 3: J m N W wWa ❑ a In m LU O w LL p U LU z 01 of CDL K ❑ W LU= 1. Ul u) CD U [n N LL co Z_ z 03 J J w J 0 m U I 'o I=° �� o O in z ki t 6, ON C) r'4 C) LU In Cm�r 6-4 Ln z LU LU 0 LU x LU O 00 • i . ` . • +".,:o;�i�,; 11+".i is ul r li+ c, � ii ii ii • Mi Mi E Mi ii Ijlw<IE���•��Ml��p���€� , + al hl � le ii ii ii MM lilt �,a i,:lEli11� ili ii I Mi Mi Mi im i a . ii �i i i� r ii �i Wi i ii ii ii ii !; �i Il r sll r n i� ii ii ii ii Ji I I ii ii ii ii ii i� ii �ii �i �i ,•Il'I �•ill'I `•ll ii ,I 'l ii ii �i II r� "il r. •' I ' ii ii ii ,I rl I rl I. ii ii ii t d l u y i« ii ii I rB • I rl tl " ii 00 ii ME 00 I+ r. 'll r `, I , ii i■R1 ii iiM IM MIM MIM i1M ii i� 1 ii ii ii iiii ii ii OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90TNOD-WOIXM'MMM MVID Hd3SOf ' D H0i3M V6Z0-0Z S1N` ilnSN©D 3WVN 1N311J 1VN01SS330Hd N91S30 r ON 173fOdd O woIO O S31d1S3 iI`dbl A2i0>IDIH - Sti 101 � N 0 IO31V4 S3JDNMHJn30NOI1�d.1INDS3C] �321 SNON NOD IIV' JiA210)0IH NVId 311S U N33NN3 DOi NIMVOQ :3WVN 1J3fONd :3WVN 133HS N NoiiDnKSNOD 2IOJ lON co m o 00 o LU w w w w p p U 7n In LLJ Q Z F -- w r O F VI W ' z p < w Q W N W w p O p O LU N v LL N O z >~> ti o fn O O p O 0-`-' 0 of W Z U v p co > LL xFz d ffi W aw`` 'O`` awaLU Lawc Q z WU O of O a aC Occ r JoOr o Q O} W z a > LU U CA 0 0 > Q p N Z o F F Wxxx� =-1 <� gxga3 o J z F- � N LL u U v, v, u u v, (A Q w LU W � Q w N 1N3W3AVd 3 U a U Z z V) w Q a Q Q O F Z Z W LU N m % O w O Q p LL w w O Q z F Q Q cr Q z rn LL LL p O cUi, O (AO vvi O w CL O w F w Y _ Z a QF0 0 d Q 0 0 a Q c[ OQ O U F O O p O O zz co W p 06 W p � W 000 cr O C7 F (7 F O F.- Q) O FO 00 LLI w m o lD Q LU LL z zp O p Q CC 0 "O Q OacrOw LU O Op Q N N Q) v, V) C7LLN N NQw V LU LU o Jao Q U LU Z=w a 0 Mw w Z V) Q Z - N z z z d EE o W ZJ opo > z O O O LQZLL w F0 d p Qco Q Ln O F J J o 2 w � O O O Lr)a}} =z z o Jo u z o O W Q < CLQ zCoz W u z o 0 0 0 F Q F o Q OQ O Lu ° °ao° _ ° o 0 0 z w 0- � J~ m - LL f iI o f I I I �� c8 _ i f i - \ \\ Lo i 10 i V, in I - - - 0 [fin--- / --- --- \ - _ - - _ - -- _ -- ---- --- --_ 3 Wo I 1ll 11 t 1,�- ' ''i ♦ ` -- __III I I I 1 \ - 09 /_ ` � � _-' --- -__ -_ --, � �------ --- --- --- ��/�` �i�,ililllllllilliliqi ICe----_- - ------ v+ ---------- __ --_ \�`��`�\�__`---_- --- �w ��,'� �iD 6 D_ D D I���\��1�\��1�I���I�iIiIIf�I III "- ./''�i'�'�� ✓/�`���i\i�'i - --- \ ----_ �� ��\���� ��� ,'i',�'ah------_-_-_-_-_ -_- _--_-- ��DbD 9�®D�2 D7?����\����\i �iiil�i --__ �i ii i�i�'�ii�-_--_�V'��1i i�i, ��- f`\���f\1-- - - D D �����\�����\� �\� �� I iDi y i i ' i ' i i /` -� ����,,����� '�<' / i'i ---- -- - �� �� \\ \� \� i `�---------- �\��� ��\\\����--- ,�� -rt�-�� f1�-ri %------------- vi D�TZ ,D`�� 2D \\`\f��\����\ D �� `�\�� _'I'i,,'�,,=__,\\\ �\��'i'i / �'�-i{�1�����IIy�� N l -_---------- �\D D D D`D ,p D D D \\f��\\����\\���\0���`�� �}} Q/�/' \� -�� li i/ �i ---_\f\�\\� �\���\��� i i i i / / ?8 � j\P�e�,13�®`\D I D >1> D J D D D ,1\� D D D � � �� ��-�\ \�\\ \ \ ":: - 8 -I 15,. \ ` i � i i / � � �I I � � � \ ���� ��' � i � i i i '� i %i \ � � f � \ � � � � \ ) i / / i ------ �\�.�\� ��-t�-- - C''.L2 / 1 i �� ���\ \\ f I 1 1 1 i _ ' N f ♦� yn� �?`--0 P- i// i i/' ♦` �\11 i III fD� CI @ �D\ CP D D D Di i i/ 1 1 1 i` / i i' i t __i� i i i i i' --- 0 ,�i i ,> I /� li S D D `�-`r--1�-' _�'� D i i �- I 1 \ ' i, i i/ i`, \`� ��� 1 I 1 1 1 I i i - i i i i .-- ro OZZ9-6TS (6T£) I V90TNOD-WOIXMWAAM �I VID Hd3S0 ' D HOl3M t,6Z0-OZ SIN` IInSN©D 31NVN 1N311J 1VN01SS3j0Hd NDIS30 ON 173fOdd o O N St7ZZS `dM01 'A110 VMOI Nb'ld JNIddDSaN`dl J 0 31V4 S3JDNMHJ��30 N011d.1lnS34 A321 W01xv S31b'1S3 llb'�il i�aOiIDIH S� 101 w N33NION3 DOI NlMd214 :3WVN 1J3fONd :31NVN 133HS N NOI DmUSNOD 2103 lON W w Q w p w Of w w w m of w Q W O W' ~ J � H LJL E (o p D D W W O d m (n Q p U Q z U U W 2 0� w Z p p W J of i 7 w (n z F O H W w Lu w j w Z U p O w p w wa z a 0- a p ¢ � U) O O O U Lu z O o ai a a a d o w O (D Oo 0 0LLI LU l \ In ti 0� �\ a w off' a a 900 \ \ \ o w Z z w U w a (n J Q a p W x U H Q W (n z w U w 0- fn J Q a p W 2 U H Q w (n z w U W a m J Q a p W 2 U H Q W (n z w U W a m J Q a p W 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a m J Q a w 2 U H Q w (n z w U w a m J Q a p W 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a (n J Q a p w 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a m J Q a p w 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a m J Q a p w 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a m J Q a p w 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a m J Q a p w 2 U H Q W (n z w U w a m J Q a p W 2 U H Q W U) ui 0 J 0 Z U Q a z z z z Q J a w w z z z z z z z z z -a W N :N 3 M d d r+ w w +' C C M m N E z Q J d W w z Q J d w w z Q J a W w z Q J a W w z Q J a W w z Q J a w w z Q J a W w z Q J a w w z Q J a w w z Q J a w w z Q J a W w` cn U) U) U) U) U) ED m m (n m m U) 4) 5 Q o m � m ~ 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o E 0) d v C N l0 M F x (D M F x (D Cl) x m 0 N x m a N x m 0 N x m 0 (N x m 0 N x m 0 N x m 0 Q N x m p N N x m p _N N w N cn x m p N m oo U 3-0 C_ N O. ao O d � w Q Z Z w U D d U) m O i4 s w J U z 0- F O x o U Q as � 0 CO a p (A Z N . ;a eta a C C C Q W U O m W N 0 z� N m tow Q '++ O U (nrr n� w D ca H 0 w Q E U c� ca lL 2 `+2 5 `� (}n 4u w c- U Z a`u mw a)} m>Q xa Dp wd ?Y rnQ EY NQ US0 mY -4a �� �2 W �2 �c~n '2w Q- in �� - Q a1 roa N> a)w C p z .T (..) a7 O N -,Q N W F� mZ 0) Q cn- a) W �a O m UD 0-0 OO dz m0 dJ a)Q> 7> a(n a)p 7 W aof dX 7D am aQ OJ ofm wY ()Q m0 a)J ULL a)p UI.L >.Q W-1 a)Q and U) m U-) cn CO OD L (O M (D 0) Cl) (D w w Z w w p 0 W w W w D x p a U 0 c� a Q a m a l a C3 a LL Q (..) Ir 0- 19 �17 /� Z a VI 'EIWV9 El"I N � h11-11ZSNOdSEIN 77997 CNV SVNIMVNC 3S3H1 NI GlMi3C ONV SNOISNEIWIC 11V iO�Nl A77n=G�7o ignw N9 �Hi NOIQN:lHI 'S�NlrntNC :19:IHI JO �INV:IINJ -T-T7N:ino No hovNnoo�/ :iHi and �11719t'17 hNV V 01 alglINn EINV 939h01dWEI V '9NgNMO 911 "ONI 'N9ISEC NNVWHV 0-17N011ijo7 ,Npj� �IHT 3WU hNV No �iNnionNiG SIHI jO NOuonNIGNOD ;JHl �NiNnc �isjNv hvw i%,Hi giine mri ZC' 13 IV-10 hN-/ ��ONd 911 "ON1 N9I9alj NNV�4HV 9:10V�J:JN q;iH, d- N.a,m. -NV -qmHo-n- H, aHi inChlirn Na>71NEICNn aG ION c -InaHs SNVI� agElHI kC�� NCllorNISNoo CNV GNBSNII�N3 0 SlozlilHONV ION 9NV gil'oNl NIDIS3C NNVWHV SOCN00 9ciallHc4 NOlionZ419NO:Z) gc4c�Hal G0Z4 Z40=1 SD . ..... .. ISO] ms 11, jv�u LU 3: ID LU w Z 6 z M. ARM* z iI L" LU a o z 6 w z d) . w ff Q lul of 9 Q J: al OI r Hw 11 w w T, -0 WZ no: WT tt OHo T Z6 w 0 < 2 LU w ci z x 0 F7 Z- �OQ-W, Ez 'A a 1: 1w, CZ, W, 1, .1 C, 0 13 al I 'Y INO ., Z>, - 'n T 01 0 QOrw z 0 5 z Z, w w 6 w ty Lu cl < x z L LL om, LL ww —. T W. qu 8 W,C) OU'D (3 >3dr T Y: O G> 04 1 lu -1 w lu (Y- z /. �4 �/ GOCNOO 9c4<=llHci NOU:Dm�419NO:D Sc4c4lHc4 GOZ�4 NOS CIE191AEIZS 9ILZ9 CV T, 0 Lu m ly 3: 0. ") Lu z -4 > Z LLI . iI . (Y E: 6 z I . '�lll �H� N I �IFTIGISNO.S�N 2wnqqv CNV S�NIMVNC 393H1 NI 5117130 ONV 13NO113NE1140 III I0EId9NI J 77n3awlo 1?nw Nacling 3H1 NC=eN3H1 'S' NIMVNC 3G3HI do 11N;UNI -T-Tv?1G/o No -iovNnoov ;ihi zJoj A11719Y17 ANV v ol alal/N i'lliv _,,,,n EiNv 3�A �oi�wa �,qNgNmo 311 "ONI'NO19Ea NNVWHV'0-lVNOlI AHI AWli �NV No Ei�nionNiG GlHi 30 NOii,.,)nNiGN0o' AHi .)Nlan:l EiGINV w 1%'Hl sims mvi 2A 13 IV-10 AN-/ �40Nj f SNaNMO 'SN3O33C S11 'ONl NVISE10 NN �V 11 �4H S�JVJ�JN N- . SIHI -N- --H--n- .,, -I-NO-S N-11-.Ni�NOO .......... ZHI incHin Nzl>lllNn :IG ION c-TnOHS GN��7� :IG:IHI WC�� NOUOrNISNOO CNV N 13NBSNIVN3 0 IOEIIIHOWI ION 9NV P S�GNMO 'S�a0l��O 911 'ONI NVI13EIC NNVWHV ----.A 0 w -A w w ff N iI LU ci 17 LU z LU , W}z a Z lO�pW7 T 7 Owe zOOJW�U� E 9W ttOttONLU 7: YI: 3 Q iy LLI W7 ww. "W) 7 3 E a, z zwwoq, z 01 7 Ei m n P w iy Lu iy 7 W 0 P. jo " il� '0 , � LIL, a L-u w - > x 4 > 01 -710 jL (Y � W , M . 0 1 . w , Oz > 00 [u p3 8 (K Q O zw as LLI Oa /����jj �F� M FLI I� �N W / Y�O�'NJIS�QNNdI�H�''nc1r1c1t1c� '3W793H1a03.11�1ZSNOdS3a3Wf1SS7CNVSVNlm7a4 3S3H1 C 5917130 ONI V:IINJ 3WIO T7 lo3dSNl A7of /:i7o OI a719t'19 NV '3VHi 01 a3H1 's�Nlm7aa 013 I V 9NgNM 1w ��7a3no ao hC7a ICEC 3H1 and urn97n hN7 ld3OO7 O1 3107Nf1 3a7 S33hO�dW3 e'Sa3NRl0 Sa3O1330 911 "ONI 'N91S30 NN7WH7 '0T7NOI11OO7 "a31jV3a3H1 3WI1 hNV a0 3iNnioIla1S SIHI jO NOuonNIGNOo 3Hl ' NIafIO 3SIaV hVW 1VH1 S11f1S m7l NO SWIVI0 hN7 WOa3 S33hO�dW3 8'Sb3NmO'Sa3OH3C S11 "ONI N9133O NN7WH7 S3S73�3a N7�d SIHl 30 a3O,l(19 -NV a3S7Hoafld 3H1 "�VNOISS33Oad NCIloflalSNOO 7 30 3CN71SI997 3H1 1f10Hllm N3�I71a3ONn 39 ION OIIIOHS SN7ld 3S3H1 WCa3 N011orNISNOo ON7 SJ33NI'JN3 a0 S1o311HOaV ION 3a7 S33hO�dW3 8 Sa3NRl0 Sa3o1330 Sll '"oNl N=JIS3C NNVWH7 sOQl�l00 sddlHd NOU:DmilSNOo sddi�- c=l goy 4i I SD- L l' ISO] ms } m } m W Y A = ff U W 4 W N J z W O w jj Z W LL 0. o Q _ N Q z O -� F LU 3 w�wuR a allo°°° " V owzmaoz O LL W- t2 O 1L 3�rOW� O 11�11 IL N lfl °oLL� LU Wz To oluomz U6-'z �R' w aaoa> �.U^� v/ o'o�oo ZauMU ° a m w J Iq LU U a m �m�lry m-I LU Q w U � p J (K Ill � o o m � W o O N � = Z ll.l UJ > 1-3 a U z z w U Z o � *�4� Z N u O z 4 0 X Xfu z o �7 Q cq l U0.pp6��u O un F w lU (3 z O Olu U Z p O O 7 Z Z) )O O z Z W IL pcT��'z� X L Q Q OHO O� U -4 IL tuzq X Yfzz )L N 4 q �N aU u > v iff D � l'i � F N Q ) W O o° w Z Z N r w R O °Wpmw z� mw J J N Z ~ 2 0. Z. a° d Z O i z w O O zx: N z N O LU W W U W a Z° o W° �W-��,�wWa,�a�N N W W a p W Z _Z Q O U W J Z O z LL z N O N �a°wo�o4000W� � o°oZo 4 N � u N d W� ��= pO z W m,- m QQQOQ�Z.}Z�W��VOp0�0 Z N� Jcga� WZ W a=NwNw ,,mJF�� zNwO�w���8,=z��tZ3w = a a �' a W a 0 r U w 0- 07MO w a � w U LU g z r~ w= Y z N 4 U °W LL w 0 0 0 m N Z W c0 w N N r a Z l7 N 4 O Z O W~ W W p�70pOwwuLw�z�W� °FFUat W (�N~FQULLUKRON }Nza a 0 u o m O a z yQzo w �?? U - Z W �1ZN o°uo W m W ~ N tllm m�w zo°z� auN�LL LLammw Uz ai zm W W R 2 J z F Z LL 3 a � Oa �7z� ZWW4a �oolZ W z LL Z q wO-0 io=am ?aaU'm u �17 �17 /� Z a VI < 'EIWV9 EIHI N � A11-11ZSNOdSEIN 77997 CNV SVNIMVNC 3S3H1 NI GlMi3O ONV �NOI�NEIWIC 11V iO�Nl A77n=G�7O ignw N9 �Hi NO-ONZHI 'S9NlrntNC :19:1H1 JO �INV:IINJ -T-T7N:ino No AovNnoo�/ :iHi and �11719t'17 hNV V 01 a191INn EINV 9�9�01�WEI V'9N9NMC'9N�O1=HC 911 'ONI'N�I�EC NNVWHV'0-1VNO1I1j0V ,Npjj �IHT 3W11 ANV No �iNnionNiG SIHI jO N0uonN1GNOD;JH1 9NlNnc �isjNv AVW i%,Hi giine mri NO 13 IV-10 hN-/ ��ONd 13NaN(n0'SNE1OHC 911 'ON1 N9I3EIIJ NNV�4HV 9:10V�J:JN q;iH, �- N.a,m. -NV -qmHoNn-.H, �O �,H� �nollrl �1. �oN clnoH� ... 1, a�aH� 1��l NCUolll��Ioo CNV SJ..NI�IN3 NO 5I0E1IHONV ION 9NV gil'ONI NIDIS3C NNVW V SOCN00 gciallHc4 NOlionZ419NO:Z) . .. ..... .. SD- ISO] aus 1 11 0 LU ff 3: 0 11) ID LU w Z III IL 0. I Nk, kL\ 6 U I ok/O z --I v (L zw z 'n )2 . z 166 414u) Lu LLI.qw ,q Z. v w 0,),D (LOND 0 ,Z7water ',4 MD 'D ',3 3,: Cw E 0 00 ,u W, zu 7, 'u, -0 Z. ,y :0z .0 0 L 0 w �- w IOU Tu z z C3 I z w 13 z 3 LU 0 a '-.0 L-u Ww z vu 0" ff th � 4 q% 8,.0 0 0 LU 'D �i 'Aa 4, 30 ;z LU Up- rn7 `OK -W ff w pa 6 z Z� ,u T p - -,, 9 �7 0 Z U) :72 'W' z f:: , Lu 0 3 ID 0 Z- -,m �Z -N '10 LU 0 0 0 4) 00 0 0 Lu q Lu w - 1: � - 2,,,) , 'w 4 Z, 13.1 w Z W-191 W"1z w <-,LU QI w z � 0 z �ca 10-R > LU LU In 0 -1 LVU 2 J 6 z LU z v Lu 7, (L it 0 Ul LU V. 'n. LU LU U- 0A 6 5 0 w z (L 0 V Lu LU z 7: 6 Z (j 110, 07 ED uj X x k — ------------------------ ------ \ -- ----------------------- ------------------ ---------- V --------------- ---- -- 1111?-1c %L-,11 w > LLJ 0 - () it LU C3 V 0 1-10 LH (L ------- (L G,1r1,?1L 11 w I j z 0 LL, io Q LU 13)i LU d) LU x ' z 0." tu -4 z z z oQ x 0 Lu 0 LL- 'NdW �9 LL 6 n 6 -A -A x 7 gjr-L,,G/L 11 m z (3 : C.0 z (3 z x z 0 0 w Z 6 It x Z� Q LU LUz X X QO > A �z NO, O WOMEN, rMISMIN -------------------- ------------------- - ------------- LU —a 6, Lu 'Y. w IS Z Z LU ul (n Lu 'D Lu 0- 1; 7 0 LU L 0 LL 71 LL S, 13,Jr1,.S1L It 0 Lu 'D ICEc ---------- ------ J-17 -------- ------------------------- aN LU cj 'D nova N 2� ci LU > L" tI 9NIOV.4S ci Z LU 6 - ---------------------------------- li LU LLiO ID Z LU -A > IL A LU (3 -A Z 7 Q X tu z ow Q 0 (L z ]A X w Q) (L ID w -Z LUro pQaw Z6 6 z (b it X X U) 'D ---------------------------------------- -M Lu jr, 7q, —[I J OA rd, C�l A) ------------------------------------------------ 6 m 6 LU 0Z Z 7 (j z LLI 0 13 0 (3 z V D D (3 — - 0 u U-1 - 6- ail Z 10 x x x X X LU LH uj 0 - ------ ------- - --- LU LU Lu pLL 0- (� LL, -6 0 4 .4 D LU o- (3 )- 0 0 LU 4) LU (j .4 Z 0 (3 (Y Q w z )t �-=) d) LU In LU Lu F A Lu ci -, v 7 L�0Q�A - t-- w I -3 w z cj IL � �i M -1 Z Q q LU -1 X @ 0— F- z (-) z Lu il LU X: I" LU Z rNJp :z Lu z au) =3 () Z - w () - o 6 0w O C� X 07 LLI n, Gibson Traffic Consultants nc. Introduction The Hickory Trail Estates development will consist of 120 continuing care retirement community (CCRC) units and 55 single-family residences. The development is located south of Scott Boulevard and west of N I" Avenue. The development will construct a connection through the development that will connect Scott Boulevard to N 1 St Avenue through Hickory Trail. The development will be constructed and fully occupied by 2025. Methodology The trip generation for the Hickory Trail Estates and the Oaknoll East Retirement Community is calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10`h Edition (2017). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement community (CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used. The intersection of N 1 St Avenue at Scott Boulevard is not being analyzed as part of this report as it is planned to be upgraded with a City project to a roundabout. The following intersections are being analyzed as part of this report: 1. N 1 St Avenue at Hickory Trail — Two-way Stop Controlled 2. Oaknoll East/Site Access at Scott Blvd — Two-way Stop Controlled The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2025; therefore, the year 2025 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2025 baseline conditions, and 2025 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak -hours. Existing counts were collected by AXIOM, on Thursday, January 7, 2021 for the AM and Tuesday, January 12, 2021 for the PM at the intersection of N 1 St Avenue at Hickory Trail. Traffic volumes are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the traffic volumes have been increased by a 3 5 % during the AM peak -hour and 3 0% during the PM peak -hour. This was determined based on non-COVID-19 counts at the intersection of N Pt Avenue at Scott Boulevard and comparing link volumes between the intersections. The 2025 baseline turning movements were calculated by applying an annually compounding growth rate of 1 % to the normalized existing turning volumes. The 1 % growth rate is based on conversations with Iowa City staff. The 2025 future with development turning movements have been calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2025 baseline turning movements. 2813 Rockefeller Avenue - Suite B - Everett WA, 98201 Tel: 425-339-8266 - Fax: 425-258-2922 - E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis The peak -hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the Synchro 10 software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over -capacity conditions. The level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1. The level of service at two-way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level of service values. Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections Level of 1 Service Expected Delay Intersection Control Delay Seconds per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Little/No Delay <10 <10 B Short Delays > 10 and < 15 > 10 and <20 C Average Delays > 15 and <25 >20 and <3 5 D Long Delays >25 and <3 5 >3 5 and <5 5 E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS C/D and the significance of impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case -by -case basis. 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 61h Edition. LOS A: Free -flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 info( gibsontraffic.com 2 GTC #21-005 v Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip generation calculations for the Hickory Trail Estates are based on national statistics contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, loth Edition (2017). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement community (CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used. There are total of 120 CCRC units and 55 single-family residences. The Hickory Trail Estates is anticipated to generate 808 new daily trips, 58 new AM peak -hour trips and 74 new PM peak -hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Average Daily Trips AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Uses Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Generation 2.40 Trips per Unit 0.14 Trips per Unit 0.16 Trips per Unit LUC 255, Rate Splits 50% 50% 100% 65% 35% 100% 39% 61% 100 CCRC 120 Units % Trips 144 144 288 11 6 17 7 12 19 LUC 210, Generation 9.44 Trips per Unit 0.75 Trips per Unit 0.99 Trips per Unit Single Rate Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100 Family Dwelling, % Trips 260 260 520 10 31 41 35 20 55 55 Units TOTAL 404 404 808 21 37 58 42 32 74 The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. The Oaknoll East development on the north side of Scott Boulevard is not occupied so the trip generation was estimated for the access opposite the proposed site access by using LUC 255 for 56 units. This generated 8 AM peak -hour trips (5 Inbound/3 Outbound) and 9 PM peak -hour trips (4 Inbound/5 Outbound). These trips were distributed on Scott Boulevard based on the roadway traffic split of 55% to/from the west and 45% to/from the east. Trip distribution and traffic assignments for the development are based on the existing turning movement counts and the splits between Scott Boulevard and N 1 St Avenue. It is anticipated that 45% of the development traffic would travel to and from the west on Scott Boulevard and 15% to and from the east of N 1 St Avenue on Scott Boulevard. The remaining 40% would travel to and from the south on N 1 St Avenue from Hickory Trail. The development trips are included in the turning movement sheets for the AM and PM peak -hours. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 info( gibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #21-005 v Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis Level of Service Analysis The existing channelization at the study intersections as well as the existing peak -hour factors were utilized in determining the level of service analysis. The turning movements are included in the attachments. The level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2025 baseline, and 2025 future with development conditions is summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Time period Normalized Existing Conditions 2025 Baseline Conditions 2025 Future with Development Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1. N 1 St Avenue at AM D 25.4 sec D 26.4 sec D 29.3 sec PM C 18.5 sec C 19.5 sec C 21.3 sec Hickory Trail 1. Oaknoll East/Site Access at AM C 18.6 sec C 20.3 sec D 33.9 sec PM C 20.1 sec C 22.0 sec D 34.1 sec Scott Boulevard The study intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better in the normalized existing, 2025 baseline and 2025 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak -hours. Collision Data Collision Data was compiled for the years 2018 through 2020 from the Iowa DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool for the intersection of N 1 St Avenue at Hickory Trail and along Scott Boulevard in the vicinity of the Site access. There were two collisions (one rear -end and one sideswipe) at the intersection of N 1 St Avenue and Hickory Trail. The collisions resulted in property damage and possible injury. In the approximate location of the access to Scott Boulevard there was one rear -end collision that resulted in a suspected minor injury. At both locations there was no collision trend or significant collision history associated with the geometry of the road network. The detailed crash reports are included in the attachments. Channelization Warrant Channelization analysis was performed determine if left -turn channelization is warranted on Scott Boulevard. The left -turn channelization requirements at the intersection have been evaluated using the WSDOT Design Manual. The left -turn channelization has been evaluated using Exhibit 1310- 7a Left -Turn Storage Guidelines: Two -Lane Unsignalized. The analysis shows that the small number of left -turns does not reach the percentage threshold for requiring a dedicated pocket. It should be noted that there is sufficient roadway width to restripe the roadway to provide aleft-turn pocket if it becomes warranted in the future. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 info( gibsontraffMic.com 4 GTC #21-005 v Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis Attachments Trip Generation A-1 to A-10 Counts B-1 to B-3 Turning Movements C-1 to C-6 Level of Service Calculations D-1 to D-12 Collision Data E-1 to E-2 Channelization Warrant F-1 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 info( gibsontraffMic.com 5 GTC #21-005 v a O m `WO m L V Q L A-1 I m 3: A- C a w L O m 0) a 5 a m a� a� 3: A- Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 AM Peak -Hour ° /o New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 1 % 8.07 0.21 0.36 0.58 2 % 16.14 0.42 0.73 1.15 3% 24.22 0.63 1.09 1.73 4% 32.29 0.84 1.46 2.30 5°/ 40.36 1.06 1.82 2.88 6% 48.43 1.27 2.18 3.45 7% 56.50 1.48 2.55 4.03 8% 64.58 1.69 2.91 4.60 9% 72.65 1.90 3.28 5.18 100/ 80.72 2.11 3.64 5.75 11 % 88.79 2.32 4.00 6.33 12% 96.86 2.53 4.37 6.90 13% 104.94 2.74 4.73 7.48 14% 113.01 2.95 5.10 8.05 150/ 121.08 3.17 5.46 8.63 16% 129.15 3.38 5.82 9.20 17% 137.22 3.59 6.19 9.78 18% 145.30 3.80 6.55 10.35 19% 153.37 4.01 6.92 10.93 200/ 161.44 4.22 7.28 11.50 21 % 169.51 4.43 7.64 12.08 22% 177.58 4.64 8.01 12.65 23% 185.66 4.85 8.37 13.23 24% 193.73 5.06 8.74 13.80 25°/ 201.80 5.28 9.10 14.38 26% 209.87 5.49 9.46 14.95 27% 217.94 5.70 9.83 15.53 28% 226.02 5.91 10.19 16.10 29% 234.09 6.12 10.56 16.68 300/ 242.16 6.33 10.92 17.25 31 % 250.23 6.54 11.28 17.83 32% 258.30 6.75 11.65 18.40 33% 266.38 6.96 12.01 18.98 34% 274.45 7.17 12.38 19.55 35°/ 282.52 7.39 12.74 20.13 36% 290.59 7.60 13.10 20.70 37% 298.66 7.81 13.47 21.28 38% 306.74 8.02 13.83 21.85 39% 314.81 8.23 14.20 22.43 40% 322.88 8.44 14.56 23.00 41 % 330.95 8.65 14.92 23.58 42% 339.02 8.86 15.29 24.15 43% 347.10 9.07 15.65 24.73 44% 355.17 9.28 16.02 25.30 45°/ 363.24 9.50 16.38 25.88 46% 371.31 9.71 16.74 26.45 47% 379.38 9.92 17.11 27.03 48% 387.46 10.13 17.47 27.60 49% 395.53 10.34 17.84 28.18 50°/ 403.60 10.55 18.20 28.75 /o P° New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total /O 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 51 % 411.67 10.76 18.56 29.33 52% 419.74 10.97 18.93 29.90 53% 427.82 11.18 19.29 30.48 54% 435.89 11.39 19.66 31.05 55°/ 443.96 11.61 20.02 31.63 56% 452.03 11.82 20.38 32.20 57% 460.10 12.03 20.75 32.78 58% 468.18 12.24 21.11 33.35 59% 476.25 12.45 21.48 33.93 60°/ 484.32 12.66 21.84 34.50 61 % 492.39 12.87 22.20 35.08 62% 500.46 13.08 22.57 35.65 63% 508.54 13.29 22.93 36.23 64% 516.61 13.50 23.30 36.80 65°/ 524.68 13.72 23.66 37.38 66% 532.75 13.93 24.02 37.95 67% 540.82 14.14 24.39 38.53 68% 548.90 14.35 24.75 39.10 69% 556.97 14.56 25.12 39.68 70°/ 565.04 14.77 25.48 40.25 71 % 573.11 14.98 25.84 40.83 72% 581.18 15.19 26.21 41.40 73% 589.26 15.40 26.57 41.98 74% 597.33 15.61 26.94 42.55 75°/ 605.40 15.83 27.30 43.13 76% 613.47 16.04 27.66 43.70 77% 621.54 16.25 28.03 44.28 78% 629.62 16.46 28.39 44.85 79% 637.69 16.67 28.76 45.43 80°/ 645.76 16.88 29.12 46.00 81 % 653.83 17.09 29.48 46.58 82% 661.90 17.30 29.85 47.15 83% 669.98 17.51 30.21 47.73 84% 678.05 17.72 30.58 48.30 85°/ 686.12 17.94 30.94 48.88 86% 694.19 18.15 31.30 49.45 87% 702.26 18.36 31.67 50.03 88% 710.34 18.57 32.03 50.60 89% 718.41 18.78 32.40 51.18 90°/ 726.48 18.99 32.76 51.75 91 % 734.55 19.20 33.12 52.33 92% 742.62 19.41 33.49 52.90 93% 750.70 19.62 33.85 53.48 94% 758.77 19.83 34.22 54.05 95°/ 766.84 20.05 34.58 54.63 96% 774.91 20.26 34.94 55.20 97% 782.98 20.47 35.31 55.78 98% 791.06 20.68 35.67 56.35 99% 799.13 20.89 36.04 56.93 100°/ 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 A-4 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 PM Peak -Hour ° /o New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 m 73.65 1 % 8.07 0.42 0.32 0.74 2% 16.14 0.84 0.64 1.47 3% 24.22 1.25 0.96 2.21 4% 32.29 1.67 1.27 2.95 50 40.36 2.09 1.59 3.68 6% 48.43 2.51 1.91 4.42 7% 56.50 2.93 2.23 5.16 8% 64.58 3.34 2.55 5.89 9% 72.65 3.76 2.87 6.63 10°/ 80.72 4.18 3.19 7.37 11 % 88.79 4.60 3.50 8.10 12% 96.86 5.01 3.82 8.84 13% 104.94 5.43 4.14 9.57 14% 113.01 5.85 4.46 10.31 150/ 121.08 6.27 4.78 11.05 16% 129.15 6.69 5.10 11.78 17% 137.22 7.10 5.42 12.52 18% 145.30 7.52 5.73 13.26 19% 153.37 7.94 6.05 13.99 20°/ 161.44 8.36 6.37 14.73 21 % 169.51 8.78 6.69 15.47 22% 177.58 9.19 7.01 16.20 23% 185.66 9.61 7.33 16.94 24% 193.73 10.03 7.65 17.68 25°/ 201.80 10.45 7.97 18.41 26% 209.87 10.87 8.28 19.15 27% 217.94 11.28 8.60 19.89 28% 226.02 11.70 8.92 20.62 29% 234.09 12.12 9.24 21.36 30% 242.16 12.54 9.56 22.10 31 % 250.23 12.95 9.88 22.83 32% 258.30 13.37 10.20 23.57 33% 266.38 13.79 10.51 24.30 34% 274.45 14.21 10.83 25.04 35% 282.52 14.63 11.15 25.78 36% 290.59 15.04 11.47 26.51 37% 298.66 15.46 11.79 27.25 38% 306.74 15.88 12.11 27.99 39% 314.81 16.30 12.43 28.72 400/ 322.88 16.72 12.74 29.46 41 % 330.95 17.13 13.06 30.20 42% 339.02 17.55 13.38 30.93 43% 347.10 17.97 13.70 31.67 44% 355.17 18.39 14.02 32.41 45°/ 363.24 18.81 14.34 33.14 46% 371.31 19.22 14.66 33.88 47% 379.38 19.64 14.97 34.62 48% 387.46 20.06 15.29 35.35 49% 1 395.53 20.48 15.61 36.09 500/ 403.60 20.90 15.93 36.83 ° /° New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65 51 % 411.67 21.31 16.25 37.56 52% 419.74 21.73 16.57 38.30 53% 427.82 22.15 16.89 39.03 54% 435.89 22.57 17.20 39.77 55°/ 443.96 22.98 17.52 40.51 56% 452.03 23.40 17.84 41.24 57% 460.10 23.82 18.16 41.98 58% 468.18 24.24 18.48 42.72 59% 476.25 24.66 18.80 43.45 60°/ 484.32 25.07 19.12 44.19 61 % 492.39 25.49 19.43 44.93 62% 500.46 25.91 19.75 45.66 63% 508.54 26.33 20.07 46.40 64% 516.61 26.75 20.39 47.14 65°/ 524.68 27.16 20.71 47.87 66% 532.75 27.58 21.03 48.61 67% 540.82 28.00 21.35 49.35 68% 548.90 28.42 21.66 50.08 69% 556.97 28.84 21.98 50.82 70°/ 565.04 29.25 22.30 51.56 71 % 573.11 29.67 22.62 52.29 72% 581.18 30.09 22.94 53.03 73% 589.26 30.51 23.26 53.76 74% 597.33 30.92 23.58 54.50 75°/ 605.40 31.34 23.90 55.24 76% 613.47 31.76 24.21 55.97 77% 621.54 32.18 24.53 56.71 78% 629.62 32.60 24.85 57.45 79% 637.69 33.01 25.17 58.18 80°/ 645.76 33.43 25.49 58.92 81 % 653.83 33.85 25.81 59.66 82% 661.90 34.27 26.13 60.39 83% 669.98 34.69 26.44 61.13 84% 678.05 35.10 26.76 61.87 85°/ 686.12 35.52 27.08 62.60 86% 694.19 35.94 27.40 63.34 87% 702.26 36.36 27.72 64.08 88% 710.34 36.78 28.04 64.81 89% 718.41 37.19 28.36 65.55 900/ 726.48 37.61 28.67 66.29 91 % 734.55 38.03 28.99 67.02 92% 742.62 38.45 29.31 67.76 93% 750.70 38.86 29.63 68.49 94% 758.77 39.28 29.95 69.23 95°/ 766.84 39.70 30.27 69.97 96% 774.91 40.12 30.59 70.70 97% 782.98 40.54 30.90 71.44 98% 791.06 40.95 31.22 72.18 99% 1 799.13 41.37 31.54 72.91 100°/ 807.20 41.79 31.86_1 73.65 A-5 U) 70 O O L cn O w _o m N 4-0 U = w o � U = O c6 0 A-6 U) 70 0 O ^U) ( 70 L U) C LU o (n 1 N E ~ � 2 4-0 U) o � U � W = O :Iw u cn m A� AW+ W 3 A� W 0 O .v L H L cn C� a 0 L 0 m a m as as 3: 3: A-7 U) 70 0 0 U) 3: (2) 70 L c� cn o a? L U O cn N E ~ � 2 4-0 U) o � U � W = O :Iw u 2 a w m as a� as 0 O .v i H i v ■OEM% Q 0 L O m 4) a. m a L m 0 4) C. G a. A-8 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods AM Peak -Hour PTADT w New AM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 4.40 5.10 2.74 7.84 1 % 1.34 0.05 0.03 0.08 2% 2.69 0.10 0.05 0.16 3% 4.03 0.15 0.08 0.24 4% 5.38 0.20 0.11 0.31 5°/ 6.72 0.26 0.14 0.39 6% 8.06 0.31 0.16 0.47 7% 9.41 0.36 0.19 0.55 8% 10.75 0.41 0.22 0.63 9% 12.10 0.46 0.25 0.71 10°/ 13.44 0.51 0.27 0.78 11 % 14.78 0.56 0.30 0.86 12% 16.13 0.61 0.33 0.94 13% 17.47 0.66 0.36 1.02 14% 18.82 0.71 0.38 1.10 15°/ 20.16 0.77 0.41 1.18 16% 21.50 0.82 0.44 1.25 17% 22.85 0.87 0.47 1.33 18% 24.19 0.92 0.49 1.41 19% 25.54 0.97 0.52 1.49 20°/ 26.88 1.02 0.55 1.57 21 % 28.22 1.07 0.58 1.65 22% 29.57 1.12 0.60 1.72 23% 30.91 1.17 0.63 1.80 24% 32.26 1.22 0.66 1.88 25°/ 33.60 1.28 0.69 1.96 26% 34.94 1.33 0.71 2.04 27% 36.29 1.38 0.74 2.12 28% 37.63 1.43 0.77 2.20 29% 38.98 1.48 0.79 2.27 30°/ 40.32 1.53 0.82 2.35 31 % 41.66 1.58 0.85 2.43 32% 43.01 1.63 0.88 2.51 33% 44.35 1.68 0.90 2.59 34% 45.70 1.73 0.93 2.67 5°/ 3 47.04 1.79 0.96 2.74 36% 48.38 1.84 0.99 2.82 37% 49.73 1.89 1.01 2.90 38% 51.07 1.94 1.04 2.98 39% 52.42 1.99 1.07 3.06 40°/ 53.76 2.04 1.10 3.14 41 % 55.10 2.09 1.12 3.21 42% 56.45 2.14 1.15 3.29 43% 57.79 2.19 1.18 3.37 44% 59.14 2.24 1.21 3.45 450 60.48 2.30 1.23 3.53 46% 61.82 2.35 1.26 3.61 7% 63.17 2.40 1.29 3.68 64.51 2.45 1.32 3.769% L48% 65.86 2.50 1.34 3.840°/ 67.20 2.55 1.37 3.92 ° /° New ADT 1 New AM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84 51 % 68.54 2.60 1.40 4.00 52% 69.89 2.65 1.42 4.08 53% 71.23 2.70 1.45 4.16 54% 72.58 2.75 1.48 4.23 55°/ 73.92 2.81 1.51 4.31 56% 75.26 2.86 1.53 4.39 57% 76.61 2.91 1.56 4.47 58% 77.95 2.96 1.59 4.55 59% 79.30 3.01 1.62 4.63 60% 80.64 3.06 1.64 4.70 61 % 81.98 3.11 1.67 4.78 62 % 83.33 3.16 1.70 4.86 63% 84.67 3.21 1.73 4.94 64 % 86.02 3.26 1.75 5.02 65°/ 87.36 3.32 1.78 5.10 66% 88.70 3.37 1.81 5.17 67% 90.05 3.42 1.84 5.25 68% 91.39 3.47 1.86 5.33 69% 92.74 3.52 1.89 5.41 70°/ 94.08 3.57 1.92 5.49 71 % 95.42 3.62 1.95 5.57 72% 96.77 3.67 1.97 5.64 73% 98.11 3.72 2.00 5.72 74% 99.46 3.77 2.03 5.80 75°/ 100.80 3.83 2.06 5.88 76% 102.14 3.88 2.08 5.96 77% 103.49 3.93 2.11 6.04 78% 104.83 3.98 2.14 6.12 79% 106.18 4.03 2.16 6.19 80°/ 107.52 4.08 2.19 6.27 81 % 108.86 4.13 2.22 6.35 82% 110.21 4.18 2.25 6.43 83% 111.55 4.23 2.27 6.51 84% 112.90 4.28 2.30 6.59 85°/ 114.24 4.34 2.33 6.66 86% 115.58 4.39 2.36 6.74 87% 116.93 4.44 2.38 6.82 88% 118.27 4.49 2.41 6.90 89% 119.62 4.54 2.44 6.98 90°/ 120.96 4.59 2.47 7.06 91 % 122.30 4.64 2.49 7.13 92% 123.65 4.69 2.52 7.21 93% 124.99 4.74 2.55 7.29 94% 126.34 4.79 2.58 7.37 950 127.68 4.85 2.60 7.45 96% 129.02 4.90 2.63 7.53 97% 130.37 4.95 2.66 7.60 98% 131.71 5.00 2.69 7.68 99% 133.06 5.05 2.71 7.76 1000 134.40 5.10 2.7411 7.84 A-9 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods PM Peak -Hour ° /o New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 m 8.96 1 % 1.34 0.03 0.05 0.09 2% 2.69 0.07 0.11 0.18 3% 4.03 0.10 0.16 0.27 4% 5.38 0.14 0.22 0.36 50 6.72 0.17 0.27 0.45 6% 8.06 0.21 0.33 0.54 7% 9.41 0.24 0.38 0.63 8% 10.75 0.28 0.44 0.72 9% 12.10 0.31 0.49 0.81 10°/ 13.44 0.35 0.55 0.90 11 % 14.78 0.38 0.60 0.99 12% 16.13 0.42 0.66 1.08 13% 17.47 0.45 0.71 1.16 14% 18.82 0.49 0.77 1.25 150/ 20.16 0.52 0.82 1.34 16% 21.50 0.56 0.88 1.43 17% 22.85 0.59 0.93 1.52 18% 24.19 0.63 0.98 1.61 19% 25.54 0.66 1.04 1.70 200/ 26.88 0.70 1.09 1.79 21 % 28.22 0.73 1.15 1.88 22% 29.57 0.77 1.20 1.97 23% 30.91 0.80 1.26 2.06 24% 32.26 0.84 1.31 2.15 25°/ 33.60 0.87 1.37 2.24 26% 34.94 0.91 1.42 2.33 27% 36.29 0.94 1.48 2.42 28% 37.63 0.98 1.53 2.51 29% 38.98 1.01 1.59 2.60 300/ 40.32 1.05 1.64 2.69 31 % 41.66 1.08 1.70 2.78 32% 43.01 1.12 1.75 2.87 33% 44.35 1.15 1.81 2.96 34% 45.70 1.19 1.86 3.05 35°/ 47.04 1.22 1.91 3.14 36% 48.38 1.26 1.97 3.23 37% 49.73 1.29 2.02 3.32 38% 51.07 1.33 2.08 3.40 39% 52.42 1.36 2.13 3.49 400/ 53.76 1.40 2.19 3.58 41 % 55.10 1.43 2.24 3.67 42% 56.45 1.47 2.30 3.76 43% 57.79 1.50 2.35 3.85 44% 59.14 1.54 2.41 3.94 45°/ 60.48 1.57 2.46 4.03 46% 61.82 1.61 2.52 4.12 47% 63.17 1.64 2.57 4.21 48% 64.51 1.68 2.63 4.30 49% 65.86 1.71 2.68 4.39 50°/ 67.20 1.75 2.74 4.48 ° /° New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96 51 % 68.54 1.78 2.79 4.57 52% 1 69.89 1.81 2.84 4.66 53% 71.23 1.85 2.90 4.75 54 % 72.58 1.88 2.95 4.84 55°/ 73.92 1.92 3.01 4.93 56% 75.26 1.95 3.06 5.02 57% 76.61 1.99 3.12 5.11 58% 77.95 2.02 3.17 5.20 59% 79.30 2.06 3.23 5.29 60°/ 80.64 2.09 3.28 5.38 61 % 81.98 2.13 3.34 5.47 62% 83.33 2.16 3.39 5.56 63% 84.67 2.20 3.45 5.64 64% 86.02 2.23 3.50 5.73 65°/ 87.36 2.27 3.56 5.82 66% 88.70 2.30 3.61 5.91 67% 90.05 2.34 3.66 6.00 68% 91.39 2.37 3.72 6.nQ 69% 92.74 2.41 3.77 6.18 70°/ 94.08 2.44 3.83 6.27 71 % 95.42 2.48 3.88 6.36 72% 96.77 2.51 3.94 6.45 73 % 98.11 2.55 3.99 6.54 74% 99.46 2.58 4.05 6.63 75°/ 100.80 2.62 4.10 6.72 76 % 102.14 2.65 4.16 6.81 77% 103.49 2.69 4.21 6.90 78% 104.83 2.72 4.27 6.99 79% 106.18 2.76 4.32 7.08 80°/ 107.52 2.79 4.38 7.17 81 % 108.86 2.83 4.43 7.26 82% 110.21 2.86 4.49 7.35 83% 111.55 2.90 4.54 7.44 84% 112.90 2.93 4.59 7.53 85°/ 114.24 2.97 4.65 7.62 86% 115.58 3.00 4.70 7.71 87% 116.93 3.04 4.76 7.80 88% 118.27 3.07 4.81 7.88 89% 119.62 3.11 4.87 7.97 900/ 120.96 3.14 4.92 8.06 91 % 122.30 3.18 4.98 8.15 92% 123.65 3.21 5.03 8.24 93% 124.99 3.25 5.09 8.33 94% 126.34 3.28 5.14 8.42 95°/ 127.68 3.32 5.20 8.51 96% 129.02 3.35 5.25 8.60 97% 130.37 3.39 5.31 8.69 98% 131.71 3.42 5.36 8.78 99% 133.06 3.46 5.42 8.87 100°/ 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96 A-10 00 co LO I� Cl) Cfl N N O M 00 MCOI) Ln CD t2 cu t2 b F- F- O O O N � Y CD 2 a Lr) ti ( = a 00 N N N N N N Cl) a O (1) a) r 7 7 7 7 C C C C Q LC> > O > m 3 m M N O Ln Q O Q Ln Q Ln Q CO Q CO (n 0) = (n (A wm LO -IZ Z C Z Z W W Ln a � 00 00 O Cl) Cl) Q N d N O Y O d r O Ln O O r O 'OF T N r l0 rl n 01 O O to O 00 Ln 00 Kt 00 O w m r- rl m r` r` m � M r` lD w lD w rl m m cV Ln LL i 3 � Ln lD Ln Ln LL 3 Ln Ln Ln Ln lD lD lD CD Ln a a +.a c a = +.• � a = LIl (V 01 O a) O lD rn 00 O (V rl t O N rl l.p Ln rl Ln C H lD O rl to d1 M Ol rl rl rl rl rl rl rl O lD � (D lzl- cV Ln M lD m r. m w 0 Y rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl U O m 0)� a O O O O O O O O ri O O O O O O O O O O c J J fII CA O O O O o 0 0 0 0 fC H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c L � L Q E Q E 0 0 _V = LL _V = LL o rl rl cV rl rl rl O Ln o o rl o 0 0 0 o rl o o rl r s tw s as O O O O O O O O O rl rl O O O O O O rl rl 0 0 r J J 4-W m r` ri N w M 00 m � O W 00 M W M W r` M lD N r` r r 3 m 4 Ln lD r- lD m Ln m O 1p m r- m lD w 00 Ln r, Ln w N O Q N L N Q Ln L y E � E r-I 0 r-I 0 LL LA- Z rl rl N O W CV �� rl O fV 00 � W M rl r` r` W fV m t C rl rl f L 4A L CA R M W 00 Ln pl 00 W � O rn r- Ln r- cV ';t Ln ';t W M W M C J J L - O O O O O O O O O i N O O O O O O O O O O O O c LU i A W i Y O ~ O L ~ LL LL rl fV cV rl � rl N Rt 00 M It O CV fV M rl rl O � M O u t1A 4A O O N rl rl rl N o Ln O M O O N M (V M M M W M n J J N w O NO N cV C L r` O O Ln Ln cV M O � M W N � Ln r- O Ln -4 4 3 .� Ln 00 r 4 N r4 � L 4) O rl m cV 00 r, ri O O 00 w 00 r, C lD 't Ln Ln W W lD 00 00 lD lD � O r >Z a ZL c E N E Ln ri o r I O LL Li- Z 0 00 O O O 00 O Z O ri o ri o 0 o o o o ri o c +, ++ o o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4, a a a a a a a a a a a a m E O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln 3 m E O Ln M Ln 0 Ln Ln 0 Ln _O +� O r-I M Tr O r-I M R N ~ N _O Ln O M M ++ O Ln O Ln N ~ M X Q Izz I\ I\ I\ CO 00 00 DD O O O O O O O O a X Q M M M .4 .4 Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a O a o U U mm H T M LO UI) T N w N N M M N N U) Of W H (n Z co T CD M rI- O O 0') N CM LO OJ CO T T T 0 i W U J (B O L LO T r- O O N Q 00 O T O CO CA Q Cl) T T W J U_ O I- It CD CD M N i3 W E J r N r r CO CO CO C7 W J a1o.9 103L n• 2 44 Q� CD CD co N N LO T r r r T LO LO U-) T N LO O It M LO N N N CO CO N N CD N N r 0 N N IL T 0 0 0 0 0 Q LLJ> J N J T O O LL7 N O O r- o >> ❑ ❑ > O O > m (T O O L! ) M T f- o 0 o O J O \° W O U` \° J H D L LL 000 N� N N LO T C7 00 Q O O m LO O O T O T m Z �t CD It U` LO M CO OO OO O CO CO O O O T O O N o o (M Q0 N 00 00 T N LO O O (n Z N CD M O CO M O Z OL Q � Q W Z W 0 vi rl ) CD CD � W T O ti O O w r- 00 T CM o c m 00 0-)00 M 00 N C.D O Lo O W m O m LO M O M O W Q U) O 0N Cl 00 N if ) o 0 0 Z O LnF � Z O LO p T T T T M W O > V O W V O > M I..I.J r LL Z L ~ T T ram. 0 a O O T T O O N o o o o O fl- Z O LO 00 O O N O N CO Z CO Z 06 O O T O 0 0 T > y-+ _0 () rl T- z Q (Y > O O O T T N N c o O O N a O N o O Cl U LU J w Z)❑ J > ❑ Q °-' > (a W m 'T 00 00 � M N M o 0 0 > LU 00 J O M\ W O M O 2 2 O O LL O CD LO r- CD � M N CD N N Q O m N O ❑ N O O m Z CD O CD T N 0) 00 c o T T O 00 CD 00 (V LO 0) LO o 00Z O U O Z O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C)4-1 cn N O v E c E Z C O •— ,� U W 0 0 r M r M Ln in O N O Ln O Lo o 0 r E Qi D � � L Z L a J C�coQC) m �_Qz LL T T O O V O %� LO O o O `- O Lo D Z O LO O 0 0 0 +� N U~ O UN�� �U �=LL 0) Lo (2 N LO CD o W O W o > > > Q Q N T p N Z H 0 cn co r` o D U cn r O 0 CD r O T r r LO m Clr IDr N_N N N�NC7� E O C S= C C _ L o o Z o� Z o m CD > O Cl N O z 0 U a� a� a� a� O ❑ o E E E E m+=EEEE LL () o N O N U C U U U U Q Q Q Q Q Q a c U N +r > CU �C CO(D N y. L T O O T O L E E L i i to _� > y a) LL �1 � - G% 4 ry� o 0 m Q cnOOOOOOa r` I� ti 00 00 00 4c 0 = �, Q * o O o o E amQ 00it Intersection Peak Hour Location: 1 st Ave at Scott Blvd , GPS Coordinates: Date: 2018-09-06 Day of week: Thursday Weather: Analyst: NB Intersection Peak Hour 16:15 - 17:15 SouthBound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Vehicle Total 35 45 27 0 200 9 378 7 2 6 224 336 1269 Factor 0.51 0.62 1 0.48 0.00 10.93 0.56 0.92 0.881 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.92 0.97 �pproach Factor 0.55 0.92 T0.93 0.91 Im 1 N 1 st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3 Synchro ID: 1 Existing 290 553 263 Average Weekday 0 285 5 AM Peak Hour b N 1st Avenue 8 Year: 1 /7/21 0 a 0 38 30 T Data Source: AXIOM 6 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63 North 1 � 6 0 25 5 <�j N 1st Avenue 0 254 20 320 594 274 Normalized Existing (COVID- 392 747 355 19 Factor) 0 385 7 Average Weekday S� AM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue 11 0 a 0 51 Percent Change: 35.0% 41 T 8 Hickory Trail 821 Hickory Trail 85 North Based on balancing volumes 1 from the intersection of N 1st 8 0 34 Avenue at Scott Blvd. 7 N 1 st Avenue � 4 � 0 343 27 432 802 370 Future without Project 407 776 369 Average Weekday 0 400 7 AM Peak Hour S� N 1st Avenue 11 Year: 2025 0 a 0 53 Growth Rate = 1.0% 42 T Years of Growth = 4 8 Hickory Trail 853 Hickory Trail 88 North Total Growth = 1.0406 1 8 0 35 7 N 1st Avenue � 4 � 0 357 28 449 834 385 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday AM Peak Hour S� N 1st Avenue 0 8 a 0 0 0 T 23 Hickory Trail 23 Hickory Trail 0 North 0 15 0 0 15 <�j N 1st Avenue 7 Q 8 15 23 8 Future with Project 407 776 369 Average Weekday 0 400 7 AM Peak Hour S� N 1st Avenue 11 8 a 0 53 �1 42 T 31 Hickory Trail 876 Hickory Trail 88 North 1 23 0 35 22 � N 1st Avenue � 4 � 8 357 28 464 857 393 C-1 2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3 Synchro ID: 2 Existing 3 8 5 Average Weekday 2 0 1 AM Peak Hour t2 Oaknoll East 2 Year: 8/29/18 605 a 603 605 0 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,1141 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112 North 3 <�' 1 509 506 507 0 Site Access � 4 � 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Normalized Existing (COVID- 3 8 5 19 Factor) 2 0 1 Average Weekday S� AM Peak Hour Oaknoll East 2 605 a 603 605 Percent Change: 0.0% 0 T 1,1141 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112 North 3 <�' 1 509 506 507 0 Site Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future without Project 3 8 5 Average Weekday 2 0 1 AM Peak Hour S� Oaknoll East 2 Year: 2025 648 a 646 648 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 1,1941 Scott Blvd 1,197 Scott Blvd 1,192 North Total Growth = 1.0721 3 546 543 544 0 Site Access � 4 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 AM Peak Hour <21 Oaknoll East 0 17 a 0 3 3 T 27 Scott Blvd 35 Scott Blvd 8 North 0 10 0 5 10 Site Access � 4 � 17 13 35 22 Future with Project 3 8 5 Average Weekday 2 0 1 AM Peak Hour <�J Oaknoll East 2 665 a 646 651 3 T 1,221 Scott Blvd 1,232 Scott Blvd 1,200 North 3 556 543 549 16 Site Access � 4 � 17 0 5 13 35 22 C-2 3 N 1 st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3 Synchro ID: 3 Existing 11 121 110 Average Weekday 1 5 5 AM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue 58 Year: 8/29/18 603 a 243 303 2 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,1091 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467 North 7 506 157 164 342 <�, N 1 st Avenue 359 45 2 349 755 1 406 Normalized Existing (COVID- 11 121 110 19 Factor) 1 5 5 Average Weekday S� AM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue 58 603 a 243 303 Percent Change: 0.0% 2 T 1,1091 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467 North 7 506 157 164 342 <�, N 1 st Avenue � 4 � 359 45 2 349 755 406 Future without Project 11 129 118 Average Weekday 1 5 5 AM Peak Hour S� N 1st Avenue 62 Year: 2025 647 a 261 325 Growth Rate = 1.0% 2 T Years of Growth = 7 1,1901 Scott Blvd 1,314 Scott Blvd 500 North Total Growth = 1.0721 8 543 168 175 367 N 1 st Avenue � Q <�l 385 48 2 374 809 435 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 AM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue 0 3 a 3 3 0 T 8 Scott Blvd ® Scott Blvd 8 North 0 5 5 5 0 N 1st Avenue 0 0 0 Future with Project 11 129 118 Average Weekday 1 5 5 AM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue 62 650 a 264 328 2 T 1,1981 Scott Blvd 1,322 Scott Blvd 508 North 8 548 173 180 367 N 1 st Avenue r�> 4 <�l 385 48 2 374 809 435 C-3 1 N 1 st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3 Synchro ID: 1 Existing 302 594 292 Average Weekday 0 289 13 PM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue 5 Year: 1 /12/21 1 a 0 24 19 T Data Source: AXIOM 2 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61 North 0 1 0 37 1 N 1st Avenue 1 287 24 309 621 312 Normalized Existing (COVID- 393 772 380 19 Factor) 0 376 17 Average Weekday S� PM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue 7 1 a 0 31 Percent Change: 30.0% 25 T 3 Hickory Trail 831 Hickory Trail 79 North Based on balancing volumes 0 from the intersection of N 1st 1 0 48 Avenue at Scott Blvd. 1 N 1 st Avenue � 4 � 1 373 31 402 807 406 Future without Project 409 804 395 Average Weekday 0 391 18 PM Peak Hour S� N 1st Avenue 7 Year: 2025 1 a 0 33 Growth Rate = 1.0% e2 26 1' Years of Growth = 4 2 Hickory Trail 864 Hickory Trail 83 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 1 0 50 1 S� N 1st Avenue � 4 � 1 388 32 418 839 421 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 PM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue 0 17 a 0 0 0 T 30 Hickory Trail 30 Hickory Trail 0 North 0 13 0 0 13 <�j N 1st Avenue � 4 � 17 13 30 17 Future with Project 409 804 395 Average Weekday 0 391 18 PM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue 7 18 a 0 33 26 T 32 Hickory Trail 894 Hickory Trail 83 North 0 14 0 50 14 � N 1st Avenue 18 388 32 431 869 1 438 C-4 2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3 Synchro ID: 2 Existing 5 9 4 Average Weekday 3 0 2 PM Peak Hour t2 Oaknoll East 2 Year: 9/6/18 608 a 605 607 0 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,1761 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175 North 2 568 566 568 0 Site Access � 4 � 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Normalized Existing (COVID- 5 9 4 19 Factor) 3 0 2 Average Weekday S� PM Peak Hour Oaknoll East 2 608 a 605 607 Percent Change: 0.0% 0 T 1,1761 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175 North 2 568 566 568 0 Site Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future without Project 5 9 4 Average Weekday 3 0 2 PM Peak Hour S� Oaknoll East 2 Year: 2025 652 a 649 651 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 1,261 Scott Blvd 1,265 Scott Blvd 1,260 North Total Growth = 1.0721 2 609 607 609 0 Site Access � 4 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 PM Peak Hour <21 Oaknoll East 0 14 a 0 6 6 T 33 Scott Blvd 44 Scott Blvd 11 North 0 19 0 5 19 Site Access � 4 � 14 25 44 19 Future with Project 5 9 4 Average Weekday 3 0 2 PM Peak Hour <�, Oaknoll East 2 666 a 649 657 6 T 1,2941 Scott Blvd 1,309 Scott Blvd 1,271 North 2 628 607 614 19 Site Access � 4 � 14 0 5 25 44 19 C-5 3 N 1 st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3 Synchro ID: 3 Existing 107 129 F 22 Average Weekday 27 45 35 PM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue 9 Year: 9/6/18 605 a 200 209 0 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470 North 6 <�' 1 566 224 261 336 <�, N 1 st Avenue 378 7 2 381 768 387 Normalized Existing (COVID- 107 129 22 19 Factor) 27 45 35 Average Weekday t S� PM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue 9 605 a 200 209 Percent Change: 0.0% 0 T 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470 North 6 <�' 1 566 224 261 336 <�j N 1 st Avenue 378 7 2 381 768 387 Future without Project 115 139 24 Average Weekday 29 48 38 PM Peak Hour t S� N 1 st Avenue 10 Year: 2025 648 a 214 224 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 1,2541 Scott Blvd 1,360 Scott Blvd 504 North Total Growth = 1.0721 6 606 240 280 360 N 1 st Avenue 405 8 2 408 823 415 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 PM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue 0 6 a 6 6 0 T 11 Scott Blvd 11 Scott Blvd 11 North 0 5 5 5 0 N 1 st Avenue 0 0 0 Future with Project 115 139 24 Average Weekday 29 48 38 PM Peak Hour <�, N 1 st Avenue 10 654 a 220 230 0 T 1,2651 Scott Blvd 1,371 Scott Blvd 515 North 6 611 245 285 360 N 1 st Avenue � 4 � 405 8 2 408 823 415 C-6 Existing Conditions AM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 54 0 9 0 451 36 9 507 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 999 1012 507 999 994 469 507 0 0 487 0 0 Stage 1 525 525 - 469 469 - - - - - - - Stage 2 474 487 - 530 525 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 223 240 568 223 246 596 1063 - - 1081 - - Stage1 538 531 - 577 562 - - - - - - - Stage 2 573 552 - 534 531 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 218 237 568 217 243 596 1063 - - 1081 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 218 237 - 217 243 - - - - - - - Stage 1 538 525 - 577 562 - - - - - - - Stage 2 564 552 - 519 525 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 25.4 0 0.1 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1063 - - 473 239 1081 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.022 0.264 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 12.8 25.4 8.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1 0 - - GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions AM Page 1 D-1 Existing Conditions AM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ +T+ +T+ +T+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 569 0 0 678 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 680 0 0 569 0 0 1255 1255 569 1254 1254 679 Stage 1 - - - - - - 575 575 - 679 679 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 680 680 - 575 575 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 148 172 522 149 172 452 Stage - - - - - - 503 503 - 441 451 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 451 - 503 503 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 147 171 522 148 171 452 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 147 171 - 148 171 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 500 500 - 439 451 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 439 451 - 500 500 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 18.6 HCM LOS A C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 912 - - 1003 - - 268 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 - - - - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9 0 - 0 - - 18.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0 GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions AM Page 2 D-2 Existing Conditions PM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 27 0 8 1 410 34 19 413 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 884 897 413 881 880 427 413 0 0 444 0 0 Stage 1 451 451 - 429 429 - - - - - - - Stage 2 433 446 - 452 451 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 267 280 641 268 287 630 1151 - - 1121 - - Stage 1 590 573 - 606 586 - - - - - - - Stage 2 603 576 - 589 573 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 259 274 641 263 280 630 1151 - - 1121 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 259 274 - 263 280 - - - - - - - Stage 1 589 560 - 605 585 - - - - - - - Stage 2 595 575 - 575 560 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 18.5 0 0.4 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1151 - - 641 301 1121 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.117 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - 10.6 18.5 8.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - - GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions PM Page 1 D - 3 Existing Conditions PM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ +T+ +T+ +T+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 615 0 0 658 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 660 0 0 615 0 0 1280 1279 615 1278 1278 659 Stage 1 - - - - - - 619 619 - 659 659 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 661 660 - 619 619 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 143 166 491 143 166 464 Stage 1 - - - - - - 476 480 - 453 461 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 452 460 - 476 480 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 142 166 491 143 166 464 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 142 166 - 143 166 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 475 479 - 452 461 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 449 460 - 475 479 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 20.1 HCM LOS A C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 928 - - 965 - - 244 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 - - - - - 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.9 0 - 0 - - 20.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions PM Page 2 D-4 Baseline Conditions AM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 55 0 14 0 470 37 9 526 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1040 1051 526 1038 1033 489 526 0 0 507 0 0 Stage 1 544 544 - 489 489 - - - - - - - Stage 2 496 507 - 549 544 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 228 554 210 233 581 1046 - - 1063 - - Stage1 525 521 - 562 551 - - - - - - - Stage 2 558 541 - 522 521 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 202 225 554 205 230 581 1046 - - 1063 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 202 225 - 205 230 - - - - - - - Stage 1 525 515 - 562 551 - - - - - - - Stage 2 544 541 - 507 515 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 26.4 0 0.1 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1046 - - 455 237 1063 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.023 0.294 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 13.1 26.4 8.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1.2 0 - - GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions AM Page 1 D-5 Baseline Conditions AM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ +T+ +T+ +T+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 610 0 0 726 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 610 0 0 1344 1344 610 1343 1343 727 Stage 1 - - - - - - 616 616 - 727 727 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 728 728 - 616 616 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 129 152 494 129 152 424 Stage 1 - - - - - - 478 482 - 415 429 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 415 429 - 478 482 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 128 151 494 128 151 424 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 128 151 - 128 151 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 476 480 - 413 429 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 413 429 - 476 480 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 20.3 HCM LOS A C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 876 - - 969 - - 239 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 - - - - - 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 20.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0 GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions AM Page 2 Baseline Conditions PM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 29 0 8 1 426 35 20 430 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 920 933 430 917 916 444 430 0 0 461 0 0 Stage 1 470 470 - 446 446 - - - - - - - Stage 2 450 463 - 471 470 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 253 267 627 254 273 616 1135 - - 1105 - - Stage 1 576 562 - 593 576 - - - - - - - Stage 2 590 566 - 575 562 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 245 260 627 249 266 616 1135 - - 1105 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 245 260 - 249 266 - - - - - - - Stage 1 575 549 - 592 575 - - - - - - - Stage 2 582 565 - 560 549 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 19.5 0 0.4 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1135 - - 627 285 1105 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.127 0.018 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.8 19.5 8.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - - GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions PM Page 1 D-7 Baseline Conditions PM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ +T+ +T+ +T+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 660 0 0 705 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 660 0 0 1372 1371 660 1370 1370 706 Stage 1 - - - - - - 664 664 - 706 706 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 708 707 - 664 664 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 123 146 463 124 146 436 Stage 1 - - - - - - 450 458 - 427 439 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 426 438 - 450 458 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 122 145 463 124 145 436 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 122 145 - 124 145 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 448 456 - 425 439 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 423 438 - 448 456 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 22 HCM LOS A C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 891 - - 928 - - 217 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 - - - - - 0.025 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 22 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions PM Page 2 Future With Conditions AM .syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 1 0 29 55 0 14 11 470 37 9 526 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1062 1073 526 1070 1055 489 526 0 0 507 0 0 Stage 544 544 - 511 511 - - - - - - - Stage 2 518 529 - 559 544 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 202 221 554 200 227 581 1046 - - 1063 - - Stage 1 525 521 - 547 539 - - - - - - - Stage 2 542 529 - 515 521 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 215 554 186 221 581 1046 - - 1063 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 193 215 - 186 221 - - - - - - - Stage 1 517 515 - 539 531 - - - - - - - Stage 2 521 521 - 482 515 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 29.3 0.2 0.1 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1046 - - 512 217 1063 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.059 0.321 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - 12.5 29.3 8.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B D A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 1.3 0 - - GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions AM Page 1 I1 • Future With Conditions AM .syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.7 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 0 5 1 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 0 5 1 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 610 11 3 726 2 19 0 6 1 0 2 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 621 0 0 1356 1356 616 1358 1360 727 Stage 1 - - - - - - 622 622 - 733 733 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 734 734 - 625 627 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 126 149 491 126 148 424 Stage 1 - - - - - - 474 479 - 412 426 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 412 426 - 473 476 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 124 148 491 124 147 424 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 124 148 - 124 147 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 472 477 - 410 424 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 408 424 - 465 474 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 33.9 20.5 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 149 876 - - 960 - - 235 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.166 0.004 - - 0.004 - - 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 33.9 9.1 0 - 8.8 0 - 20.5 HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0 - - 0 GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions AM Page 2 D- 10 Future With Conditions PM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 0 15 29 0 8 20 426 35 20 430 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 958 971 430 962 954 444 430 0 0 461 0 0 Stage 1 470 470 - 484 484 - - - - - - - Stage 2 488 501 - 478 470 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 254 627 236 260 616 1135 - - 1105 - - Stage 1 576 562 - 566 554 - - - - - - - Stage 2 563 544 - 570 562 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 242 627 222 248 616 1135 - - 1105 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 242 - 222 248 - - - - - - - Stage 1 562 549 - 552 541 - - - - - - - Stage 2 543 531 - 543 549 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 21.3 0.3 0.4 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1135 - - 627 257 1105 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.025 0.141 0.018 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.9 21.3 8.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.5 0.1 - - GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions PM Page 1 D-11 Future With Conditions PM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.6 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4� 4� 4� Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 0 5 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 0 5 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 660 21 7 705 2 15 0 5 2 0 3 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 681 0 0 1397 1396 671 1397 1405 706 Stage 1 - - - - - - 675 675 - 720 720 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 722 721 - 677 685 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - -2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 118 141 456 118 139 436 Stage 1 - - - - - - 444 453 - 419 432 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 418 432 - 443 448 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 116 139 456 115 137 436 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 116 139 - 115 137 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 442 451 - 417 426 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 409 426 - 436 446 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 34.1 22.9 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 144 891 - - 912 - - 206 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.143 0.002 - - 0.007 - - 0.026 HCM Control Delay (s) 34.1 9.1 0 - 9 0 - 22.9 HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions PM Page 2 D- 12 IOWA 4946DOT AARTER I SIMPLER I CU5 OWR DRIVEN Crash Detail Report 20181073217 10/16/2018 15:24 1 HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Followed too close Roadway Type: Intersection: T-intersection Severity:: Possible/Unknown Injury --- Fatalities: 0 Manner of Crash: Rear -end (front to rear) Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 0 Weather Conditions: Clear Possible Injuries: 2 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Possible/Unknown Injury Property Damage: $3,000 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit Init Trav Dir: South South Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Slowing/stopping (deceleration) Configuration: Sport utility vehicle Sport utility vehicle Driver Age: 33 71 Driver Gender: F F Driver Cond: Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry) Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Followed too close No improper action Driver Contr 2: Not reported Not reported Fixed Object: JNone (no fixed object struck) None (no fixed object struck) 20201157310 01/15/2020 04:30 HICKORY TRL AND N 1 STAVE County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Other Roadway Type: Feature: Non-junction/no special feature Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Sideswipe, opposite direction Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Ice/frost Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Dark - unknown roadway lighting Minor Injuries: 0 Weather Conditions: Cloudy Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Property Damage Only Property Damage: $5,000 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit Init Trav Dir: South North Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Movement essentially straight Configuration: Four -tire light truck (pick-up) Passenger car Driver Age: 47 55 Driver Gender: F F Driver Cond: Apparently normal Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Other No improper action Driver Contr 2: Not reported Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) None (no fixed object struck) January 21, 2021 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page 1 E-1 IOWA 4946DOT AARTER I SIMPLER I CU5 OWR DRIVEN Crash Detail Report 20181070658 10/02/2018 16:39 N SCOTT BLVD County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Followed too close Roadway Type: Feature: Non-junction/no special feature Severity:: Suspected Minor Injury Manner of Crash: Rear -end (front to rear) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 1 Weather Conditions: Cloudy Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Suspected Minor Injury Property Damage: $8,000 Unit 1 Unit 2 Init Trav Dir: East East Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Stopped in traffic Configuration: Sport utility vehicle Four -tire light truck (pick-up) Driver Age: 25 52 Driver Gender: F M Driver Cond: Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry) Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Followed too close No improper action Driver Contr 2: Not reported Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) None (no fixed object struck) Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit January 21, 2021 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page 1 E-2 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 Scott Boulevard at Site Access (PM Peak -hour) 1300 Left -Turn Storage Guidelines �— — — — — — Below Curve, storage not needed for capacity. i Above curve, further analysis recommended. i *DHV is total volume from both directions **Speeds are posted speeds 1200 i i 1100 i ' i i 1000 i i 900 i i > , 800 c� 700 600 i 500 i i SD m � ph � 400 i 60 mph * * 300 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement) Total DHV: 17285 Posted Speed: 35 mph Left Turns: 6 % Left: 0.5% Based on WSDOT September 2019 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-7a, Page 1310-14. F- 1 T." UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 17 December 2020 Mike Welch Professional Engineer Axiom Consultants 60 East Court Street Iowa City, IA 52240 mwelch@axiom-con.com OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST 700 Clinton Street Building Iowa City, Iowa 52242 319-384-0732 osa@uiowa.edu archaeology.uiowa.edu RE: Phase I Archaeological Survey, Scott Boulvard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, OSA Technical Report 1622 Dear Mike: Attached please find the OSA report Phase IIntensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, by Warren Davis (TR 1622). As a result of the study no previously recorded archaeological sites were located within the project area and no newly recorded sites were identified. No further archaeological work is recommended in the surveyed areas. The details of our Endings are provided in the attached report. As you know, to complete your archaeological compliance obligations, copies of the enclosed report must also be provided to the appropriate state or federal agencies involved with the project and comment solicited; we assume you will handle this distribution. Keep in mind that agency comments must be received prior to ground -disturbing activities being undertaken within the project area. The University of Iowa Accounts Payable department will invoice you for this project in about 30 days. If you have any questions, please contact me at 319-384-0937 or via e-mail at William-Whittaker@uiowa.edu. Thank you for selecting the OSA for your archaeological service needs and good luck with your project. Sincerely, William E. Whittaker, Ph.D., Research Director Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa by Warren Davis Office of the State Archaeologist The University of Iowa 700 Clinton Street Building Iowa City, IA 52242 Technical Report 1622 2020 �GNpEO LOG/ST P 0 0 v Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa by Warren Davis William E. Whittaker Principal Investigator Prepared for Axiom Consultants 60 East Court Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Prepared by Office of the State Archaeologist The University of Iowa 700 Clinton Street Building Iowa City, IA 52242 Technical Report 1622 December 16, 2020 Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.E (a) (5) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 's rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act; and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of the Iowa Code Abstract A Phase I intensive archaeological survey was conducted by the University of Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist at the location of the proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision, Johnson County, Iowa. The field investigation was conducted on December 3-4, 2020. No artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey of the 59.9 ac parcel. No further archaeological investigation of the area surveyed prior to the proposed project activities is recommended. Introduction The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) of the University of Iowa has prepared this report under the terms of a cultural resource survey agreement between OSA and Axiom Consultants of Iowa City, Iowa. This report records the results of a Phase I archaeological investigation of the proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision. This project area is situated in Sections 1 and 2, T79N-R6W, Johnson County, Iowa (Figures 1-5). The proposed project involves development of the area into a subdivision. The area surveyed 59.9 ac (19.2 ha). This project was undertaken for compliance with the Iowa City Zoning Code: Sensitive Lands and Features, Archaeological sites, Archaeological Study (Article I:14-51-12-E). The Phase I investigation was conducted on December 3-4 by Warren Davis and Stephen Valdez and took 28 person hours in the field. Warren Davis served as report author and William Whittaker served as project director. The OSA is solely responsible for the interpretations and recommendations contained in this report. All records including maps and figures are curated in the OSA Archives. The National Archeological Data Base Form is included as Appendix I. Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.E (a)(5) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act; and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of the Iowa Code. Geomorpho logical Context The proposed project area is located within Iowa's largest landform region, known as the Southern Iowa Drift Plain. The topography of this area is one of steeply rolling hills, level upland divides, stepped erosion surfaces, and dendritic drainage networks. Uplands are mantled by a moderate to thick cover of Wisconsinan-age loess. Pre-Illinoian glacial drift and underlying sedimentary bedrock are exposed within the deeper stream valleys. Southeast Iowa is dominated by broad, level upland divides that represent undissected remnants of surfaces developed during the Yarmouth and Sangamon stages on a Pre-Illinoian drift plain. The areal extent of undissected uplands decreases with distance westward, and stepped hillslopes and deep valleys dominate the south-central part of the state. In southwest Iowa, flat upland divides are nearly absent (Prior 1991:61-64). Holocene alluvial valley fills in Iowa are subdivided on the basis of lithology and stratigraphic relationships into the Gunder, Corrington, Roberts Creek, and Camp Creek members of the DeForest formation (Bettis and Littke 1987). Gunder member alluvium and Corrington member alluvial fans may contain Paleoindian through Woodland components; Roberts Creek member deposits may contain Late OSA Technical Report 1622 Archaic through early historic components; and Camp Creek member alluvium may contain buried and unburied historic archaeological components, and may bury older surfaces. Environmental Context The proposed project area is situated in a deeply-ravined grassy and lightly wooded area on the northern extents of Iowa City. The area is in the E1/2, SE1/4 of Section 2, and the SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4, T79N-R6W, Johnson County, Iowa, 0.1 km east of the intersection of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard, at an elevation of 780 ft above mean sea level (Figures 1-5). At the time of survey, the proposed project area was in mowed grass and light timber cover. The parcel consisted of an irregular area measuring 750 x 400 m in maximum extent. Project area entrances, staging areas, and material storage areas will be within surveyed areas or on nearby paved areas. Soils of the project area are mapped as Fayette silt loam at 5-40% slope, Lindley loam at 18-25% slope, and a complex of Nodaway and Arenzville silt loam at 1-4% slope (Figure 2; Table 1; Artz 2005; Schemerhorn 1983; USDA 2020). Soils in upland settings, such as Fayette and Lindley, have relatively shallow archaeological potential when the parent material predates the earliest human occupation of Iowa and Holocene -aged surface deposition is slow or absent. Movement of artifacts within the soil column is restricted to biologically active horizons. If there is adequate ground surface visibility, larger archaeological sites in plowed upland soils will generally display surface artifacts. Shallow subsurface deposits may exist in unplowed upland areas, and the bottoms of deep human -dug features may be preserved even in plowed areas. Subsurface archaeological testing within these upland settings is usually terminated below the biologically active zone as indicated by the presence of a pedologically formed subsoil (B horizon), relatively unaltered parent material (C horizon), or bedrock (R horizon). The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS) is a useful tool for predicting the suitability of a particular upland landform position for prehistoric habitation (Artz et al. 2006; Riley et al. 2011). The ranking is divided into three suitability rankings: low, moderate, and high, based on logistic regression statistical analysis of how often sites have been found in areas with topographically similar terrain. Based upon the model, the project area is located on a landform with a high prehistoric suitability ranking. It is important to note that this predictive model is limited to upland landforms and does not include alluvial settings, such as river valleys and drainages. Historical and Cultural Context The Iowa Site Record at OSA, records of previous archaeological surveys nearby (OSA 2020), the National Register Information System web site (National Park Service 2020), the Andreas atlas of Iowa (Andreas 1875), and Johnson County plat books (Anonymous 1905; Economy Advertising 1917; Hixson 1930; Huebinger 1900; Koser Bros. 1934; Novak 1889; Thompson and Everts 1870) were reviewed for this survey. Other consulted resources included the 1839 General Land Office survey map (ISUGISRF 2020; U.S. Department of the Interior 2020), older U.S. Geological Survey maps (USGS 2020), the Historic Indian Location Database (HILD), and the OSA Notable Locations database of cemeteries and poorly located historic or archaeological locations (Whittaker 2016, 2020). Historic documentation revealed no buildings or other improvements within the proposed project area, and there are no standing buildings or structures located within the proposed project area (Figures 2-3). Historic aerial photography indicates that the area has been largely under agriculture for most of the twentieth century, though the areas currently under grass may have been graded or contoured in the 1990s. Areas currently under timber were largely absent throughmost of the twentieth century, with most present timber postdating the 1980s. A series of trails ran through the project area, largely along what is now the 2 OSA Technical Report 1622 timber line on the west -central portion of the project area. In addition, the trees along the drainage in the southern portion of the proposed project area were removed in the 1980s to allow for more agricultural land. The drainage may have also been straightened or otherwise modified at this time. A farmstead is present on the 1870 Thompson and Everetts map just north of the proposed project area, north of what is now Scott Boulevard. That farmstead is likely under or been impacted by modern development. There are 17 archaeological sites recorded within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area. The closest site is 13JH1100, a prehistoric isolated find consisting of a single piece of Late Woodland pottery, located immediately to the east of the proj ect area. Site 13JH 1100 was determined to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP by SHPO on Nov. 13, 2001 SHPO NADB files). The southern portion of the project area overlaps with a small portion of a cultural resources survey by Lensink (1978) of proposed Ralston Creek storm water detention units. The next nearest survey was a Phase I survey by Weitzel (2001) for proposed First Avenue expansion just east of the proj ect area. Site 13JH 1100 was found near the proj ect area in the 2001 survey. The HILD reveals no documented historic Native American use of the project area or nearby areas. The Notable Locations database shows the locations of St. Joseph's Cemetery 0.7 km to the east, and Oakland Cemetery, 0.7 km to the southeast. Archaeological Assessment METHODS Ground surface visibility was inadequate for pedestrian survey, at less than 25%. The proposed project area was investigated through 5 m interval pedestrian survey and the hand excavation of 67 20 cm diameter auger tests, in linear transects at 15 m intervals (Figure 3). Auger test soils were removed in arbitrary 10 cm levels to examine soil stratigraphy and were screened with quarter -inch hardware cloth. Soils were described using the conventions of Schoeneberger et al. (2012). Maximum test depth was 100 cm. RESULTS No artifacts were observed on the surface. No artifacts were recovered in auger tests. Subsurface tests indicated that the proposed project area showed evidence of heavy disturbance, with topsoil (A or Ap) horizons either truncated or missing from auger test profiles. This missing topsoil supports disturbances seen in late twentieth century aerial photography. Typical profiles for auger tests in uplands revealed soils comparable to eroded Fayette soil, with a very thin brown Ap horizon over a dark yellowish Btl and yellowish brown Bt2 horizon (Table 2). Auger tests along the drainage in the south of the project area revealed a brown Ap horizon over a brown and yellowish brown mixed C horizon, likely indicating past disturbance. None of the auger tests or cores encountered buried A horizons or other buried surfaces suitable for habitation. Management Recommendations The Phase I archaeological survey by the OSA of a proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision revealed no archaeological material or other cultural deposits. The proposed project area was surveyed through pedestrian survey and excavation of 67 auger tests. Because of this absence of cultural resources and the lack of potential for intact deposits, no further archaeological work for this project is recommended. No technique is completely adequate to locate all archaeological materials, especially deeply buried ones. Therefore, should any cultural, historical, or paleontological resources be exposed as part of proposed project activities, the responsible agency must be notified immediately in accordance with the Protection of Historic Properties regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [36 CFR Part 3 OSA Technical Report 1622 800.13(b)]. If human remains are accidentally discovered, Iowa burial law [Code of Iowa, Sections 26313, 523I.316(6), and 716.5; IAC 685, Ch. l l.l] requires that all work in the vicinity of the finding be halted, the remains protected, local law enforcement officials notified, and the Bioarchaeology director at the OSA contacted immediately (319-384-0740). Archaeologists with the OSA (319-384-0937) and the State Historical Society of Iowa (515-281-8744) are also available to consult on issues of accidental discovery. References Cited Andreas, Alfred T. 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa. State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City. Anonymous 1905 [Johnson County, Iowa] No publisher listed. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. Artz, Joe A. 2005 Ackmore to Zwingle: Soil Series of Iowa. Iowa I -Sites, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com/soil-series, accessed December 16, 2020. Artz, Joe A., Chad Goings, and Melanie A. Riley 2006 LANDMASS: A GIS Model for Prehistoric Archaeological Site Suitability in Iowa. Paper presented at the 64th Plains Anthropological Conference, Topeka, Kansas. Bettis, E. Arthur III, and John P. Littke 1987 Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy and Landscape Development in Soap Creek Watershed, Appanoose, Davis, Monroe, and Wapello Counties, Iowa. Open File Report 87-2. Iowa Geological Survey Bureau, Iowa City. Economy Advertising 1917 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Economy Advertising Company, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. Hixson, W. W. 1930 Plat Book of Johnson County, Iowa. W.W. Hixson, Rockford, Illinois. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. Huebinger 1900 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Huebinger Survey and Map, Davenport, Iowa. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and Research Facility (ISUGISSRF) 2020 Iowa Geographic Map Server. Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and Research Facility, Ames, Iowa. Electronic document, ortho.gis.iastate.edu, accessed December 16, 2020. Koser Bros. 1934 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Koser Brothers, unknown location. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. Lensink, Stephen C. 1978 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Ralston Creek Storm Water Detention Units, Iowa City, Iowa. Contract Completion Report 143. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. National Park Service 2020 National Register Information System, National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service, Washington, DC. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm, accessed December 16, 2020. Novak, J. J. 1889 Novak's New Map of Johnson County. J. J. Novak, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. OSA Technical Report 1622 Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) 2020 I -Sites: An Online GIS and Database for Iowa Archaeology. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com, accessed December 16, 2020. Prior, Jean C. 1991 Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Riley, Melanie A., Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz 2011 The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS). In Archaeological Modeling for the Iowa Portion of the Proposed Rock Island Clean Line Transmission System, by Melanie A. Riley, Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz, pp. 5-14. Contract Completion Report 1869. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. S chermerhorn, Edward J. 1983 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Iowa. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A. Wysocki, and E. C. Benham 2012 Field book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Electronic document, www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052523.pdf, accessed December 16, 2020. Thompson and Everts 1870 Combination Atlas Map of Johnson County, Iowa. Thompson and Everts, Geneva, Illinois. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2020 Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document, www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/survey, accessed December 16, 2020. U.S. Department of the Interior 2020 The Official Federal Land Records Site. Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior. Electronic document, livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer, accessed December 16, 2020. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2018 US Topo: Maps for America. National Geospatial Program. Electronic document, www.usgs.gov/core- science-systems/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america. 2020 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Electronic document, ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/, accessed December 16, 2020. Whittaker, William E. 2016 An Analysis of Historic -Era Indian Locations in Iowa. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 41:159- 185. 2020 Historic Indian Location Database. Electronic document on file, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, accessed December 16, 2020. 5 OSA Technical Report 1622 Table 1. Project Area Mapped Soils. Soil Name ID Description I -Sites LSA1 Landform Native Pedon Vegetation Arenzville- 729B 1-4% slopes Camp Creek Drainageways Tall grass prairie Ap-C 1-C2- Nodaway C3 Complex Lindley 65F2 18-25% slopes; Shallow to pre- Hillslopes Tall grass prairie A-E-Btl- moderately eroded Wisconsin till Bt2-Bt3- Bt4-C Fayette M 163 5-40% slopes Loess mantled Hillslopes Tall grass prairie Ap-BE-Btt- terrace, thick Bt2-BC-C loess ' Landform/Sediment Assemblage (Ariz 2005). 0 OSA Technical Report 1622 Table 2. Representative Soil Profiles. Location Depth Description (cm) Auger Test 4 0-5 Ap horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; friable; clear smooth boundary. 5-3 0 Bt 1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. 30-50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular blocky structure; friable to firm. Auger Test 0-20 AC horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; 13 friable; clear smooth boundary. 20-100 C horizon of mixed brown (I OYR 4/3) and yellowish brown (5/4) silty clay loam; massive grading to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; heavy redox present. Auger Test 0-10 Ap horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; 37 friable; clear smooth boundary. 10-20 BE horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silty clay loam; fine subangular blocky structure; friable; silt coats on faces of peds; clear smooth boundary. 20-50 Bt 1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. Auger Test 0-15 Bt 1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate 41 subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. 15-40 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular blocky structure; friable to firm; silt coats present; gradual smooth boundary. 40-50 BC horizon of yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; medium prismatic structure; friable; redox features present; clay skins present. Auger Test 0-10 Ap horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; 64 friable; clear smooth boundary. 10-3 5 Bt 1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. 35-50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular blocky structure; friable to firm. 7 OSA Technical Report 1622 NN lop 4r !i Y ■ r No t f NO L !■ 1• :r *■ -#� i1wIII ■ f-�r r ■ .- •, 00O)p * IN f • _ # # 4w ` lk ap 16, IN kL qr y ■ 1 1 • 1 1 , ., i ► �SCOTT 801D -• Project Area EL N. #• ' ■ ! ff et v it 11 v ■ ti a r. r## ;#T r # i # ■ if 1: � ! Rpisfoll creek IN rMO*_♦ 11 L01■1 -11■i ■■■■I • * 1 * . i oil NN * ! * AP MJ %1Y 9 hl ll l l t{ili F - +% ; # 1 ■ * �.f i ■ i ;;# i� : -t`: "••• �• � Ak ,S ■ fh*# *r Y ' ■ i ■1 NOW ■ �-*. #�;#t#"A.'0 .■■� _II■■1 �. '_11: 1■■r■11 i*■Yi - �rl la MN ■ 4 i Tl- 7i. iJ }ry 16 �- I— ■ ■ if 11 7 I ; �# ',a ■• 1711_. . .■■-■ _■■r• on:.. -_■■a. �..a_r. i-# ■ ■ IiA * 1 ■ ■ r■7_r■ r f# #� + f { :•y# ■ � y • ■ , # ■ +- r ■ r Ire■1 1 ' * a• ■ _■1■ ■ 1■11 ■■■r . .� IN. ■ • •y_. _■ ..■IN, ry i . _ #,• # 1 } # ww ■ y • f E dp 12- L. ■' 1 Y _■i ■■■�■ ■■I■ ■■1J�__■.- 1i-1 1■■■ • _� IL t ■ .•1. • Y i f IN ■ ■Ew■�+r i.� ■i ■■ ■•'-1 ■. ■rl.-]• ■.■■ 1■■'.■ •■. r. ■ ■ 1 1 * r* ■ `■ a ■ ! L L i L ■ old r i + y # ] J + i� L� * •. 1 ; f ■ ■ r 1 ....ter■+�■ r. ■ r y t ■ •.** Hele11 J p _ ■ s -x . - - •,i 11: . fi}■j'Llii��■ ] ■ ■ ; ■ ,Cf_p'��N • ♦w # ► f 1 1' # ## 1 , i - L'171me L ■ • ■— .: �_�■■s tir■■ 11 ■ — x* * , f �.■_■■.i��E. �_■■ \ ti� +s #y 1 #* ■ 1p E ■ #* • •. Elein SChh t_*# * :■•fix■ ■.111■1 ■■�la ■.■■a■1■ ..■ • 1 • 1 • r r • ♦ ■ ■ ♦ # No NN - - - .■l]III(.r ■mil �-ram■ . - y 7 i ■ 7 ■ 1 ■ -r - � � ■ 1 - � � r. E -_ ■ �_■ �. �r Kilometers 0 0.4 0.8 1. 0 0.5 0.5 1 Mites ° Project Area �4 d� AN Figure 1. Project location in relation to surrounding topography. Base USGS (2018), U.S. Topo 7. S ' series quadrangle map. Scale 1: 24, 000. n OSA Technical Report 1622 Figure 2. Project location in relation to mapped soil type. From Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey digitization of Johnson County, base image is composite 2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020). 0 OSA Technical Report 1622 Figure 3. Detail map of project area showing subsurface test locations. Base image is composite 2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020). 10 OSA Technical Report 1622 f V/ .r 'r , .. .. 's s ti . �.�n;; :'t ., • ::J}: • ".$ f . 1.+�+,a'ti .. ~; !1'. ��'Jf .. �. ,.Jl•i...., ik. - _ -.�s�' }x { � .�:r � '4" *'�t F`...r .- !iy{::.`-. - ...,�+3;L.I _.i - __+.: K.,, .`r;'�,a- �G.]' ;w• .r+;r.J„ Nei y yr • _ - ''ff3ti ' 'L i � cd .e5 � - Figure 4. Project area photographs. Upper: project area, facing north near southern portion of project area. Lower: project area, facing east near southern portion of project area. 11 OSA Technical Report 1622 Figure S. Project area photographs. Upper: project area, facing south near northern portion of project area. Lower: project area, facing east at northern extreme of project area. 12 OSA Technical Report 1622 Appendix I: National Archeological Data Base — Reports Citation Form Complete items 3 and 5-14. The State Historic Preservation Office will record information for items 1 through 4. 1. DOCUMENT NO. 2. SOURCE AND SHPO — ID 3. FILED AT Office of the State Archaeologist 700 CLSB University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 4. UTM COORDINATES Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Continuation, see 14. 5. AUTHORS Warren Davis 6. YEAR 2020 (year published) Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing 7. TITLE Phase I Intensive Archaeological InvestiLyation of the Probosed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Proiect Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa 7. PUBLICATION TYPE (circle one) 4. Report Series 9. INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLISHER/PUBLICATION Follow the American Antiquity style guide for the type of publication circled. Technical Report 1622 Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. 10. STATE/COUNTY (Referenced by report. Enter as many states, counties, or towns, as necessary. Enter all, if appropriate. Only enter Town if the resources considered are within the town boundaries.) STATE 1 Iowa COUNTY Johnson TOWN T79N-R6W 11. WORKTYPE f 32 ] PHASE I 13 OSA Technical Report 1622 12. KEYWORDS and KEYWORD CATEGORIES Enter as many keywords (with the appropriate keyword category number) as you think will help a person (1) who is trying to understand what the report contains or (2) who is searching the database for specific information. Whenever appropriate, record the number of acres studied in a document. [6 ] Project Area: 59.9 acres [ ]_ [ ] [ ] 13. FEDERAL AGENCY 14. CONTINUATION/COMMENTS (include item no.) FORM COMPLETED BY Name Warren Davis Inin Address Office of the State Archaeologist 700 CLSB University of Iowa City Iowa City State Zip 52242 Telephone Number 318-384-0937 IA Date December 16, 14 From: Parker, Adam G To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01:12 PM A Hello Anne/Raymond, would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park. Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed in the NE district plan https://www.Iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park. Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID. It often is the only "safe" respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by more community members. If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up. Best, Adam Parker Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: new development next to Hickory Hill Park Date: Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15:35 PM Attachments: i mage002. png imaae003.pna ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png ima_eq 006.png FYI From: Anne Russett Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15 PM To: 'Teresa Galluzzo' <tegallu@gmail.com> Subject: RE: new development next to Hickory Hill Park Hi, Teresa — Thanks for your message. I've received a few other emails regarding the proposed rezoning. City staff is still working with the applicant on the proposed concept and we have also requested some additional information regarding their rezoning application. At this point, I don't know when this will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission. You can sign-up for e-subscriptions to keep informed of the items of upcoming Commission meetings: https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions Thanks. And let me know if you have any questions. Anne OTY 0 F IOWA CAnne Russett, AICP UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Senior Planner She/Her/Hers WWW.ICGOV.ORG p: 319-356-5251 0 0 00 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Teresa Galluzzo <te alluggmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 12:56 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> Subject: new development next to Hickory Hill Park Hi Anne, I am writing because I am concerned about the plans for the houses being built next to Hickory Hill Park. This park is a refuge for so many people. A place to find peace, solve life problems, listen to birds, and feel like you are in the wild even in the middle of Iowa City. It is unlike any other park in the area. I am sad to know the hay fields on the Northeast side of the park will be developed at all, but I am particularly worried that houses are being proposed right next to the park boundary. (On the version of the plans I saw, it is lots 14 to 28 in particular that seem intrusive to HHP.) I would like to see a buffer between HHP and the houses to help preserve some of the feeling of being able to get lost in the park and in your own thoughts, so after a trip to Hickory Hill folks can return to their work and family with more energy and clearer thinking. Thanks for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Teresa Ga I I uzzo Iowa City resident and longtime HHP visitor From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:43:34 AM Can you please follow-up with Adam? From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 8:36 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park am looking to inquire about the rezoning of land North East of Hickory Hill Park? Is there a place can go to access information about what the proposed rezoning of the area is going to be? Appreciate any insight and guidance. Best, Adam Parker Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. From: Parker, Adam G To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett Subject: Re: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:19:47 AM Attachments: image001.png ima_eq 002.pna ima_eq fflIgna ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png Great, thank you for following up. I am fairly new to planning and zoning, but it appears there will be a meeting this Thursday (third Thursday of the month) Where would I find the agenda or "staff report" for this Thursday's meeting? Or is that accessible prior to the meeting to know what will be discussed. Apologize for the inconvenience of walking me through a website. (I hate doing it for clients I serve, but I genuinely do not see it, just the meeting on Jan 21 discussion) Also, assuming a zoom link will be added to the web to attend Thursday? Additionally, is the board considering the Iowa City district plan with the development? I understand the land looking to be developed is private land, but hope the considerations of the community will be taken into account by following the Iowa City district plan which had significant community input. Lastly, when and for how long will the community be able to know and provide feedback for the new development? I guess I am more curious, as to what will be developed there if the community has a voice with how it is developed? Thanks, Adam From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@ iowa-city.org> Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu> Cc: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park Good Morning Adam, Anne forwarded me your question about the rezoning northeast of Hickory Hill Park. We are currently working with the applicant on a few details pertaining to their concept plan for this rezoning application. We do not have a date for when the rezoning application will be presented to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. You can check the following website for information on when the application will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and- zoning -commission The link above will also provide the City's staff report and meeting packet by S:OOPM on the Friday prior to each meeting (P&Z meetings occur the first and third Thursday of each month). The meeting packet will provide information on how to participate in the Commission's zoom meeting. If you have any questions or comments that you would like sent to the Commission for consideration, please feel free to email me, and I will forward your comments onto the Commission. Ray Heitner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 raymond-heitner(@iowa-city.org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 O.f IOWA 'CITY d. UNESCO it!RY of !JrfF1A7,URE WWW.ICGOV.ORG Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: ACT development Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 5:01:50 PM Attachments: Notice. docx Ray — Please see the email below. I've created the attached for him. What do you think? From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:59 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: ACT development fi a ZI S4{ That would be great. On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> wrote: Hi, Casey — At the moment, I don't have any extra rezoning signs to put out there. We've had several that were damaged and destroyed this winter. One idea is to put some notices in the kiosks as trail heads. If that's something you'd like to do I could put together a PDF with some general information that you could print to put in a kiosk. Thanks, Anne From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt(@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:33 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.o�rg> Subject: Re: ACT development A15K Hi Anne, It is the Friends of HickoryHill Park's request for two additional signs to be laced in the q 9 p park to make the general public aware of the application for rezoning of the property. We feel the current single sign does not inform the general public of the full scope of the land potentially being developed. Therefore, would it be possible for additional signage to be placed inside the park to notify the public? � We would be happy to pick up the signage at a City office and have it placed in the park by a member of Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board. Best, Casey Chair, FHHP On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 2:52 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> wrote: Hi. Casey — We have a received a rezoning application for this land. At this point, I don't know when it will be on a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. You can sign up for e-subscriptions, though, so you can keep track of when Commission agendas are published: https://www.ic og v.org/e-subscriptions Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Anne From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrtggmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:03 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> Subject: ACT development ZRV( Hi Anne, Has anything been filed with the City yet on the ACT -owned land by developer Joe Clark? Do you have an estimate of when that might happen? Casey Kohrt Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. From: Parker, Adam G To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 10:26:08 AM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.pna ima_eq fflIgng ima_eq 004.gng ima_eq 005.png A Hello Ray, appreciate you forwarding my concerns to the P&Z commission/City Council. Best, •_F1IN From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@ iowa-city.org> Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa- c i ty. o rg> Subject: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Good Morning Adam, Thank you for your comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Your comments will be forwarded on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. The rezoning will have public hearings by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, with opportunities for direct public comment at both stages. We do not have a date set for the application to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you want to keep track of Planning and Zoning Commission agendas, I would recommend you sign up to receive an email notice whenever a Commission packet is published: https:ZZwww.ic o�gZe-subscriptions. Meetings are held the first and third Thursday of each month. You can also email any correspondence you may have for the Planning and Zoning Commission to my email address raymond-heitner(@iowa-city.org. Thank you, Ray Heitner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 raymond-heitnerP iowa-city.org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 IOW CITY i( urga�cc cir-' Of EITERA3 UN WWW.ICGOV.ORG From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa- city.org> Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Rl S$£ Hello Anne/Raymond, would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park. Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed in the NE district plan https://www.Iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park. Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID. It often is the only "safe" respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by more community members. If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up. Best, Adam Parker Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. From: Mary Winder To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: views regarding development near Hickory Hill Park Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 1:36:35 PM ZI Feb. 2, 2021 Dear Anne Russett and Ray Heitner: I am writing to you about the housing development being proposed for land along the northeast border of Hickory Hill Park. To give you a bit of background, I grew up in Iowa City and spent many, many happy times in Hickory Hill Park through the years. I like that park so much, in fact, that I held my wedding there! I have moved away from Iowa City, but every single time I return for a visit, taking a walk at Hickory Hill Park is always at the top of my list of things to do. I have often marveled at the forethought of the people who preserved this wild patch of woods, fields, hills, and creeks for the benefit of the community and the wildlife. It is a unique and very precious treasure in the Iowa City community. I understand that land around the park will be developed, but I am very concerned when I read that the proposed design that the developer is presenting for the housing development area along the northeast border of the park does not follow the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan that has been established by the City. This is extremely unwise, and it is wrong, as the guidelines were put in place for good reason. It is vital that they be followed. I am writing to ask you to please require that the development plan be revised so that it does follow the appropriate guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, allowing Hickory Hill Park to retain its "natural and wild" character as opposed to being hemmed in closely by a poorly planned residential development that does not follow the City's own guidelines. Now is the time to require revision of the development plan. Once the land has been rezoned and the development is in place, it will be too late to say to yourself, "Gosh, I wish we had done this differently." Jackie Joyner-Kersee said, "It's better to look ahead and prepare, than to look back and regret." Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need clarification. Thank you for taking time to read my views on this important matter. ncerely, Mary Winder 785-985-2519 From: Stella Hart To: anne-russet(&iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Park Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:51:29 PM Hello! I'm writing to express my strong opposition to any rezoning or development of Hickory Hill Park. It really is a very special place in our community, and losing any part of it would be devastating. Thank you for your consideration and all you do for the city. Stella Hart 1331 Dodge Street Ct Iowa City, IA 52245 This email is from an external source. From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: Proposed land development Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:51:04 AM Can you please follow-up with this person if you haven't, yet. From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed land development Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner, My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills. I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal adjacent to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer and it would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope that we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are developed, they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who benefit from natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Shea Jorgensen, MD Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and From: Kristen Morrow To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: Hickory Hill Land Development Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:09:01 PM A Hello Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning and housing development on the land directly abutting Hickory Hill. I am very concerned with the lack of buffer between this development and the park, and I feel that this development would bring irreparable harm to the sense of wildness one can feel while hiking Hickory Hill's more remote trails. Like many residents in my generation, I yearn for more wild places, more trails, more public lands and parks. This sentiment seems to be growing, especially in light of the pandemic, as more and more people are finding refuge in the natural world. While I greatly value the Iowa City parks that are available to me, it's hard not to feel the tug of cities that have placed greater value on keeping wild corridors. For the sake of Iowa City's residents, wildlife, and reputation, I think it would be a great mistake if this development were allowed to carve out some of the remaining wild spaces we have. Thank you for your time, Kristen Morrow "There can be no purpose more enspiriting than to begin the age of restoration, reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us. " - E. O. Wilson. From: Lut. eq ndorf, Philip A To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Cc: friends. hh.parkCakamail.com; Lutgendorf, Susan K Subject: Rezoning the field adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:28:07 PM Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner, As a nearby resident and frequent walker in Hickory Hill Park, I am deeply troubled by the current rezoning request that would allow a developer to put fifty four houses and a street into the fairly narrow field adjoining the park on its northeast side. I knew something like this was coming when I repeatedly saw an "Axiom" truck in the field just south of the new Oaknoll East facility during the summer, with people taking measurements, but I did not guess the extent of the development they want to build. In my experience over nearly four decades, the City has given up several opportunities to preserve, through the acquisition of former farms, a larger belt of greenspace that would enhance the quality of life for residents and prevent our area becoming part of continuous semi -urban sprawl, especially to the east and north. Approving the present request —the density of which I understand to violate the City's own Northeast District Plan and its mandate for "conservation residential design," as well as its Comprehensive Plan —would be yet another failure of vision, and loss of an opportunity to enhance Iowa City's livability and recreational opportunities for present and future residents. If there is more that I can do (in our present situation of limited social interaction) to register my concern over and opposition to this proposed rezoning, please let me know. Thanking you, Philip Lutgendorf 2 Glendale Court Iowa City (52245) 319 541-5145 From: Shelly Carpenter To: Raymond Heitner Subject: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:41:46 PM ZI Dear Mr. Heitner In response to the notice we received regarding the proposal to rezone the area around Scott Blvd. and 1 st Ave. on the east side of Iowa City we would like to express our concern about how the planned rezoning would affect Hickory Hill park and surrounding areas. We oppose any rezoning that would have construction butting up against city preserve and park land. Also we would request that any development approaching the park be done with single -loaded streets to allow for a natural buffer between park grounds and housing developments. Thank you. Shelly & Marty Carpenter 1035 Tamarack Trail Shelly Carpenter, M.S. Certified Wellness Coach and Yoga Instructor www.wellfiniiy.com 319.330.8382 From: Erin Durian To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Rezoning Message Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:43:45 PM ZI Mr. Heitner, am writing to you about the proposed development in the area behind Hickory Hill Park. I believe that this space is vital for the neighborhood community and should not be further developed. Please share these comments with the Commission. Over the years, this space has been important to me personally but I have also been observing its importance to others. One of the reasons I love living in this neighborhood is the proximity to nature and in the summer and spring and fall, my preferred walk when I'm feeling stressed, overwhelmed, or sad is through Hickory Hill to the Big Field that opens up. This space always feels magical because of its isolation and its expansive presence close to a busy street. On the days I come up, I'll sit at the top of the hill- sometimes for an hour or two- and appreciate the sound of the birds and the quiet, of being surrounded by trees. I'll observe the plants that grow and the animals that sneak by. I've seen deer, owls, a fox come into the clearing and walk along known pathways so I know they also appreciate the quiet and the trees. I'll see families taking a walk together with their dog leaping beside them (the dog is always particularly stupefied by the amount of open space to run). I'll wave hello and listen to their soft footsteps in the grass allowing my mind to relax, observe, and appreciate what we have around us. This space is a sanctuary for the residents of this neighborhood and their families as well as for the wildlife that travels between the park and other wooded areas. I believe the value of this place is greater as it is, than it would be with another street of houses. Please reconsider developing this area as it holds a special place in my heart. Thank you, Erin Durian 51 Hickory PI From: Jason Napoli To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Rezoning Near 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:25:47 PM Attachments: i mage004. png imaae005.png ima_eq 001.png ima_eq 002.png ima_eq 003.png A Hi Ray - Thank you for the follow-up regarding this matter. Would you be able to help interpret this new plat proposal? It appears that lot 45 now contains ten separate homes. Is there a reason and/or strategy for that? Furthermore, it appears the numbering of the lots has changed since the original proposal, which is concerning since my initial message to Anne identified lots 14-28 as not following the concept of a single - loaded street development. The lots that are now of concern are 26-44. If other residents previously expressed concern about specific lots can we be sure the numbering change will be taken into consideration by the Commission? Thank you again for reconnecting. As previously mentioned, it is concerning how far this proposal is from the established NE District Plan for the Bluffwood area and I hope the Planning & Zoning Commission will follow the established guidelines when developing against city preserve. All the best, Jason On Monday, February 8, 2021, 02:39:51 PM CST, Raymond Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org> wrote: All, Please see the attached neighbor notification letter for the rezoning application near the intersection of 1 st Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The attached letter contains information pertaining to the currently scheduled meeting date and time that the rezoning will be discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The letter also contains information on how to access and participate in the meeting. Please feel free to email me any additional comments that you might like the Commission to consider in its evaluation of this application. Thank you, Ray Heitner Anne Russett From: Casey James f ohrt <cikohrt@grnai1.com Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6-53 PM T: Anne Ru s tt; Raymond mond H itner c: fhhp-board@googlegroup .c rn Subject: Friends of Hickory Hill Park Response to Proposed Rezoning RlS3( Anne and Ray, Please include this letter among items being provided to P&Z commission. I hope all responses to this proposal are being provided to the commission, are their? Friends of Hickory Hill Park is opposed to the planned rezoning of the land South of Scott Boulevard and West of 1st avenue. This current proposed plat for "Hickory Trail Estates" is in opposition to the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, It has been opined that these plans are dated, and should be ignored. If this is the case, we will ask City officials to re -open the NE District Plan and Comprehensive Plan before this goes through, as we feel this still reflects the vier of most citizens in hoer City development takes place. Protecting the vie shed of the park was central to the plan. The NE District Plan calls for (image from plan): Preserve natural features. Conservation design of residential developments is a key feature Ot the future lard use scenatio for the Nuff- ood Neighborhood. To preserve Sensitive areas, cul-de-sac streets and single -loaded streets are propo d where appropriate. op rl Spaces are shown iF1 areas containing wooded ravines and boggy, potential wetland areas; as a buffer along the eat and north edges of Hic o ry HiII Park where it abuts the Larson tract; and en com pass in the 100 year fl oodplain aIon g RaIc.;ton Creek and its tri buta ries. The pond on the- Kral l fa rrin 1 s featured as a focal point w itfi in itowed on First Avenue in the vici n ity of the park, A co ns ry tion res idential design i s p ropDsed on the property between First Avenue and Hickory H III Park to provide a buffer between the residential development and the park. . Create and enhance neighborhood parks wit in the distrI t. Natural Open Space/Bu ffer Areas. In the B I u ffwood N e i g h bo r h oo dI the pl an calls toT bufferi n g green space, to be provided blemeen Hickory Hill Park and residential development on the South and west develop - portions of the Larson tract. One goal of this buffer i t m'nimizc the visibility of residential rr t from the park, This can be accomplished plished by shifting densityon the .arson property away from n � the park and aIignin it ire slightly higher densities (townhouses and srn III a artr-r-�nt houses) Ire the adjacent arterial streets. larger buffer area for the park n the Larson tract may be possible if the prope rty owner co a so. nts to a greater transfer in density o r there i privat and or pubI1 purchase f porti of t p h p ert y, o di re vehicular access t the park or through streets adjacent to the park � ro are p roposed . Instead, the residential d veIoprnent n ea restt park is s howhown on cu1-de-sac streets and pe destri a n access to H i . H i I I Farb 1 encourage d. Envir nrnental I sensitive areas, such a flood - I in and wetlands along Ralston Creek and wooded ravines, are preserved ar, open spa�_e. �rr� a- r. 5 1 ;s` t IL F 1 I 4 vi 66 Xp t # z t The comprehensive plan calls for: Comprehensive Plan h t t s://www. i r- it . orqNVebLink/ / d / l g 21 /Section%20 1 %2 Parrks% 20a n d % 200 pen%20S pace % 2012.2 019. pdf Parks and open space Goals and strategies: Improve overall access to and awareness of parks. • Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access It has been suggested by City Staff that more current code regardingcul-de-sacs would negate these plans. We disagree. There is language that addresses environmental concerns: 1 - - : STREETS AND CIRCULATION: A. Connectivity Of streets, sidewalks, And Trails: Subdivisions shall provide for continuation and extension of arterial, collector and local streets, sidewalks and trails in accordance with the following standards: . Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. uI R sacs will be onsW r 'c where It can be clearly dem, onstrated that, nvi:ronmental con,n,strai fs., .existing development, access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision. We therefore feel that environmental constraints described, along with non-compliance with ICE District Plan and Comprehensive Plan ideals, we firmly reject this proposal. If this rezoning is to be approved, we first ask the City P&Z Commission and City Council to reopen the plan concepts before any consideration is made, , t 2 affirm how the citizens of Iowa City would like to see development happen. We are not anti -development, but ask that development be done in accordance with the NE District and Comprehensive Plans. Caeaes Kohrt, for Friends of Hickory Hill Park. From: Ben Berger To: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:28:29 AM ZI Hi Raymond, I received your letter in the mail about the potential rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates. Thank you for reaching out and allowing the public to voice their opinions. While I do not disagree with development in our community, I do want it to be done in areas that do not impact housing and the environment that is already present. With the new proposed development, I am very concerned about the impact it will have on the environment and Hickory Hill Park. I very much enjoy walking through the park and admiring the natural haven that it provides for humans and nature. I fear that by placing a housing development right along the border of the park, we as a community will negatively affect the animals and their homes. Another very real concern is the added traffic on N. 1 st Ave. Traffic on this street is already very busy and more often than not far exceeding the posted speed limits. I have 3 young children, and I am always concerned about the traffic on this street. Adding the development will increase traffic volumes and I believe just lead to additional issues. The way that the development road will be placed I believe will create an avenue of least resistance to Eastbound traffic on Scott. At night when the stop at N. 1 st Ave and Scott becomes backed up, traffic will just shoot down the neighborhood and to the intersection at Hickory Trail and N. 1 st Ave. I have approached the city about traffic calming on N. 1 st Ave before, but have not seen any attempts to control it. What is the city planning to do with the increased traffic and speeds? I hope they have a suggestion. Finally, I purchased my house on N. 1st Ave because of the great views out the back of the lot (ravine) and across the street to the open field and trees. This development will negatively affect my view across the street and I will be forced to look at a large building development. My suggestion is the city looks to rezone and develop elsewhere. Leave nature alone and do not impact an area that so many people of the community love and enjoy. Thank you. Ben Berger From: karen.nichols To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Development along Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:26:33 AM Dear Ms. Russett, Mr. Heitner, and members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: I am writing in opposition to the rezoning request for a residential housing development along the northeast border of Hickory Hill Park. I am not opposed to development near the park in general, but do object to the proposed development as currently presented. Based on images of the plan I have seen, it does not seem to adhere to the recommendations in the Northeast District Plan or the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Northeast District Plan calls for a "conservation residential design" in the neighborhood that provides a buffer between the residential development and the park. The City's Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies, discourages parks that are surrounded by private property and encourages development of parks with single loaded street access. The developer's proposed design does not seem to adhere to either of these plans. Hickory Hill park is a jewel of Iowa City and one of the reasons our family stays here. Considerable community effort has gone into protecting and maintaining the park over many decades. Developers, planners, and other city leaders must respect the wishes of the community as expressed in the Northeast District Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan, which set forth guidelines that residents expect to be followed in developing land near the park. Please require that the developer's plans be reworked to adhere to our city's expressed guidelines. Thank you. With warmest regards, Karen Nichols Communications Professional 1740 F Street Iowa City, IA 52240 641.781.8506 karen.nichols@pm.me she/her/hers Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. From: Veronica Bolinger To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Rezoning Concerns Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:26:24 PM ZI To Whom it may Concern, am concerned about the rezoning request for new development near Hickory Hill Park, this proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, or the Comprehensive Plan and needs to be reworked. These plans were put in place to protect and minimize the impact to Hickory Hill Park and they should absolutely be followed and the diverging from these stated goals shows a lack of integrity to our citizens and community. I would appreciate it if you would forward my concerns onto the Planning and Zoning team. A concerned citizen, Veronica Bolinger From: Jesse Thomas To: Anne Russett Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:50:23 PM Attachments: i maae002. pnq ima_eq 003.pnq ima_eq 004.pnq ima_eq 005.png ima_eq 006.png i RISK Thanks for the option Anne. I would prefer to retract my first statement and just make a broad comment based on what little I know of the project right now: 1. I'm in favor of Hickory hill park growing. 2. I'm against boxing in the park which could reduce its expansion options in the future 3. I would prefer we avoid more low -density development or road laying but if we cannot avoid it I would insist that we take every opportunity to build dedicated and separate bicycle infrastructure so we don't need to share the road with car users. This is the first time in 20 years I've paid attention. I'll tune in closely so I can make more educated comments next time. Thank you Jesse On Thu, Feb I I, 2021 at 12:22 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(&iowa-city.org> wrote: Hi, Jesse — Would you like me to share this correspondence with the Commission? If you'd like to revise your statement for me to share with the Commission you could do that, as well. Thanks, Anne From: Jesse Thomas <iessemacfarlaneaa,gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:14 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russettaa,iowa-citv.org> Subject: Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park Thanks for the clarification Anne I was confused about the facts there. I I'm reassured to hear you would grow the park... let's do it! Jesse On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:44 AM Anne Russett <Anne-Russettaa,iowa-citv.o�rg> wrote: Hi, Jesse — Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. wanted to clarify that the proposal does not turn over any of the existing parkland to development. would increase the size of the park by 10 acres. That said, the development is adjacent to the park. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Anne C I TY OF'[ MAIA C ITY i i irER LaNEs�(� c i r � c��a7'u�� WWW.ICGOV.ORG 0000 Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner She/Her/Hers p: 319-356-5251 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Jesse Thomas <iessemacfarlanen,gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:59 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russettn,iowa- city. org> Subject: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park Hello Anne, Would you please forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission? I am the owner of 625 S Governor St and I think that turning over any part of Hickory Hill Park to development would be a huge mistake. It goes without saying that HHP is a beloved benefit for the entire community in any year but to think of encroaching on the park after living through Covid is shocking and hurtful to put it mildly. There are so many areas in our city already bulldozed, paved, and vacant that can accept such a development. In order to lead the state in equity and human happiness, we need to increase the density of what we have already developed, decrease our automobile dependence, and increase the leisure spaces and our access to them with bicycle highways and free bussing. I use every acre of Hickory Hill park every month of the year and I would be extremely I sad to see more wasteful sprawl continue to make a mockery of our "Athens of the Midwest" reputation. I I Jesse Thomas I I Resident Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for Iuse by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby Inotified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. From: Hillary Schofield To: anne-russet(&iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:00:44 PM Z! $fit Dear Anne and Ray, I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I explore and walk the trails of HHP frequently. It is a precious source of renewal in Iowa City, without having to travel very far. It is so important to have this kind of refuge in town, and not only for humans, but for all the other creatures that are trying to persist and thrive despite the ever -encroaching spread of human settlement. A development so close and so elaborate would undoubtedly have a negative domino effect on the ecosystem of the Park. My strong feelings aside, this plan does not comply with the Northeast District Plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan; these need to be followed in order to minimize the damage to this dearly valued part of Iowa City. I ask that you please pass along these comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Many thanks for your time, Hillary From: Anne Russett To: "nancy footner" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Hill Park proposed development Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04:33 PM Thanks, Nancy. We will pass this along to the Commission. Anne From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:47 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park proposed development #DISK --- �Mb Dear Ms Russett, am writing to protest the proposed development on the NE side of Hickory Hill Park. This plan completely violates both terms laid out in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and the NE District plan. Please forward this email to all the members of the Planning and Zoning committee and the City Council. The proposal must be rejected. Hickory Hill Park is a precious natural area and must be protected from any further encroachment by development. Nancy Footner Iowa City Citizen 2008 Dunlap Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245 319 3382674 From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: Hickory Hill Development Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:24:32 PM Please include with Commission correspondence. From: Susannah Neal <susannahgkneal@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:04 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Development fi a ZRISK Dear Ms Russett As a citizen of Iowa City I am writing to object to the proposed development that borders Hickory Hill Park. This proposed development does not comply with the NE Plan nor does it comply to the Comprehensive Plans. Those plans were put in place to protect HHP and by breaching these plans this development is in violation of those plans. Please immediately reverse the course of this egregious development plan. Respectfully, Susannah Neal 1133 Chamberlain Drive Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Heather McKnight To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:56:07 PM Anne and Raymond, I am writing to you to express my dismay at the proposed rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Hickory Hill is an oasis within the city. A sprawling park where I and my kids wander aimlessly and discover new delights. We have seen foxes, deer and numerous other wildlife. It is a special retreat and I fear a rezoning would be very disruptive to the rugged and wild landscape and wildlife. This proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan and I strongly encourage the proposal not be accepted. Please share my feedback with planning and zoning. Thank you, Heather Sent from my iPhone This email is from an external source. From: Messingham, Kelly To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Trail rezoning project by Axiom consultants Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:19:03 PM A To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council c/o Anne Russett and Raymond-Heitner We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The original plan specified development of a shortcul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on HHP, and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis. Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you. Kelly Messingham Michael Messingham 64 Hickory Heights Lane Iowa City, IA 52245 Ph. 319.594.6611 kellv-messinahama-uiowa.edu michaelmessingham@gmail.com Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. From: Emily Schacht To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:31:59 PM I To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council I'd like to express my objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hill Park, and should be followed. Hickory HIII Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis. am not opposed to development in general, and believe development is necessary for our town to continue to retain its current residents and attract new ones. However, development needs to be done thoughtfully, which is what the NE District plan and Comprehensive City plan accomplish. These plans should be followed. Please forward my comment to the Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, Emily Campbell 328 N 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA From: kristen Nelson-Boutros To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Proposed Rezoning and Development Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:45:17 PM Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org and Raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1 st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hills Park (HHP), and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis. Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd. Sincerely, Kristen Nelson-Boutros Rami B outro s Get Outlook for iOS From: Robin Kopelman To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Park area rezoning Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:59:11 PM To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council: We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1 st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on HHP, and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis. Additionally, we speak as a family who lives adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. We share concerns with other adjacent neighborhoods that the extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd. and 1 st Ave.. Our six family members are daily users of the park, whether as recreational hikers, XC skiers, responsible dog walkers, sledders, and trail runners. I (Robin) also co -lead the Iowa City Trail Sisters, an all-women's trail running group who regularly runs in and loves this wild area deeply. For these reasons, we are concerned it will severely impact the wildlife habitat, negatively impact the quality of the park experience, and be detrimental to the already poor water quality of Ralston Creek. Please forward our comments. Sincerely, Robin and Todd Kopelman 523 Woodridge Avenue Iowa City Sent from my iPhone This email is from an external source. From: Mark Renshaw To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague Subject: Rezoning Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:22 PM To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Boulevard and N 1 st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas. Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park and traffic on Scott Boulevard. Sincerely, Mark Renshaw 72 Hickory Heights Lane Iowa City, Iowa This email is from an external source. From: Bruce Teague To: Mark Renshaw; Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Rezoning Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:22:31 PM Attachments: OutlookEmoji-1554175382453692d 126f-b36d-4eda-babd-Of306Of207ce. png OutlookEmoji-1554175382453074ba4ce-9234-4274-9637-aa0aebcO5576.png OutlookEmoji-15541753824534c39b404-self-45ae-b633-343d56495d4a. png OutlookEmoji-1554175382453b45f3bO8-f3Oa-4ebe-897f-9445fc8ace4f. png OutlookEmoji-1554175382453aO398783-e4e2-4f62-99a9-06452cO2dO67. png OutlookEmoji-1554175382453e323ed 16-9e35-4f52-aaO6-361cf68c4e59. png OutlookEmoji-1554175382453dde46e65-eb31-45e1-a249-f58094elcOd6. png OutlookEmoji-155417538245367aed794-3e7c-4608-9056-2a5589e5e6b3. png OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a419b920-12c8-4663-ab60-853ac4c91599. png OutlookEmoji-15541753824533aaObfO7-2022-4c92-a736-5452034d69fd.png OutlookEmoii-1554175382453fae27209-c22b-4b3d-bcc1-0361b217bcde. png OutlookEmoji-155417538245319745814-5f90-4f63-aadf-8aOd3471 bb86. png OutlookEmoii-15541753824535b9a9ec7-b9a4-445a-b58a-7a5cecdOf68d. Dna Thanks for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I hear you! This project will first be at our Planning and Zoning Commission and must pass there before it comes to council. I would encourage you to share your concerns with Commissioners through email, calls, and/or when this item is on their agenda. Sincerely, Mayor Bruce Teague (He/Him/His) Iowa City City Council Member - At Large 1-319-536-1200 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 WWW.ICGOV.ORG �10WACITY Notice: Please be advised this email communication may be public information. From: Mark Renshaw <marl<renshaw@me.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:00 PM To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague Subject: Rezoning To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Boulevard and N 1 st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas. Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park and traffic on Scott Boulevard. Sincerely, Mark Renshaw 72 Hickory Heights Lane Iowa City, Iowa This email is from an external source. From: Elizabeth Tracey To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Development by Axiom Consultants bordering Hickory Hill Park Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:17:38 AM We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1 st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility, does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the city. The original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hill Park (HHP), and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis. Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hill Park and the traffic on Scott Blvd. Sincerely, Elizabeth Tracey and Robert Beck 40 Hickory Heights Lane Iowa City, Iowa 52245 This email is from an external source. From: Julie Moffitt To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Rezoning adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 7:50:17 AM ZI Dear Mr Heitner, I am writing regarding rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill park. I have lived in Iowa City since 1999 and have run and hiked 1000's of miles in that park. I took my dog for the last cross country ski of his life in that park, I took my young daughter for her first trail run in that park, and I have run many miles with cherished friends there as well. Every time I wander the trails there, it never ceases to amaze me at the natural beauty and wildlife I see. This park is a crowing jewel in Iowa City. Rezoning this land adjacent - and I know this section well - will effective remove a buffer from that side of the park and negatively impact habitat and the experience. If Central Park in NYC can exist as it does, surely Iowa City, IA can be as thoughtful and protective of its urban parks and natural habitat. I would request that you deny this request for rezoning. There is plenty of other land to develop. Please share my comments at the rezoning meeting. Sincerely, Julia A. Moffitt, PhD 302 W Park Rd, Iowa City, IA 52246 From: Kelly Teeselink To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 8:02:37 AM ZI Good morning, This email is in regards to the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I was (and am) very heartbroken and frustrated to hear of this potential residential development that I believe would negatively impact the best park in Iowa City. But to take the emotion out of it, one of the biggest issues I see is this proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. This plan calls for a "conservation residential design" and myself and others do not believe the developer's proposed design follows the City's established comprehensive plan and needs to be reworked. Furthermore, the City's Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies, "discourages parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single loaded street access." This residential development would be doing the opposite of the comprehensive plan. On another note, I can't claim to know much about deer population and control but I am going on the assumption that the more deer habitat that is removed, the more deer will end up in residential areas. With the city spending lots of resources on deer population control, it's frustrating to see that there is a proposed plan that would destroy this animal friendly habitat. And finally, I must admit I am no longer an Iowa City resident as of one month ago. I lived in Iowa City for 16 years and consider it my home. I moved to Flagstaff, Arizona because I wanted more access to nature and wild spaces. While IC and the surrounding area provides lovely trails and parks, I wanted to live in a place that actively conserved outdoor spaces and made them more abundant and accessible. This proposed plan near HHP reaffirmed my decision to leave Iowa City, which wasn't an easy one. I know I'm not the only who places significant weight on access to and conservation of outdoor spaces when deciding where to live. Thank you for listening! Kelly Teeselink From: Carolyn L. Buckingham To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Proposed Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 8:41:58 AM Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner, I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Mike Biderman, to express our opposition to the proposed development along the easternmost border of Hickory Hill Park. The proposed development does not adhere to the recommendations listed in Iowa City's Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood Area, or the City's Comprehensive Plan and does not provide for an adequate buffer between the residential development and the park. Moreover, Hickory Hill Park is such a unique and special place in our City and a new development built directly adjacent to the Park will severely impact wildlife habitat and be detrimental to the water quality of Ralston Creek. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carolyn Buckingham & Mike Biderman This email is from an external source. From: Jorgensen, Shea M To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett Subject: Re: [External] RE: Proposed land development Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 11:20:40 AM Attachments: imaae001.png ima_eq 002.pna ima_eq 003.pnq ima_eq 004.png ima_eq 005.png Yes, if you could forward this to City Staff that would be much appreciated. I have since heard from the Friends of Hickory Hill group and would also like to add that this development proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for listening to the families and individuals of our city who care about our natural spaces. Shea Jorgensen, MD From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:09 AM To: Jorgensen, Shea M Cc: Anne Russett Subject: [External] RE: Proposed land development Shea, Thank you for your comments. Attached is a letter that we sent out to nearby residents last week. The letter contains information on how to access the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where we intend to discuss the rezoning application for this property. Please let me know if you would like City staff to forward any correspondence to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you, Ray Heitner, AICP Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 raymond-heitner(@iowa-city.org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 IOWA C WWW.ICGOV.ORG From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen(@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner(@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed land development Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner, My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills. I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal adjacent to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer and it would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope that we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are developed, they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who benefit from natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Shea Jorgensen, MD Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. From: Weis, Adam J To: Anne Russett Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:43:34 PM r z! $It Hi Anne, Thank you for replying and forwarding my message on. It is nice to know that our voices are heard, and I value your time. The 10-acre addition is a small consolation in what is a betrayal of the NE District Plan, of Iowa City, and of nature. Please forward my comments to P&Z. I know Iowa City will make the right decision in the end. Thanks again, Adam From: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 10:41 AM To: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu> Cc: Ray Heitner <raymond-heitner@ iowa-city.org> Subject: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District Hi, Adam — Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. did want to let you know that with the proposal the park would be expanded by 10 acres. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Anne From: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:39 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park/NE District zi SK fi a Dear Ms. Russett, I'm writing to express my concern about development plans near Hickory Hill Park. I'm a graduate student at the University and have lived in Iowa City since I was four years old. In my twenty years here, I've explored nearly every corner of our city, particularly its natural areas. I'm really proud that the IC area has so many beautiful parks and trail systems, and I think it's one of the strongest aspects of our community. I've spent hundreds of hours with friends and acquaintances running and hiking in our parks, especially Hickory Hill. When I heard about plans to develop northeast of the park, it immediately struck me as poor planning. In a time when Iowa City is trying to embrace sustainability and the fight against climate change (for instance, the prairie plantings in the parks which I think is absolutely amazing), it seems antithetical and backwards to develop along park boundaries. If anything, Hickory Hill should be expanded, so that more land area can be restored to native landscape which helps reduce flooding through increased infiltration, clean our water and air, provide habitat for wildlife, and offer more recreational opportunities for our neighbors. It's especially imperative that existing natural areas are bolstered since it's much easier to expand an existing park than create a new one. And wildlife corridors become more effective with size and inter- connection, rather than being dispersed across the city. I'm also concerned that the developers will not follow the NE District Plan and maintain a proper buffer or follow "conservation design." Due to its proximity to Ralston Creek, developing any additional land in this part of town cannot embrace conservation. The increase in impermeable surfaces will only increase the flashiness of Ralston Creek, and additional contaminants will runoff into the stream. Iowa City should be seeking every single opportunity it can to strengthen the size and health of its natural areas. We're lucky to have a community that cares about nature and recreation and prioritizes those aspects in a state which does not. Please at least consider these things, and I appreciate you spending the time to read this. I would be happy to help in any way I can. I love Iowa City and would hate to see it become a haven for developers seeking short-term gains. Thank you, Adam Weis Graduate Research Assistant Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Iowa From: darcy128(abaol.corn To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Cc: darcy128(@aol.com Subject: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:21:26 PM r R! $It Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett, I'm writing to you with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed as Hickory Trail Estates REZ20-0016. In the rezoning exhibit submitted by Mr. Clark, lots numbered 26-44 clearly ignore the "buffer zone" that the overall city plans for development near parks contain. This proposal does not comply with the NE District Plan nor the Comprehensive Plan for development. Why did the city go to the trouble of developing these plans if not to follow them? Lots numbered 26 through 44 are clearly encroaching on the area designed to protect the park. Those additional nineteen lots are far too close to the park. People within the park will be subjected to so much more noise from people not to mention car traffic. This road could easily become a cut through for people coming from Scott Boulevard. The plan clearly shows that one remedy for the congestion was contemplated and that is the use of a cul-de-sac. Why was that abandoned? Additionally, removal of lots 26-44 would create a single -loaded street, both of which are to be used in city development close to parks. This development is already going to severely impinge upon the enjoyment of the park. This park is a City of Iowa City treasure and should be kept that way. I have been a user of this park for at least fifty of my sixty -plus years and I have seen the many changes that have come, some of them very good but this one, as proposed, will be among the worst. I am a wheelchair user now and we often go to the end of Hickory Trail on a nightly walk. The beautiful prairie grasses and abundant animal life is a joy. Make no mistake. First Avenue traffic behind us is still plenty loud but if this were a street with houses on two sides, the north side of the park will never be the same. Please do the right thing and minimize this development by keeping within the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, already in place. Please forward this comment to the Planning and Zoning commission. Darcy Lipsius 2639 Hickory Trail From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32:19 PM From: Emily Kim <emilyakimOS@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan My name is Emily Kim and I have thoroughly enjoyed many hikes through Hickory Hill Park over the years. I also am a teacher in Iowa City, and many of my students enjoy the park - especially the sledding! They tell me, "it's one of the best sledding hills in IC." I don't have any kids yet (I am actually due with our first baby in a few days), but I imagine we'll be frequenting HHP for many sled trips in the future, per the recommendation of MANY Iowa City fourth graders. After seeing the newest proposed development plan, I am concerned because the plan does not comply with the NE District Plan or Comprehensive Plan. These plans were put in place to minimize the impact on Hickory Hill Park. They should be followed with integrity and fidelity. know Iowa City prides itself on its commitment to nature, to sustainability, and to providing the best park areas for its residents. Hickory Hill Park is a crucial part of the city and we ask that any negative impact on the park be avoided at all costs. Thank you for your time and commitment to Iowa City! Emily Kim From: Anne Russett To: Raymond Heitner Subject: FW: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:31:09 PM From: Molitor, Hannah R <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:18 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park fi a ZRISK Hello Ms. Russett, As a resident and taxpayer in Iowa City for S years now, and someone who appreciates natural spaces in Iowa City, I'm writing to you to express my concerns for the proposed development near Hickory Hill Park. As I'm sure you know, the proposed plan does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan nor does it comply with the Northeast District Plan. I'm asking that the proposed development not be pursued, and that the city adhere to its previous agreements to better protect Hickory Hill Park. While I realize that all development will not be stopped, I advocate for responsible planning around the park and establishing a buffer zone. Please forward my thoughts to the planning and zoning committee. All the best, Hannah Molitor Hannah Molitor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Iowa hannah-molitorauiowa. edu CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0003) to amend Single -Family Site Development Standards related to parking and paving in the front setback area Background In 2018, the City amended its code due to State laws that restricted the City from enforcing regulations limiting rental occupancy based on familial relationships. In response, the City adopted a rental permit cap restricting rental permits to 30% of single-family and duplex units in certain neighborhoods. The City also adopted zoning code amendments that discouraged inappropriate expansions, limited the number of bedrooms in single-family and duplex units, and updated private open space requirements. In April 2019, the State passed legislation prohibiting cities from adopting rental permit caps. Due to concerns related to the City's inability to regulate rental permit caps and the potential impacts to neighborhood stability, the City adopted a 10-month rental permit moratorium in May 2019 to provide time to explore how best to mitigate the consequences of this legislation. Table 1 outlines a timeline of the State bills and associated City code amendments. TABLE 1. Timeline April, 2017 State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any regulations that limits occupancy of rental property based on the existence of familial relationships April, 2018 City adopts neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many changes to the zoning code, including, but not limited to: • Updated rear setback requirements to discourage inappropriate expansions in certain zones • Limited the number of bedrooms in attached single-family and duplexes to 4 • Updated the private open space requirements City moves to annual inspections for many rental properties and increases nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. City adopts an ordinance that capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes April, 2019 State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps May, 2019 City adopts a ten-month rental permit cap moratorium until March 7, 2020 on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap May 6, 2021 Page 2 Ensuring that neighborhoods include a variety of housing choices and options for all residents has always been a challenge, especially in the core of the community which is dominated by student housing. While adopting the moratorium in May 2019, the City Council articulated three goals for new regulations: 1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants. 2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods. 3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources. With State laws limiting local control, the City's most recent amendment to address these concerns was adopted in 2019 (Ordinance No. 19-4815). This amended the single-family site development standards and required a 9-foot separation distance between conforming parking spaces and additional paving within the required front setback area. The proposed amendment would repeal Ordinance No. 19-4815. Provisions and Proposed Amendment: Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce rental permit caps, the City modified the zoning code as it related to paving in front of single-family homes and duplexes. Staff believed Ordinance No. 19-4815 would place additional restrictions on front -yard paving and help address the second and third goals of the City Council. Formerly, the code allowed parking in front setback areas with certain restrictions. However, it also allowed additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, grilling areas, and other uses to be contiguous with conforming parking spaces within the front setback area. When Council adopted Ordinance No. 19-4815, these paved areas could no longer be contiguous with conforming parking spaces. Instead, it required a 9-foot separation distance to reduce instances where additional paved area (for a patio) was used as parking. Table 1 outlines the former and current regulations. Table 1. Former and Current Regulations for Parking and Paving in Front Setback Areas of Single-family and Duplex Uses Former Current Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, as long as it leads directly to a parking space as long as it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open sace. remains open sace. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area from conforming parking spaces or aisles. Staff proposes to repeal the provision that requires the 9-foot separation distance between the additional paved areas and parking spaces/drive aisles. Analysis The purpose of the 2019 amendment was to restrict the amount of paving contiguous with conforming parking spaces. Prior to the amendment the code allowed additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, and grilling areas contiguous with parking spaces within the front setback area. These areas would occasionally be used for parking, which was not allowed by the code, but difficult to enforce. May 6, 2021 Page 3 Since adoption of the 2019 amendment, staff has received multiple, reasonable requests from homeowners who live outside the core of the community. These requests involved adding paving within the front setback area in order to access a parking space within the side yard. All of these requests had to be denied because the 9-foot separation was not provided between the driveway and the additional paving. As for the impact to the core of the community, code enforcement staff has determined that the number of violations related to paving in the front yard setback area are few and that they have the capacity to handle these low number of code enforcement cases. The 2019 amendment regarding parking and paving in the front yard setback area has been in place for about 1.5 years. At this point, staff has determined that it has not had the intended effects of promoting neighborhood stabilization in areas near the downtown. It also created new problems in newer neighborhoods where reasonable requests from homeowners had to be denied due to the new standards. Due to these unintended consequences and the lack of demonstrable success, staff proposes amending the code to remove the provisions related to the 9-foot separation requirement added as part of Ordinance No. 19-4815. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment aligns with the following goal from the City's comprehensive plan: "Review existing codes for consistency with the goal to provide safe housing, re-evaluating provisions that have no apparent basis in safety." On the other hand, the existing code provisions did not have the intended impact of helping to "[p]reserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods." For these reasons, staff is proposing to eliminate these provisions which are not achieving their goal. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 by repealing the restrictions on additional paving in the front setback area of single-family and duplex uses adopted as part of Ordinance No. 19-4815. Attachments 1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments Approved by: I • S1+16,W, Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachment 1 Page 1 Draft Zoning Code Text Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Amend 14-2A-6C-3 as follows: 3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following situations: a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. 0 rnir�o foot (Q') of nr.on Qr»no area froo of irrmr�or�iini i� s irfpno n�-r�-ram , b. For two (2)-family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. �Alitlhi the -eXGe%11r21`' n ^f r,odo%t InI r.%t IhI QW t haIt. r,reWvolde- annoSS 0 • c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) A.A.I.;T he nen onI of WO - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- - - ICOA 10.050.0 . . -a L N WL . r - MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AP RI L 15, 2021 — 7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0015, that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ20-0015: Nonconforming Drinking Establishment Standards Update Ordinance Consideration of the Nonconforming Drinking Establishment Standards Update Ordinance, which amends Title 14 Zoning to allow the continuance and expansion of nonconforming drinking establishments when located on property in a Historic Overlay District zone and where vacant for at least two years. Lehmann began by stating this item is dealing with non -conforming drinking establishments and the standards that are involved. For some background, regarding regulation of drinking establishments in Iowa City, in 2009 the City created a new classification process for drinking establishments and as part of that it came with a 500-foot minimum separation distance between those establishments, as the purpose was largely to combat the overconcentration of these uses Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 2of9 downtown or near downtown with the goal of preventing alcohol over consumption, especially underage drinking. The University was heavily involved in the creation of this ordinance and nuisances that come with that. The ordinance has been amended a couple times since it was initially adopted, one of the major amendments was in 2013 when the City only restricted this to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District, prior to that time it had applied to the entirety of the City. It was determined that outside of downtown they are a lot less likely to see the same level of negative effects and the same level of concentration of drinking uses so the City felt like that it didn't apply as well to those areas and there were some economic impacts that came from that as well. There was another amendment in 2015 where it was expanded for sidewalk cafes and a couple other things that Lehmann will explain later. However, these minimum separation distance requirements really apply again only primarily to drinking establishments as there are different standards for liquor stores. Existing drinking establishments were still allowed to continue as a non -conforming use if the use didn't change and if their liquor license was maintained or was not discontinued for more than a year. Those establishments were allowed to continue and there were still some expansions or some modifications that those establishments downtown could do such as expansions for rooftop cafes or some requirements for service areas, for example. Lehmann next showed a map of Iowa City noting the University Impact Area which is really the northside, downtown, some of the neighborhoods near downtown, it doesn't really go south of the railroad until it crosses the river to the west and then it's the area near campus pretty much over to University Heights. The Riverfront Crossings District then goes south of the railroad, down to Highway 6 a bit, however it's a relatively concentrated area that's most affected by the University and that sees the most redevelopment. Lehmann noted there have been consequences from this ordinance, both good and bad. On the positive side the regulations have helped prevent the further proliferation of drinking establishments downtown, there have been some drinking establishments that have lapsed, so the concentration overall has decreased over time. It has also led to greater mix of businesses downtown including new retail and office uses that have replaced some of those drinking establishments and doesn't place as much pressure on the market for everything to become a drinking establishment. Lehmann also noted there were some unintended impacts that came from it as well such as economic consequences, and that was why it was amended to only apply to the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings. There have also been some impacts, especially for historic buildings that require lots of rehabilitation, and some instances where those buildings remain vacant for years and viable uses have not been identified for those locations. Lehmann stated one of the things that prompted staff to look at this ordinance was one of those vacant buildings, it was a concern raised as part of the Tailwinds project at 109-121 East College Street. Lehmann acknowledged this was partially in response to that, but also just trying to address unintended impacts and the middle amendment was also developed to support other goals of the ordinance and plan like historic preservation. Lehmann first discussed the existing provisions because it can be a little confusing at times. Drinking establishments in Iowa City have a specific designation defined at 14-4A-4F stating a drinking establishment is one that meets three general criteria; (1) the principal activity is preparing, dispensing, and consuming food and beverages. Lehmann added it doesn't matter if the primary purpose of the place is to do food because other criteria also factor in. (2) The establishment is licensed to sell alcohol on site, and (3) the establishment is open for business on a regular basis sometime between 12 o'clock midnight and 2am. Otherwise, if an Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 3of9 establishment doesn't meet those three criteria it's generally considered an eating establishment. Lehmann added there are two additional exceptions to classify an establishment in a category other than a drinking establishment; (1) if there's nude dancing it's considered an adult business and (2) if its associated with a hotel and has a class B liquor license, which is a specific a license associated with those uses, it's considered hospitality -oriented retail. Lehmann acknowledged staff did receive a question from a Commissioner prior to this meeting asking does the drinking establishment have to remain open between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 2am. Lehmann stated the distinction is not quite that it has to be open that entire time, the distinction is that if there's an establishment that has a liquor license and they want to be an eating establishment, they would have to close at midnight, otherwise they're considered a drinking establishment. Additionally, establishments that have liquor licenses and are open past midnight are considered a drinking establishment even if they aren't open until 2am, it's anytime past midnight. If there is no liquor license it's not considered a drinking establishment, because it won't meet that criteria, so those are eating establishments that can remain open past midnight if they don't have the liquor license. Lehmann noted they do see all of these combinations of uses in downtown Iowa City. Lehmann continued discussing this amendment and non -conforming uses. Generally non- conforming uses are those that are established legally at the time it was established, but either the Code changes in some way, as the case of the separation distance, or it's rezoned and that existing use no longer complies with the new standards. There are specific provisions that apply to those non -conforming uses in at 14-5E-5 and are meant to bring uses into compliance over time and to do so there are several general provisions that apply to these non -conforming uses. (1) The use can't be enlarged except as allowed by Code, (2) it can be converted to another similar use, generally it has to be less intense and sometimes that requires a special exception, it depends on whether the use is in the same category or whether it's a different use category. A lot of the times they see changing uses, for example, if it's a neighborhood commercial use that was rezoned residential and then it can switch between retail uses. (3) There are provisions for accessible uses that can continue with those non -conforming primary uses as long as those still exist. (4) There are some provisions for if it's damaged or destroyed, up to a point and can be reestablished within two years, some additional provisions apply for long established uses. And (5) generally if it's been discontinued for one year, it must can convert to a conforming use or it must be replaced by a conforming use. Lehmann next discussed the specific provisions at 14-5E-G that apply to drinking establishments and they were adopted as part of the separation distance requirements and it is really focused on those struggling establishments that don't conform to the minimum separation distance requirements. Generally, such uses are considered grandfathered unless the use changes, similarly to other non -conforming uses or the liquor license is discontinued or revoked for more than a year or there are changes to the use such as they are no longer classified as a drinking establishment. Lehmann noted there are also some additional special provisions for these uses such as rooftop cafes are allowed as an expansion and sidewalk cafes are not considered an expansion. Lehmann next discussed the criteria in 14-5E-G that they're looking at amending. First non- conforming drinking establishments that would otherwise lapse due to one year of liquor license inactivity would be allowed to continue where it is zoned in a historic district overlay (OHID) and Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 4 of 9 second the building would have had been vacant for two years. In addition, those existing drinking establishments that meet those criteria would also be allowed to expand into spaces that are also vacant and zoned with a historic district overlay. Lehmann pointed to the table that is from the staff report to show the Code language changes. What the change does is add an exception to where it mentions the liquor license lapses for a period of one year and adds in that except for where drinking establishments are on a property zoned OHD and in a building that has remained vacant for the previous two years. Similarly, where it's talking about expansions that can happen it is not only rooftop service areas, but it can also expand into other properties that meet those criteria. Lehmann stated the goal of this is really to try and support a couple goals from the Comprehensive Plan. (1) To encourage rezoning downtown properties as historic district overlay, which is a zoning district that protects historic buildings and affects what exterior improvements can occur and also affects demolition; (2) it does facilitate economic development in uses were buildings have remained vacant for at least two years and (3) provides the opportunity for alternative businesses to establish. Lehmann said this amendment still meets the same goals of the ordinance that was initially adopted in an effort make sure that there's a mix of different uses downtown but where those uses are an establishment because, for whatever reason there doesn't seem to be the market demand, then it won't allow that that drinking establishment use to continue. Lehmann also noted the way that it's designed is to limit the potential misuse of the ordinance, so it is very narrowly targeted. He did reiterate this would help facilitate that Tailwinds project and that that's what initially got staff to start looking at this. In terms of the analysis that staff conducted, there's more than 100 businesses that can serve alcohol in the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings Districts, of those around 43 are current drinking establishments and 38 are non -conforming to that 500-foot buffer for separation distance. There have also been nine former non -conforming drinking establishments that have lost their non -conforming status, mostly due to other uses established there or they were vacant for a period of time. There are two additional drinking establishment licenses in buildings that are currently vacant and may lose their non -conforming status if they weren't reestablished within a year (the Union Bar downtown and The Mill). In the staff memo Lehmann provided a map that shows historic districts, drinking establishments and the 500-foot buffers. Most of the non- conforming drinking establishments are downtown or near downtown, some in the north side though it's relatively limited. For historic preservation zones, those are mostly north and east of downtown, typically they're associated with residential zones, so a lot of the goals don't necessarily align, but they do align in specific circumstances. Notably, that they align where the Tailwinds project is occurring as that's a recent historic rezoning downtown and there are potentially other buildings downtown that that could be eligible right now. The only property that staff identified is 111 East College Street which is formerly the Field House and it's been vacant for several years now, and others that it might apply to is the Union Bar at 121 East College Street which is vacant and expected to lapse as it closed in on the two year mark, this might also apply to other drinking establishments downtown that are currently active but may be able to use this amendment in future if they're building a historic district overlay. Lehmann reiterated with the 500-foot buffer there's not a lot of areas where other drinking establishments can establish unless it replaces an existing drinking establishment. Craig asked for clarification on the map for what is in the historic district overlay that allows drinking establishments and where the Tailwinds building is. Lehmann pointed it out on the map and noted that there are other historic districts downtown that are in commercial zones but Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 5of9 typically most of the historic districts or conservation districts are tied to residential properties or residential neighborhoods. Lehmann reiterated as this relates to Comprehensive Plan it supports a couple different goals. (1) Preserving the historic main street character of downtown while encouraging appropriate infill and enhancing the economic viability and residential diversity of the area, primarily the economic viability for this amendment. (2) Increase and diversifying the property tax base, encouraging retention and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that are compatible to the Iowa City economy; and (3) encouraging new business development in the existing core or neighborhood areas. This amendment does provide or maintains that ability to provide a diversity of local businesses downtown because there is that two-year waiting period where before this would kick into effect. It also provides an opportunity for another use to establish and if there isn't another use that seems like it would fit then that's when the drinking establishment use that's already there would be allowed to continue. Lehmann noted it does provide some additional incentives to encourage more OHD designations downtown because it does provide additional benefits for those properties and allows the possibility of expansion of existing successful businesses and it allows different business uses that are not currently allowed. Beyond that, the two-year lapse period for lack of a better term, is really to pair those two goals, the economic development goal on that historic preservation goal and make sure that historic buildings are being protected while still supporting the economic potential of downtown Iowa City. Staff does recommend that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years. Hensch understands that there's three criteria to be eligible, number one they have to be in the right zone, which would be the University Impact Area or the Riverfront Crossings, number two they have to have OHD property designation and the structure would have to be vacant for two years. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Craig asked if a building that has never been a drinking establishment got the OHD designation there's still no way that it can become a drinking establishment correct. Lehmann confirmed that was but noted if it neighbors a drinking establishment that was also in a OHD they could expand into that space, but only if it met those two criteria. Russett added another situation in which drinking establishment couldn't be located there is if it met that 500-foot separation distance requirement. Craig asked about the property she saw for sale, the bank parking lot on the northwest corner of Washington and Linn Streets, if somebody builds a building there there's no way it can have a drinking establishment in it, because it's not 500 feet from the bars that are right by the alley. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Craig said they could build a hotel there and it would be okay. Hektoen noted a new construction also wouldn't satisfy the historic zone. Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 6of9 Craig asked then are the places that are on properties that are allowed through being grandfathered in as drinking establishments, are they considered higher valued buildings or property because they can do higher value activities there, zoning certainly affects the property value of a piece of property. Perhaps something is assessed at a higher value because it is a drinking establishment than it would be if that something that was zoned different. Lehmann is unsure about the assessor's valuation, but his understanding is because the non -conforming drinking establishments are tied to buildings, it does affect the rent of those buildings. Craig said she is a little uncomfortable with this because it feels like someone who can afford to let a building sit empty for two years and then for many years be able to reap some value from that whereas someone who can't afford that to happen and is unable to fill it and therefore loses the opportunity for it to ever be a drinking establishment again just feels like the big guy wins. Elliott followed up on what Craig pointed out in that there are so few historic designated buildings downtown so why aren't there more. Russett stated they are actually currently working on a national register nomination for the downtown and that's something that has typically happened before any further local historic districts have been created in the City. They are not currently pursuing a local historic district in the downtown but are pursuing that national register nomination. She acknowledged there's oftentimes some concerns from property owners with the local historic designation because it does come with a lot of benefits but there's also additional regulation, so a lot of times it's just time working with property owners and doing outreach to see if there's any interest in a designation, the ones that have been designated in the downtown have been initiated by the property owner and they voluntarily wanted to pursue that designation. Nolte offered a comment for anyone in the public or someone that might be new to town on where these ordinances came from. Back in the late 90s two things happened, the University decided no more alcohol on campus and then the Coral Ridge mall opened and there was a flux of retailers that went with it and so any unused space downtown became a bar and things just got out of control. Rents went through the roof, the only thing that would work downtown was a bar for a long time, and so that's where these ordinances came in to right that ship. He thinks they served their purpose of the time but thinks it's smart now to look at the ordinances and how to make adjustments. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch close the public hearing. Nolte recommends that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years. Townsend seconded the motion. Hensch really likes the real specific targeting that's associated with this amendment because he was a State Trooper when Iowa City was pretty crazy downtown and got called downtown many times for really big public brawls in the middle of the night, so he remembers those times well and it was really kind of out of control. He thinks this ordinance will be another piece of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 7of9 puzzle of encouraging and strengthening the historical character of downtown, hopefully it will encourage more buildings to get a historical designation and potentially reduce the overall vacancies that do occur in historic buildings because of some of the restrictions associated with them by providing some type of economic incentive, by the way of this type of business. Craig agrees and hopes eventually there'll be more historic designations downtown but the only way this ordinance encourages additional ones would be the areas that are already drinking establishments, there's no incentive for someone who's not already a drinking establishment unless they're outside of the 500-foot buffer so it is a limited encouragement. Nolte agreed, one would be pretty hard pressed to find a spot that isn't in the 500-foot zone. Townsend agreed but there's still a chance for more restaurants to come in and help revive the vacancies downtown, restaurants are always needed, especially during the noon hour. Elliott stated it seems like a good solution for the property for Tailwinds and if it affects others that's a good thing too. Hensch asked if the genesis of this amendment was a request by the Tailwinds developer, or what actually started this whole discussion. Lehmann replied the genesis was with the Tailwinds project and they looked at a million different ways of trying to approach this and are still looking at things but it's been a process. Townsend stated there likely will be more traffic downtown in the evenings with the music building being open now for recitals and Riverside Theater planning to move to the Ped Mall so it just seems that there will be more traffic and more need for restaurants and eating establishments downtown. Craig stated while she does support this, she has a few minor concerns but economic vitality and preserving historic spaces downtown override any small concerns she has. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Nolte left the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 1, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 1, 2021. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave a few updates, first the Finkbine annexation and the first reading of that rezoning ordinance passed at Council last week, so they are moving that annexation and severance with University Heights to the State for their review and the rezoning will get approved after the State Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 8of9 looks at the annexation. Second is the Yellow Rock preliminary plat, which was that seven -lot subdivision in the County off of Rapid Creek Road, Council approved that last week. Third, from several months ago P&Z looked at a rezoning in Riverfront Crossings south of the railroad tracks on Dubuque Street around 700 South Dubuque, that project is still moving forward, the rezoning was approved a long time ago but they received a parking reduction last night from the Board of Adjustment and this Commission should be seeing an alley vacation soon for that project and also staff is currently reviewing their plans through the design review process. ADJOURNMENT: Craig moved to adjourn. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. 0 �c O C) W r w N W N V Z N ao N Z W H H Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LLI O � 1 1 co 1 M ' co X 1 X X X X X X N ' r N r X 1 X X X O X X X 1 1 X X X X X X 1 w 0-4X r X X X X 0 X M r L r r X X X X X X X o r X , X X X X X r o r X 1 1 X X X X X O N X X X X X X 00 1 1 00 O 1 1 O O 1 1 W z LV W m J j Z � J C7 � � � � m � Oa— °C��0. W� z to Q - =Z �� C� vF- pv� Wcnz Cl)^w Q W- J zOCJz � o��JWaO t� ow= zcnH —O c :3 aD U W (3) 4-1 N -a O �chQz w w ; �XOO '