Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2015 Board of Adjustment1 1 _ M CITY OF IOWA 01T.T. IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 13, 2015 5: 15 P.M. Emma Harvat Hall STAFF REPORT CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Neighborhood & Development Services IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, May 13, 2015 — 5:15 PM City Hall — Emma Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the April 8, 2015 Minutes D. Special Exception Items 1. EXC15-00006: An application submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the required front building setback for a garage to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St. 2. EXC15-00007: An application submitted by John Roffman to reduce principal building setbacks for property located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at 2264 S. Riverside Drive. E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: June 10, 2016 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC15-00006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Applicable code sections: File Date: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: May 13, 2015 Pat McArtor 1031 East Market Street Iowa City 319-331-2797 Front building setback reduction To allow a garage in the side yard. 1031 East Market Street 70' x 65' Residential, Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) North: Residential, RNC-12 South: Residential, RNC-12 East: Residential, RNC-12 West: Residential, RNC-12 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria) April 6, 2015 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the intersection of Clapp and Market Streets. The applicant is seeking to construct a detached garage in the side yard east of the house. A detached garage is considered an accessory structure, however, along street side lot lines, accessory buildings must comply with the front, principal building setback requirement. Along the Clapp Street frontage, all of the principal buildings are located closer to the right-of- way line than the current minimum standard in the zoning code, which is 15 feet. (This is true on the Market Street frontage as well.) The abutting property at 121 Clapp is set back approximately 2 feet from the right-of-way line (7 feet from the sidewalk). Through setback averaging, this reduces the required setback to approximately 10 feet.' The subject property has no alley access. The applicant proposes to locate the 2-car garage in the side yard. However, he would like to preserve space directly adjacent to the house as patio ' Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage have been developed and all of these developed lots are occupied by principal buildings that are located closer to the street than the required front setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on abutting lots.... If the lot is a comer lot, then the average is based on the setback of the non -vacant lot and the required setback for the zone in which the lot is located. [14-2A-4B-3e-(2)] space, providing some privacy from the street. The applicant is seeking to reduce the setback from the required 10 feet to 3 feet (8 feet from the sidewalk vs. 15 feet from the sidewalk). The applicant would rely on the existing curb cut on Market Street to provide driveway access to the proposed 20 x 22 foot garage. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-4B-4E-5 pertaining to principal building setbacks in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements (14-2A-4B-5). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. FINDINGS: • While the abutting property on Clapp Street has a setback of less than 3 feet, setback averaging results in a required setback of 10 feet. The subject property is a small, nearly square lot 65' x 70' with no alley access. • The property has very limited space behind the house for uses such as patio or recreation space. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. FINDINGS: • The property is quite small: 4,550 square feet and square. • Because the property is located on a corner lot, the principal building setback applies on both street frontages: Clapp Street and the Market Street. • The property has limited space directly behind the house, therefore the applicant uses space just to the side of the house for patio space. The applicant would like to preserve this area to allow some outdoor space with privacy from the street. • The street right-of-way line is located 5 feet inside (west of) the sidewalk. 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations, which are: a. To maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City neighborhoods; d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences: and 3 e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. FINDINGS: • Because the requested setback reduction is along the street, it will not reduce opportunity for maintaining light, air, separation for fire protection of firefighting between buildings. Because the proposed garage provides the required 5-foot rear setback from the abutting property to the south, it will not reduce opportunity for privacy between buildings. • Properties on this frontage were established before current zoning standards and are characterized by small lots with minimal setbacks. Setbacks along both Market and Clapp Street frontages are less than the 15 feet currently required by code. The abutting property on Clapp Street is set just 2 feet from the street right-of-way line. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. FINDING: • The proposed garage will rely on the existing curb cut access, tapering the driveway from approximatelyl6 feet at the garage entrance to 10 feet at the sidewalk in order to minimize paving. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. F1110 I?" The proposed garage would be located 3 feet from the east property line (Clapp Street right-of-way)-8 feet from the sidewalk. General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. FINDING: • The applicant will make use of the existing curb cut ano will taper the driveway to minimize paving near the sidewalk on Market Street. However, existing pavement in this area has resulted in parking in the front yard, which is discouraged in the zoning code. Staff recommends removing the paving between the walkway that leads to the house and the driveway in order to reduce opportunity for storing cars on the driveway and to better distinguish pedestrian space from vehicle parking. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. FINDINGS: Current paving is not in conformance with code standards as it provides parking in the front setback on Market Street cars, immediately off the sidewalk. If the Board approves the recommendation above to remove paving between the driveway and walkway to the house, staff believes the parking situation on the lot will be improved. The applicant has proposed a simple garage design that is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. • The garage meets all other setback requirements. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone ire which such property is located. See findings under 1 and 2 above. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Finding: • All utilities, access roads, drainage and facilities are established for this neighborhood. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Finding: • The reduction of the setback along Clapp Street will have no impact on ingress or egress from the site. The driveway will rely on the existing curb cut along Market Street. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Finding: • The existing curb cut does not meet current access standards. This is not an unusual situation in residential neighborhoods, however the applicant will have to secure minor modification before a building permit is issued. Staff has reviewed the crash history for this intersection and finds there is no significant safety issue. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Finding: While the Comprehensive plan does not speak directly to this situation, the plan does encourage reinvestment in existing housing stock. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC15-00006, to reduce the required front setback along the Clapp Street frontage from 10 feet to 3 feet for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • Substantial compliance with the elevation proposed, with the garage being sided with a similar size/width lap as the house. • Removal of paving between the driveway and walkway leading to the house as proposed by staff. • The applicant will secure a minor modification to establish the curb cut on Market Street as a legally approved curb cut. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Aerial views of the proposed location. 3. Other views of the property and frontage 4. Site Plan submitted by the applicant. 5. Photo of garage style being proposed. 6. Application materials. Approved by: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services La LM AiAlk lop owl I ol y'; �f�•Y�' n o.. �o n • a rn � Cl 7 or . IT. moo r �T $ 2A L Ron% ,.._ Ll �! N _ n Basic garage design being proposed by the applicant. This garage is located on the east side of Clapp Street just north of the Market Street intersection. •C Fiqure 3: View from the intersection of Clapp and Market Streets. Fiqure 4; View of the abutting property on Clapp Street. Figure 1: View from Market Street shows current configuration of parking in the front setback. Figure 2: Simulation of view from Market Street with garage. Figure 5: Staffs recommended site layout with removal of paving in the front setback along Market Street. MARKET STREET SIDEWALK 3' Area currently paved for walkway and parking. %j Area where staff J// recommends removing pavement C7 1> 40 APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: 6 PROPERTY PARCEL. NO. B 1 1331 ON PROPERTY ADDRESS: -7 © K yW PROPERTY ZORE: L• -L ti9in, In a� A 1, 1 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: Name: k A'6� Address: /031 JfF 611la-2: Phone: 3 19 as CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: �� F Zq s Phone: m PROPERTY OITASR: Herne: (If other then applicant) Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. if you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Yilab: at 366-5239 or e-#nall sarah-waWows-cffy.ory. Purpose for spacial exception: Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: ,.. IiRL S 14Air,rst r Uear Board ofA4ustmcuk I am writing to request a q=W exception. to coda and wanting to build a dotac bed garage (20 by 22 9.) on my property. By placing the p rap at this location, It allows me to utilise my yard space in as efficadvelmom prectioal manner and would sot dcheut from tha neigbborhood. Hors are some additional q=Mos. 1. The two properties directly south (121 mud 117 Clapp Sk) are only sot apprwdrustely 6-3 feet ftom. flask respective sidewaila. Thus, it Ymuld reiiect the placement of other structures along that part of Clapp St. z. At this location, the garage would set at least 40 fad away from the intersection of Clapp and Market. Also, Clagg(one way ) and MarkaKonc way west) iatea?tton is a are way to a one way so there would be no line of site/saft_ issuea an this ikon. This makes this intersection. unique per 3. With the location of the garage, it would allow any access to the Scrap should these be any safaty/Ere protection issues. It would Ch M oppordmitics for prMKT, botween dwellings. ar 4. By allowing the a4tustmeat, it allows me to keep my briddstare PRO arauand ample space between to garage and the house. If I were to build per murem coda, I would make it difficult for me to of Wvely utileae any yard for personal use S. The driveway to the garage (off of existing pad and Market St, driveway) would be a single limo to &a garage. 6. The 20 by 22 garage will utilize a 4/12 pitched roofwhich would make the height much Inver than any other nearby struvta= Thank you for your consideration with my request for epaoial exception. RespecdUlly Pat McArtot STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC15-00007 GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: May 13, 2015 Applicant: John Roffman 2450 S. Riverside Drive Iowa City, IA 319-351-3141 Contact: Rob Decker 509 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 319-338-7557 Property Owner Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Jim Houghton 216 Stevens Drive Iowa City, IA 319-341-0641 Reduce principal building setbacks —front, rear, and side. To allow development of a self -storage facility. 2264 S. Riverside Drive 3.61 acres Vacant, General Industrial (1-1) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, Planned Development Overlay/ High Density Single -Family (OPD-RS12) South: Vacant, Public land (P1) East: Residential (OPD-RS12) West: Public, Public land (P1) Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, General Criteria for special exceptions; 14-2D-4B-5b, Specific Criteria for setback reductions in the Industrial Zones. File Date: April 15, 2015 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the 1-1 zone at the intersection of S. Riverside Drive and McCollister Street. The site is currently vacant, except for a small residential structure. Property to the south is public (right-of-way and floodplain/permanent open space). To the west, on the opposite side of S. Riverside Drive, property is also zoned 11. To the north and east property is zoned residential and is occupied by a manufactured housing park, Thatcher Mobile Home Park. The General Industrial (1-1) zone is intended to provide opportunities for the development of industrial firms. Uses allowed by right in the zone are: • Technical/Light Manufacturing —manufacturing, development, processing, fabricating, packaging, or assembling of electronic components, equipment, instruments, machinery, etc. • Self -storage and Warehouse uses. A number of other uses are allowed provisionally in the zone: General Manufacturing —manufacturing, compounding, assembling or treatments of most articles, materials, or merchandise, excluding manufacturing. These are uses that do not have significant externalities such as excessive odors, fumes, smoke, dust, hazardous waste, etc. • Basic Utilities and Communication Transmission facilities are also allowed provisionally. As provisional uses the above two classifications are restricted to indoor areas and have requirements for additional setbacks and other requirements for screening of outdoor storage. Other uses, such as Heavy Manufacturing (limited to concrete batch facilities), General Community Service, and Helicopter Landing Facilities are allowed in the 1-1 zone only by special exception. Figure 1: Dimensions of the property are shown here. Note the right-of-way widens along the south property line. Figure 2. Approximate locations of the 100 setbacks and 40 foot setback. The applicant is proposing to establish a self -storage facility —a use that is allowed by right in the 1-1 zone. The applicant is seeking to reduce the setbacks to allow more full development of the property. The site plan shows two long buildings running parallel with the east and north property lines. Driveways and entrances to these buildings are to be faced away from the abutting residential zones. In the interior of the site, buildings and drives run east to west. All of the buildings extend into the required 100-foot setback. The site is surrounded with a fence for security purposes. The site plan shows that required S3 landscape screening is located outside the fence along the north and east property lines. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-2D-4B-5 (b) pertaining to setback adjustments in the I-1 zone in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. The applicant has provided a site plan showing how the proposed storage units will be located on the property. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific Standards: Section 14-2A-4B-5, Adjustments to the Principal Setback Requirements 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. FINDING: • It is somewhat unusual for an industrial zone to abut property zoned Tor residential uses. In this case, the subject 11 property abuts residential property along two sides, reducing the buildable area of the site (for principal structures) by nearly one half. As shown in the site plan, all of the proposed buildings extend into the 100-foot setback. • The setback from McCollister Boulevard is adjacent right-of-way is at its widest point. In other words, this area is already further from the paved road than adjacent property. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards. FINDING: • If required to comply with all the setback requirements, the storage units could occupy less than one half of the property. 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The purpose of the setback requirement is to: a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting; b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of buildings and between residences; and d. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. FINDINGS: The proposed buildings are low, one-story self -storage units. The 20-foot setback will provide adequate space for firefighting and separation as well as opportunity for light and air. • A 20-foot setback is the standard rear yard setback in residential zones. This will be similar to the building separation established in the adjacent manufactured housing park. • Self -storage uses are not characterized by frequent activity or heavy use and do not generate noise, dust, odors, or glare nor do self -storage uses attract substantial vehicle traffic associated with some industrial uses. o It has been observed that some self -storage facilities in the county are used as workshops or other active uses. For this reason, staff recommends tiiat the board impose a condition expressly prohibiting such active use. All storage will be indoors. (Many industrial uses make use of outdoor storage of materials or large vehicle loading or storage areas. Outdoor storage, drives, and loading areas are not subject to the principal building setbacks.) The 40-foot setback required for residential uses located along arterial streets is intended to separate or buffer homes from the noise and activity along busy roadways and to preserve space for future right-of-way improvements, especially in areas where roads were platted too narrow. McCollister Boulevard is an 85-foot right-of-way (with 30- foot pavement width) along most of its length between South Gilbert Street and Riverside Drive. The road curves along this portion of McCollister and, at a point approximately 14 feet from the east property line, the right-of-way begins to widen, reaching 125 feet at the west property line along Riverside Drive (40+ foot pavement width). • The City Engineer does not anticipate the need for additional right-of-way along this portion of McCollister Boulevard. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. FINDINGS: The structures along the east and north property lines, where the 1-1 zone abuts the residential zone, are one-story buildings (approximatley 16 feet in height). o Staff recommends limiting the height of the two buildings located along the east and north property lines to no more than 20 feet. The site plan shows that all drives and loading areas will be located away from the residential zone. The storage buildings located near the east and north property line will, in effect, screen residential uses from the interior of the site —drives, buildings entrances, etc. Entrances to these two long buildings will face away from the residential zone. The applicant has indicated the site will have security fencing and controlled 24-hour access. Access will be from Riverside Drive only. 5 • The applicant has indicated that all lighting for the buildings will be downcast and located under the soffits of the buildings to minimize glare or light trespass. • Required S3 screening (consisting of tall, dense shrubs and trees) is required along portions of the site that abut the residential zone. On the site plan this screening is shown outside the perimeter fencing. Given how close the proposed development will be to the established residential structures, and its visibility along a prominent entrance into South Iowa City (Terry Trueblood Recreation Area), the landscaping and fencing should be given additional consideration to minimize the monotony of the long buildings that line the site and to reduce the industrial aspect of the site. o S3 screening should be an attractive mix (varied height and species) of shade trees and evergreens to be approved by the City Forester. The applicant's site plan suggests such a mix, though tree/shrub species have not been specified. o Fencing should be black chain link. Specific Standards (14-413-4E-5). General Standards (14-413-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. FINDINGS: • As noted above, self -storage uses are not characterized by frequent or heavy activity or the kinds of externalities associated with many industrial uses. They do not generate noise, dust, odors, glare, or substantial vehicle traffic and do not involve materials or processes that may be dangerous or otherwise inappropriate or unpleasant in close proximity to residential uses. • Reducing the setback to 20 feet will not impede opportunity for fire separation or firefighting. • The, property will be surrounded by security fencing and access will be limited to Riverside Drive. • All driveways, loading areas, and entrances to the buildings will face away from the residential zone. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. FINDINGS: • See findings above for general criterion #1. • The proposed storage buildings that abut the residential zone are low, one-story structures. Limiting the height of these buildings to 20-feet, which is similar to residential building heights (single-family residential zones allow building up to 35 feet in height). • A 20-foot setback is the standard rear yard setback in residential zones, and so this will be similar to the yard separation established in the adjacent manufactured housing park. • All active areas of the site are screened by the perimeter buildings on the north and east property lines, eliminating views of drives and loading. • The setback reduction requested along McCollister will affect only the building near the south property line, which is located along a wider portion of right-of-way. In effect, the property itself is already set back further from the sidewalk and paved street than adjacent property. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly davcioprneret and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. FINDINGS: • See findings above for general criteria #1 and #2. Self -storage is the most benign of allowed industrial uses in terms of traffic, dust, noise, glare, odors, etc. With the security features proposed by the applicant (lighting under soffits and 24-hour controlled access) and the recommended screening and fencing proposed by staff (to reduce the industrial aspect of the site and break up the length of the perimeter buildings), the setback reduction should not be impede the development of the adjacent residential zone and will not impact adjacent public property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDING: A portion of the site is located along a drainageway, which runs approximately parallel to the east property line in the area where the longest storage building is proposed. The City Engineer has expressed concern about whether the proposed development can effectively direct overland flow of stormwater (100-year storm event). He has requested additional clarification regarding elevation of the channel as it relates to the site. At the time of the drafting of this report, the drainage information had not been received. Staff anticipates that the applicant will submit additional information before the Board considers the application on May 13. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDING: The property has one entrance drive from South Riverside Drive. Given the anticipated traffic generated by the self -storage, this should be adequate. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. FINDING: • All other aspects of the proposed plan not discussed here, will be reviewed as part of the building permit and site plan review process. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue in particular, however, the South Central District Plans call for this area to be developed and even expanded for industrial uses as they are displaced closer to central portions of the City. The Plan acknowledges the conflicts that occur between residential and industrial uses but states, that industrial uses "should be allowed operate in a reasonable manner within the areas zoned for those uses without the friction that occurs when industrial/intensive commercial uses and residential uses are located too closely together." The South Central District Plan and the South District Plan (the South District being located to the east of Iowa River) call for enhanced entryway aesthetics. Both plans were adopted some years before McCollister Boulevard and the McCollister Bridge were designed and constructed and before the substantial investment in Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. The draft South District Plan, currently awaiting review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, calls particular attention to aesthetics along McCollister Boulevard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of the application until the City Engineer has approved a concept for handling stormwater drainage on the site. If City Engineer receives and approves a drainage concept prior to the May 13 meeting of the Board, Staff would recommend approval of the requested reduction for the principal building setback requirement from residential zones from 100 feet to 20 feet along the north and east property lines; and a reduction of the 40-foot arterial street setback to 20-feet for the proposed corner building subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted. • Buildings located along the north and east property lines shall be one story in height (20 feet maximum). • Perimeter landscaping will be a mix of shade and evergreen trees and shrubs to be approved by the City Forester. • Perimeter fencing will be black chain link. • Lighting within the 100-foot setback must be located under the soffits to minimize light trespass to adjacent properties. • The property may be used for self -storage only —no workshops, assembly, or other active uses of the site will be permitted. No outdoor storage is permitted on the property. Access to the site is limited to Riverside Drive and shall be controlled by a security system 24 hours/day. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Site plan 3. Application materials Approved by: / r.- Y i—' John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services E r IL C4 C0 03 0 CL O'D Q (D x Ai - cr co ep 3s old IIIH -Lsauo Wo _ .. 1-d 03NOZ 1S NMS'iiHM 3 519 02fVA3l`08 2131SI11000W zi uR8 r--y c ' N E .J''�— aL r as •� n � , q � gFg � f a/I 'T�SC 'Y i yRS f ♦ T a � 1' I {PP J! fpppJ ff�� I '3' •.4 � O � 1 E7o�a— R I I��n � • ..� r 1 � oin'vo SPECIAL EEXCEP1' ION DATE: HCr— `emsZoIS PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 162Z39.)00$ PROPERTY ADDRESS: S. RSioeesro[ Liervw PROPERTY ZONE: S-1 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 3.41 AC. APPLICANT: Name: �ninw Qorau. Address:.I'M S. (r;yw:dc- a. Phone: - 3111- 351- 31`11 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Ro1r VkLkc, (if other than applicant) Address: 5uq S. 6:16..f' Si Phone: 3161 -33$-"IM PROPERTY OWNER: Name: I ✓�'� ,r. ��V�v, (if other than applicant) Address: a 16 4� G rie.. 1 YI ✓{ Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception, please list the description and seetlort number In the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this Information or do not know which section of the code to look In, please contact Sarah Walz at 366-6239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city org, Purpose for special exception: tf-i6A ,.Ih;., . +o r�l.t. •. iin� r:aa1 641&3 +e _k 6,. I-) ?Avert e��..0&A -1n rel I �:�I.C�. Ice' :6 V A s le &&I wg%r. R1se 4e + 20' o 1"LW :l4e. Date of previous application or appeal filed, I any: hA Special Exception Request for the Roffman Storaee Facility 2264 South Riverside Drive Special Exception Request: Adjustments to the Principal Building Setback Requirements in 1-1 zone adjacent to a residential zone. (14-2D-46-3d) 100-ft is required from the adjacent residential use to the east. 40-ft setbacks are required along arterials. C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-48-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) A special exception may be requested to reduce the principal building setback requirements beyond what is allowed by minor modification. The board of adiustment may adjust setback reouirements if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied: 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question. The subject property is relatively small for an 1-1 zoned property. It is located directly adjacent to a residential zone (north and east). Locating these two zones adjacent to each other is normally discouraged, given the negative externalities associated with industrial uses, such as dust, noise, vibration, large truck traffic, and outdoor storage. The use being proposed has none of the externalities. 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. . The subject property is relatively small for an 1-1 zoned property. it is located directly adjacent to a residential zone (north and east). A setback requirement of 100-ft from the north and east property line would substantially reduce the use of the lot, which is approximately 380-ft at its widest (north) property line and 214-ft at the south property line. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purposed of the setback regulations, and Purpose: The minimum setback requirements are intended to: a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access forfirefrghting: there is no effect, as 20-ft will provide ample space for firefighting and light. In addition, the buildings adjacent to the residential properties will be one-story. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between buildings: Building entrances will not face onto the residential properties and will be screened to the S3 standard. The owner has shown interest to using color(s) of gray to help blend with the screening. c. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings; and The buildings adjacent to the residential zoned properties will be one-story in height. The 20-ft setback along the residential property lines reflects the general rear -yard setback requirements in residential zones. The required 40-ft setback for residential uses located along the arterial street is meant to provide some buffer from the noise and activity associated with arterial streets. Given the proposed use (storage), the noise of the street will have no impact on the storage use and reducing the setbacks may provide some buffer for the adjacent residential use to the east from car lights and other noise associated with the eastbound traffic on McCollister Boulevard. d. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. We don't think this will have any impact as property across S. Riverside Drive is a public stormwater area. The property across McCollister is public opens space. Other 1-1 property is located across the street to the northwest, so this reduction will not impact that property's building placement. Given the proposed use (storage) there should be a few negative externalities. Building placement and fences and screening should buffer adjacent residential from activities on the site. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The location of the building adjacent to the residential will not face or be accessed from the residential side. This will reduce the amount of noise due to the buildings acting as a buffer. The buildings will be screened to the S3 standard. The developer plans to use lighting placed in the soffits which will reduce potential for any light pollution. The site will be enclosed with security fencing and will be controlled with an access gate that will automatically close. The site will have camera surveillance and recording abilities. The site will have 24-hour controlled access. There will be an on -site office. The facility will be used for storage only. No work will be allowed to be done from the storage units. S. The subject building will be located no closer than three feet (3') to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right of way or permanent open space. The minimum building setback from any property line will be 20-ft. D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria) addressed in "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. in the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria ar not relevant in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The requested 20-ft setback will provide ample space for emergency access. Screening along the residential zones will be to the S3 standard, which will provide visual buffering between the residential zone and the proposed buildings. Lighting being placed within the soffits will reduce the potential for light pollution. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and Impair property values in the neighborhood. The adjacent use to the north and east is residential. The requested 20-ft setback provides space for screening to the S3 standard. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. The requested 20-ft setback will not impede development or redevelopment of the residential zone as the 20-ft setback is in line with standards for commercial development adjacent to residential zones. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The existing utilities and adjacent roads are adequate for the proposed development. The proposed storm piping will be adequately designed. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The access has been aligned with the adjacent street. Space has been provided to allow one vehicle to be off the street to access the proposed automatic gate. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-46 as well as requirements listed In the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-SA through K).j The site conforms to applicable regulations and standards except as being requested with this Special Exception. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. u I.. Ak AOL L-1 E77 is MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 8, 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: Brock Grenis STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Sevoia CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2016 MEETING MINUTES: Goeb moved to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2015 meeting with minor typo corrections. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by BBCS Hawkeye Housing LLC, for a special exception for a reduction in parking due to a unique circumstance for a multi -family development located in the Institutional Public/Medium Density Multi -family Residential (P2/RM-20) at Hawkeye Ct. Walz began the staff report showing an aerial view of the property which is one of the areas for graduate housing at the University. The property is along the line of where Iowa City ends and Coralville begins. North of the property is the railroad line and then across the embankment there is a quasi -industrial area and then the commercial area that runs along 2otl Street in Coralville. The property is surrounded on all other sides by University property that is mainly open space and playing fields. Walz pointed out that this area is well connected to the bike trails as well. She explained that the project in front of the Board is a public/private partnership and because of that private part of the partnership the development has to meet with City regulations. Normally development on the University campus, because its state government, they don't have to meet the City zoning regulations. So the area is in the process of being converted from the old graduate housing to the new and the information in the Board's packets explains that phase one was completed last summer and consisted of 270 one and two bedroom apartments with a total of 444 bedrooms which requires 446 parking spaces. They are in the process of starting to build 252 new apartments with a total of 42 bedroom and will require 448 parking spaces so overall that development is required to Board of Adjustment April 8, 2015 Page 2 of 8 have 864 spaces. That is more spaces than there are apartments but the spaces equal out to the number of bedrooms. The applicant has noticed that a lot of the spaces go unused, which has created some issues with commuters parking in the area and also use of the spaces by those attending Hawkeye games. Walz explained that the zoning code, section 14-5A 4F6 allows for a reduction in required parking due to a unique circumstance and the applicant is seeking to reduce the total amount of parking by 80 spaces which is a 9% reduction. The applicant feels this is acceptable for the following reasons: 1. Since this is graduate housing, a significant amount of that population is international students many of whom don't own cars; 2. Families that may only have one car; 3. This area is served well by the Campus system; 4. A significant number of residents also rely on bicycles, mopeds and motorcycles for transportation. Walz explained that the specific standards explain that where it can be demonstrated that where a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number required spaces by up to 50%. The applicant is asking for a 9% reduction. Walz noted with regard to the specific standard Staff agrees that these apartments serve a unique population and the agreement with the University is that these apartments are offered to University students first and if they have leftover apartments they can offer them to the general population. The University's Campus service does provide service running half hourly during the week days and hourly during the weekends. Additionally the location has connection with the bike trail system. Therefore Staff feels that satisfies that specific standard. Walz stated that with regard to the general standards, the proposed exception will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare the same findings as noted above apply here. Additionally the overflow parking would likely wind up on University property and not spill onto private property. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment to other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz noted again that the spill over parking would be on University property which surrounds the site. She also pointed out that under item number six, that discusses all the other aspects of the zoning code that are satisfied, the final development plan has to comply with all the zoning regulations and that final site plan has to approved by the building official, so anything other than the parking, requirements such as pedestrian connections and screenings, will be verified as part of the building plans. Therefore Staff is recommending approval of EXC15-00005 a special exception to reduce the required off-street parking from 864 spaces to 784 spaces. Goeb asked for clarification on the number of bedrooms versus number of parking spaces. In the staff report it states that phase one had 446 spaces (2 more than required) and phase two would require 448 spaces - that is more than 864. Walz agreed that something is incorrect in the math, and the applicant can correct that. Goeb asked what it should be, should it be equal to the number of bedrooms. Walz stated that what is required depends on the number of bedrooms, it's not a 1:1 ratio. Goeb said it is 892 spaces when you add the number of required spaces together, and therefore the reduction would be quite a bit more, a 108 parking space reduction. Walz said the applicant is asking for a reduction of 80 spaces, but agrees the math in the report is incorrect. Walz stated that the combined required spaces for both phases is 864 and the applicant is Board of Adjustment April 8, 2015 Page 3 of 8 requesting the reduction of 80 spaces to 784 and noted the mistake on the Staff report is that there needs to only be 420 spaces for 420 bedrooms in phase two. Walz confirmed and says it does depend on the breakdown of number of one and two bedroom units as well. She also said Staff really looked at the fact that even with the reduction, there is still one parking space per apartment and seeing how they are finding that they regularly have 50 extra spaces it seemed to be a reasonable reduction. Walz noted that the University is supportive of this and they are the ones that would be impacted by the lack of parking if there was an issue. Goeb noted the residents would also be impacted. Walz agreed but said in this area the spillover effects will not negatively impact anyone else just the marketability of the apartments. So it appears the only downside is for the agency that is renting the apartments. Goeb stated concerns about commuter parking and Hawkeye sport events, and the inconvenience impact that could have on the residents of this property with the reduction in parking spaces. Chrischilles asked if the Board were to vote on this and allow the exception, is that irrevocable? If situations would change and they see they need that parking eventually. Walz answered that the property owner can add parking back in at a later date. Dulek noted that Board is just approving an exception stating they can reduce down 80 spaces, but the applicant does not have to do so. Soglin asked about the 40-year lease agreement between the two entities and if that would impact anything. Dulek replied that the special exception stays with the property so whoever the owner is, or the tenant, it stays with the property. Soglin also asked for clarification on the general standard regarding public safety, the map shows eliminating spaces in a specific area and she wants to make sure that no matter when a resident parks, they have a safe route to their building. Walz confirmed that there are sidewalks around all the buildings and to all the parking areas. Soglin then asked if this reduction was allowed and there is a problem with too many commuters using the spots is there an enforcement issue the Board needs to consider. Walz explained that just like any private use, it would be monitored for the benefit of the residents, but the City does not enforce parking for private uses. Baker asked about clarification on the University property not being subject to the same zoning standards. With respect to landscaping, screening, trees are they subject to those same guidelines. Walz answered the University itself is not, however this property, since it's a public/private partnership is subject to all those zoning standards. Baker is also bothered by some of the data, the assumptions that are being used to justify this exception. With regard to general standards number one, one of the justifications for the application was for that the number required was more than they need, but then an overflow problem is also discussed. Walz stated that if an overflow were to occur in the future, the most likely place for it to go is onto University property. If the spillover was to affect private property or commercial property, then there would be concern. Baker also asked about item 7 on the last page of the staff report. By reducing the number of parking spaces this project reduces the incentive to bring a car to campus. That seems to be something that could apply to almost any development. Walz agreed, but stated that is only one criteria amongst many and it is the Iocational context of this particular project being so far from any residential neighborhood or other private property. So, if they were making the decision based only on crietrion 7 that would be a slippery slope, but it is only one of many criteria being used. Board of Adjustment April 8, 2015 Page 4 of 8 Baker also noted that in the report It states a significant number of applicants use moped, motorcycle or bicycle for transportation, wouldn't that be affected by seasonal use as well. It also states that many of the graduates are one -car families, but then also state apartments can be rented to people other than University graduate students. Walz explained that would only be the case if there were additional apartments after graduate housing needs were met. Baker questions what those numbers might be. Baker stated that the concern about commuter and Hawkeye sports parking are potential issues because of the University, and to justify a reduction in parking and not worrying about potential overflow and University issues because they are University issues seems to be as if the Board will just be displacing the problem, but not addressing the problem. Baker invited the applicant to come forward and speak to the Board. Dan Sevoia addressed the Board and began by clarifying that they do not have the option to rent to tenants outside of the University. The primary tenant target is graduate students and then if there are units still available they can rent to undergraduate students. Currently they are at 100% occupancy with graduate student tenants and don't foresee any future issues with remaining at 100% occupancy with graduate and/or undergraduate student tenants. He noted that they have a large expanse of parking that is unoccupied, and the number of 50-80 unoccupied spaces is very conservative. For example, today there were 170 empty spots, granted that was in the afternoon when you would expect people to be gone, but he has also counted empty spots in the evenings and early mornings. He also stated that after experiencing the first couple of football weekends they went to a permit system and still have more than 50 unoccupied spots for which permits have been issued. Sevoia confirmed, as noted in the staff report, the demographic of the graduate student is different than that of the general public. It is a large international population and small families. The University projects the international population will continue to increase. Therefore they feel they are "right sizing" this parking to that demographic. They have chosen a location for the parking that gives a uniform central parking location so the residents can access each one of the buildings. The parking that is to the right of phase one is almost always empty. Chrischilles asked if the space that will not be used as parking now will just be maintained as open green space, and will be stay available for future parking if needed. Sevoia answered that the intent is to add more green space. Goeb asked about the traffic patterns for entering and exiting the development questioning if there would be more traffic with this development than with the old Hawkeye Court apartments. Sevoia stated that he believes there will actually be less traffic as there will be fewer bedrooms and residents in the new development than in the old Hawkeye Court apartments. Sevoia noted that the 1.5 parking space ratio is one that he feels everyone is very comfortable with, however in the future, if the demographic changes, that would be a marketability issue for his group. He said there is a management committee, a combination of University members and his group, that meets on an annual basis to review the operations and maintenance, and if parking becomes an issue in the long-term future that committee would address it. Goeb asked if the University has protocol for number of parking spaces needed for this type of Board of Adjustment April 8, 2015 Page 5 of 8 project. Sevoia said no, and that the University does support this application for exception. Walz explained that the special exception information was sent to David Keift at the University so they are aware of this application. Goeb asked what the downside of just putting all the required parking in would be. Sevoia answered that it would just be barren concrete, and there would be an expense of installina concrete that no one would use. The savings could be redirected to other amenities within the development such as a dog park or a tot lot. The old playgrounds that were in the old Hawkeye Court apartments were past their usability and were demolished. Playgrounds are not a City requirement, but Sevoia said the developers would like to replace them with new playgrounds. He said there are currently a couple of grilling areas and benches but would also like to expand on that, but do not have all their subcontractor pricing back yet for the second phase, so not sure what if any surplus they might have, but will apply it to the amenities. Goeb asked about the parking permit system. Sevoia said they are able to see who should be parking there and have posted signage stating violators will be towed. Baker asked about the statement "significant number of residents use moped, motorcycle and bicycle" and asked if or how they have documented those numbers. Sevoia said they have not counted the number of mopeds in the parking area, but agreed it is seasonal. He would estimate that in the warm months there are probably two dozen out there. Baker also asked about the statement of "families with just one car," again if or how they can demonstrate documentation of that. Sevoia replied that his community management staff has communicated with him based on the number of parking permits they have issued as well as knowing the makeup of the resident population. Baker asked if there were any regulations for monitoring or restricting the number of people that can live in the apartments. Dulek noted that is regulated by City ordinance. Baker then asked what the City ordinance states is allowable for non -related residents in a unit. Dulek said in this situation, it would be the occupancy limit of a family plus one unrelated person in a two bedroom unit. Walz said the occupancy of a unit is based bedrooms and bedroom size and the Housing department evaluates that when setting occupancy. Baker asked how much the 80 space reduction of parking spaces translates into of square footage of concrete saved and how much money savings for the developer. Sevoia was unsure of the square footage of concrete but it is roughly a $35,000 to $40,000 savings. Walz said it would more than 3,000 square feet of concrete that would be eliminated. Baker asked if Sevoia if he knew the number of married graduate students in the units versus just single graduate students. Sevoia said the community management staff could get that information, he does not have it available at this time. Baker said this is one part of the confusion he has with this application, he said that Sevoia said he went out today and saw that there was open parking spots, so there is just too much parking, so Baker questions what is the problem with commuter parking then. Sevoia said that was a problem when the area was first opened and mostly an issue during football games, there as tailgating, use of the private dumpsters, and took away from the residential parking. The commuter thing is not as much of an issue, at this time. And once they started to issue permits, it eliminated the football issue as well as any small commuter issues they were having (mostly the commuter issue wasn't lack of spaces, but more use of prime spaces the residents wished to use being taken by commuters). Baker stated in his opinion the moped and alternative transportation issues is not as relevant to this application nor is the commuter parking issue, it really is just Board of Adjustment April 8, 2015 Page 6 of 8 the applicant feels they are being required to provide far more parking spaces than are really needed. Sevoia agreed, that due to the unique demographic they are building for, the parking requirements are less than in a different situation. Baker asked about the Cambus service to the development. There are four routes that serve the area during the academic year, but in the summer one of the routes is discontinued. Does the route that is discontinued in the summer serve destinations that the other routes will also serve, or is there a lack of options in the summer. Sevoia replied that while there was some concern of the loss of one of the routes in the summer, which was driven by lack of student drivers in the summer, and noted that is something that is fluid, always based on number of available drivers, so that could be more than just a summer issue. He could not comment on the designations of that route. Baker opened public hearing None. Baker closed public hearing Chrischilles stated that he trusts the applicant is doing what is in their best interest and if not then they will suffer the economic consequences. It is a self-contained University property and any problems that may arise due to lack of parking would be a University problem and not impacting the City. Goeb noted she is torn on the issue because she feels the reasons for the reduction are lacking evidence, it is more observations and assumptions. Chrischilles asked Goeb why she would want to impose a requirement that is not necessary. Goeb said it's not about imposing the requirement, she just feels the application has a weak argument. Soglin noted that some of the clarifications that Sevoia offered supports the analysis in the specific standards and general standards. Walz asked Dulek about approvals, with only four Board members in attendance this evening, it will still only take three to approve. Dulek confirmed that the application needs three members to approve. If two (or members) chose to not approve the application they will need to state which standards it does not meet. Walz asked if there was an option to defer to another meeting when there would be five members. Dulek said no, that was not an option. If the applicant asks for a deferral, at the subsequent meeting only the four that were present at this meeting could vote on the application, a fifth member cannot be added into the vote. The applicant can request to defer, based on seeking additional information to present to the Board at an upcoming meeting, but again only the four present this evening will be allowed to vote. Baker wanted to respond to the justification of need based upon perceptions. Just looking at the numbers of cars in the lot today, yesterday and tomorrow seems like a soft component of an argument that will affect the future as well as now. Baker said he is inclined to support the exception but it is really close. Dulek noted there is no contrary evidence. Dulek noted the applicant has been there for a year and a half, talks with the staff, and they have seen no evidence of parking issues. These are public meetings, if there were issues, no one from the public is coming forward to state them. Walz said the property owners that are north of the railroad tracks were notified. She also stated that Staff trusts that an applicant is reporting accurate information to them. Board of Adjustment April 8, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Baker agreed that no one believes an applicant is misleading the Board at all. He just is concerned that the conditions today may not be applicable in the future. Soglin feels the applicant has gone to lengths to show they will be proactive to address issues if they arise in the future, which speaks to the general standards regarding being injurious to the public. They have a system in place with parking permits and towing services. Chrischilles moved to approve EXC15-00005 a special exception to reduce the required off-street parking from 864 spaces to 784 spaces. Soglin seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00005 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of April 8, 2015 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker noted he felt there was material in the staff report that was irrelevant to the basic issue of the application and was not really data but feelings. The basic issue of is this parking requirement necessary for this particular development was clouded by some irrelevant findings. He said he does not disagree with the findings, just that some are irrelevant. Soglin noted she found the findings relevant and spoke to the unique characteristics of this application. Goeb agreed with Baker that it is a lot of assumptions and observations when talking about the future and how the second phase may not have the same results as the first phase did. She reiterated that the assumptions and observations are not facts and would have appreciated more data on number of permits based on number of occupants, etc. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. Baker declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 80 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Dulek asked if the Board had received notice of the court decision on the Walnut Street appeal, it was issued a few days prior. The Board has not received the decision yet, so when they do, if questions, please contact Dulek. ADJOURNMENT: Chrischilles moved to adjourn, Soglin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. i a x x o x x x x x x x r x x X 0 x N x x x X x m o x x 0 X 0 x X x X X o� a x x X X x N C� n O (D rn ao u! 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N w r H W LU F } W V uJ Q Z Q-' J LLI J m m V = d7 fn U Z Q Q O Ot 2 Op Z m 0 a 0 dl A 9