Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-05 Info Packet1 1 ~" ~~~~ ,~°°~~~ -.~...._ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET June 5, 2008 MISCELLANEOUS IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Smokefree Air Act IP3 Memorandum from the City Attorney' Absence IP4 Memorandum from the Associate Planner: Recommended revisions to Title 15, Subdivisions IP5 Moody's assigns Aaa Rating to City of Iowa City's (IA) $9.1 million General Obligation Bonds, Series 2008A [submitted by the City Manager] IP6 Letter from Judith Pascoe to the Public Works Director: MidAmerican above-ground regulators IP7 Letter from JCCOG Acting Traffic Engineering Planner: Proposed traffic calming on N. Dubuque Road IP8 Approved Minutes: Economic Development Committee: April 22, 2008 DRAFT MINUTES IP9 Public Art Advisory Committee: May 15, 2008 IP10 Planning and Zoning Commission: May 12, 2008 IP11 Planning and Zoning Commission: May 15, 2008 _ ~~ ®prj Uti-US-Uri ~,~ City Council Meeting Schedule and GTV of lows GTV Work Session Agendas June 5, 2008 www.icgov.org • THURSDAY, JUNE 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall 4:OOp-6:30p City Manager Public Reception • MONDAY, JUNE 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, JUNE 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, JULY 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, JULY 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, AUGUST 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Special Work Session 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting Continue Regular Work Session if necessary • WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall 4:30p Joint Meeting • MONDAY, AUGUST 25 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, AUGUST 26 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall Labor Day -City Offices Closed • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting All meetings are tentative and subject [o change. r 'r_,--.,®~r CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P2 ~-~'°~'~~ MEMORANDUM ~~ DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 TO: CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, DEPARTMENT (RECTORS, AND DIVISION HEADS FROM: ELEANOR M. DILKES, CITY ATTORNEY RE: SMOKEFREE AIR ACT INTRODUCTION This Memorandum summarizes the provisions of HF 2212, the Smokefree Air Act ("the Act"), that are, in some way, directly applicable to cities. It is not a summary of the provisions governing all locations. Local establishments that have questions about the Act's applicability should consult their own attorneys. Following the summary is a series of questions about the Act that I have received from staff and my answers to those questions. Both the summary and my answers include references to the draft rules issued by the Iowa Department of Public Health ("DPH"), which are subject to change before final approval. The Act expressly states that the person having custody or control of an area that is not covered under the Act may declare the area to be non-smoking. Thus, the City has authority under the Act to prohibit smoking in any additional areas under its custody or control. These areas include parking ramps, city plaza, and parks/open spaces not included within the definition of "grounds" of a public building. Please note that the law and rules have a definition of "school grounds" that is broader than the definition of "grounds of a public building." Therefore, do not assume that the answers in this memo would apply equally to the University of Iowa or the schools. My understanding from the University officials is that they interpret the Act to require the entire campus to be smoke free. SUMMARY OF SMOKEFREE AIR ACT PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CITIES The Act is essentially divided into four parts: a) places where smoking is prohibited; b) exemptions to said prohibitions; c) grant to local authorities to declare additional areas Smokefree; and d) enforcement provisions. The Act creates a new chapter in the Iowa Code, Chapter 142D, and my citations are to sections of the new chapter. I also cite to the draft administrative rules, 641 Iowa Admin. Code 153. Where Smoking Is Prohibited ~, 1) All "public places" defined as enclosed areas" (walled in spaces) to which the public has access, even if under private ownership. Section 142D.3. 2) Public transportation facilities, including buses and boarding and waiting areas of these facilities. Sections 142D.2(16)(h) and 142D.3(2)(c). 3) Public buildings owned, leased or operated under the control of the city. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3. 4) Vehicles owned, leased or operated by or under the control of the city. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3. 5) All enclosed areas within places of employment, including private offices, with very limited exceptions (e.g., gaming floors of casinos). Section 142D.3(1)(b). 6) Outdoor areas. Section 142D.3(2). a. Public transit stations and shelters. b. "Grounds' of public building, owned, or licensed or under control of the City. "Grounds" is not defined in the Act, but is defined in the draft rules as "an outdoor area of a public building that is used in connection with the building ,including but not limited to, a sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building; a sitting or standing area immediately adjacent to the building; a patio; a deck a curtilage or courtyard; a swimming or wading pool; or a beach, or any other outdoor area as designated by the person having custody or control of the public building...." 641-153.2. c. "Seating areas of outdoor sports arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters, and other entertainment venues," which are defined in the rules as "areas designated by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody or control of the area to be used primarily to witness entertainment events and shall include, but not be limited to, all chairs, seats, and bleachers whether permanent or temporary; standing room only; general admission or festival style seating areas; and any other areas where individuals congregate to witness entertainment events." 641-153.2. Places that Are Specifically Exempted 1) Privately-owned vehicles unless otherwise defined as a public place (e.g., taxicab) or place of employment or on "school grounds" Section 142D.4(7); 142D.3(2)(d) 2) Outdoor places of employment unless otherwise covered (e.g., grounds of public buildings, seating areas of sports arenas, and public transit stations). Section 142D.4(6). Discretion for Additional Non-smokino Areas The City may declare other areas within its custody or control that are otherwise exempt under the Act to be non-smoking. Such places include parking ramps, city plaza, and parks/open spaces not included within the definition of "grounds" of a public building. Section 142D.4(5). Enforcement 1) DPH is the primary enforcement agency. Section 142D.8(1). The Act is unclear regarding the role of local authorities and further study will be necessary. 2) For businesses which have some type of license, violations may result in suspension or revocation of license. Section 142D.6(1). 3) Smokers are subject to a $50 civil penalty for violations. Section 142D.9(1). 4) Owners/operators who fail to comply are subject to civil penalties a. 151 offense = $100 b. 2nd offense (within a year) _ $200 c. Subsequent violations (within a year) _ $500 Note: Each day violation occurs is a separate violation. Sections 142D.9(2) and 142D.9(6). 5) Employees or private citizens have a right to bring legal action to enforce this law, and DPH or any person aggrieved by failure of an owner or person in control may seek injunctive relief to enforce the law. Section 142D.8(2). 6) Employers are prohibited from taking any adverse action against employees who exercise their rights under this law, and employers may be subject to civil penalties of $2,000 to $10,000 for discrimination or retaliation against employees who report a violation, provide information, bring legal action, make a complaint, etc. Sections142D.7 and 142.8(3). 7) Violations of this law constitute a public nuisance and employers may be ordered to abate. Section 142D.8(5). City Obligations as Owner / Partv in Control of Places Where Smoking is Prohibited The Act imposes certain responsibilities on the "owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody or control" of places where smoking is prohibited that requires the City to: 1) Communicate prohibitions to employees and prospective employees upon application for employment. Section 142D.6(2). 2) Sign certain places. Section 142D.(6)(3). a. Signs must be placed at every entrance to a non- smoking place. b. Signs must be placed in all vehicles owned, leased or operated by or under the control of the City. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3. Under the draft rules, signs do not have to be placed in City vehicles that are issued a "regular" registration plate (e.g., unmarked police cars). 641-153.4(1)e(4). c. Signs are required to: (1). Be clear and conspicuous (2). Be at least 24 square inches. (3). Contain the words "No Smoking" or the international "no smoking" symbol, the toll free number for reporting complaints to DPH and the DPH web site, <www. I owaSmokefreeAir. gov> (4) City may use sample signs available on the DPH Internet site or another sign that meets the requirements. 3) Remove all ashtrays from places where smoking is prohibited. Section 142D.6(4). 4) Assess compliance with requirements of the Act during inspections of any non-smoking place (e.g., fire, alcohol license, and building inspections), inform violators of prohibitions of Act, and report any violations to DPH. Section 142D.8(2). 5) Inform persons violating the law of the provisions of the Act. This responsibility is placed on the "owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody or control of a public place." This would likely include the senior City staff person in control of a public building or a City vehicle. Section 142D.8(3). The draft rules provide that a manager will need to request that the person stop smoking immediately, and if she/he does not, may request that the person leave the area where smoking is prohibited and may notify the police department. 641-153.5(4). QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SMOKEFREE AIR ACT C~ Can a person smoke in City Hall, Fire Station No. 3, the Wastewater Treatment Plant, or in any other City Building? No, smoking is prohibited in all enclosed public buildings and in all enclosed areas within places of employment. Section142D.3(1). g Can a person smoke on the front steps to City Hall? No. Smoking on the "grounds" of a public building is prohibited. The draft rules provide that the front steps are part of the grounds. Section 142D.3(2)(e); 641-152.2. l~ Can a person smoke while standing in the City Hall parking lot? No. The draft rules provide that the parking lot is part of the grounds of City Hall. The rules allow the City Council to exclude the parking lot from the designated grounds of City Hall. Section 142D.3(2)(e); 641-152.2. C~ Can a person smoke on the sidewalk in front of City Hall? Yes. The sidewalk is right-of-way, and right-of-way is not the grounds of a public building. ~, C~ Can a person smoke on the internal" sidewalks (e. g., sidewalk leading to parking lot) immediately adjacent to and used in connection to City Hall? No. Sidewalks immediately adjacent to and used in connection with a public building are grounds of a public building. 641-152.2. (~ Can a person smoke while in a City vehicle? No. Smoking is prohibited in all City vehicles regardless of where the vehicle is located. Section 142D.3(1)(b). C~ Can a person smoke while parked in a private vehicle in the City Hall parking lot? Yes. Private vehicles, except when on school grounds or otherwise defined as a public place or place of employment (e.g. taxicabs), are exempted. Sections 142D.3(2)(d) and 142D.4(7). C~ Can a person smoke in a sidewalk cafe located on the public right-of-way? No. Smoking is prohibited in "[o]utdoor seating areas of restaurants." Section 142D.3(2)(b). l~, Can a person smoke in City Plaza? Yes, except in sidewalk cafes. City Plaza is right-of-way, and the Act does not prohibit smoking on the right-of-way. 4 Can a person smoke in an outdoor service area on private property? No, if the outdoor service area is a restaurant, and yes, if it is a bar. The Act defines restaurant as "eating establishments, ... which offer food to the public, guests, or employees, ... and including a bar area within a restaurant." Bar is defined "an establishment where one may purchase alcoholic beverages ... for consumption on the premises and in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of those beverages." Sections 142D.2 and 142D.3(2)(b). The draft rules further define "incidental to the consumption of alcohol" as prepackaged food such as peanuts or reheating of commercially prepared foods such as a frozen pizza. 641-153.2 g Can a person smoke at the City cemetery? Yes, with the exception of those outdoor areas used in connection with and immediately adjacent to an enclosed public building in the cemetery. 641-153.1. C~. Can a person smoke while grilling in City Park? Yes, with the exception of those outdoor areas used in connection with and immediately adjacent to an enclosed public building in City Park. 641-153.1. C~ Can a person smoke while sitting in the bleachers and watching a softball game at Napoleon Park? No. Smoking is prohibited in the "seating areas of outdoor sports arenas, stadiums...." Section 142D.3(2)(a). C~ Can a person smoke while watching a Kickers game at the soccer fields? No. Smoking is prohibited in the "seating areas," which includes where "members of the general public assemble to witness entertainment events." Section 142D.3(2)(a). C3 Can a person smoke in a public housing unit? Yes. "Private residences, unless used as a child care facility, child care home, or health care provider location" are excluded from the Act. Section 142D.4(1). G~ Can a person smoke in an airport hangar? No. A hangar is a public building. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3(1)(a). Additionally, the draft rules requires all leases of areas where smoking is prohibited to include a no smoking provision. 641-153.7. C~ Can a person smoke in the leased space at the library or the Court Street Transportation Center? No. They are public buildings. Sections 142D.2(16)(q) and 142D.3(1)(a). C~ Who is responsible for the no-smoking signs on a space in a public building that is leased to a private entity? The tenant. 641-153.5(3). Q Can a person smoke on the bike trails? Yes. Bike trails are not the grounds of a public building. C~. Can a person smoke in a City parking ramp? Yes. A parking ramp is not an "enclosed area,' and therefore, is not a "public building." In addition, none of the City's parking ramps would be considered "grounds" of another "public building." (~" Can a person smoke at the Jazz Fest or Arts Fest? Under the draft rules, one cannot smoke in "areas designated by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having custody or control of the area to be used primarily to witness entertainment events and shall include, but not be limited to, all chairs, seats, and bleachers whether permanent or temporary; standing room only; general admission or festival style seating areas; and any other areas where individuals congregate to witness entertainment events." 641-153.2. This would include the area near the stage. Council may designate by ordinance, what this area includes, (etc., within fifty feet from the stage). Please note that the Act does not go into effect until July 1, 2008, so the Act is not applicable to the Arts Fest this upcoming weekend. Q g 4 g g 4 Can a person smoke during the Friday Night Concerts? As with the Jazz Fest and the Arts Fest, the area to be used primarily to witness entertainment events is smoke free. Again, Council may designate the boundaries of this area by ordinance. Can a person smoke at Riverside Festival stage? No. Smoking is prohibited in the "seating areas of outdoor sports arenas, stadiums, amphitheaters and other entertainment venues where member of the general public assembles to witness entertainment events." Section 142D.3(2)(a). Can a person smoke at the City bus stop? No. Smoking is prohibited at "[p]ublic transit stations, platforms, and shelters under the authority" of the City. Section 142D.3(2)(c). Can a person smoke at the landfill? Not in the enclosed City buildings located at the landfill or the "grounds" of those buildings. Smoking is allowed in the outdoor areas not used in connection with and immediately adjacent to an enclosed public building at the landfill. 641-153.1. Do the prohibitions apply to chewing tobacco? No. The Act applies to "lighted" tobacco products. Section 142D.2(21). Where can a City employee who wodcs in City Hall smoke during work hours? On the sidewalk on the perimeter of the grounds of City Hall, which is public right-of-way, and in their private vehicles. Are motorcycles treated differently than cars and trucks? No. You can substitute motorcycle for any question or answer that uses the term "vehicle." Bicycles are not vehicles, and the same prohibitions and exemptions that apply to pedestrians apply to bicyclists. C~ Who enforces the Act? The DPH. The Act is unclear regarding the role of local authorities and further study will be necessary. g g g g g Has the DPH designated any entity? Yes. Under the draft rules, law enforcement agencies of each political subdivision, which includes the Iowa City Police Department, are designated to assist the DPH and "may" issue citations. 641-153.8(2). Staff will need to have further conversations about the Police Department's role. Can an Iowa City police officerissue a citation to a person who is smoking in prohibited area? Yes. The draft rules provide that local law enforcement may issue a citation to a person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited. 164-153.8(2). Does the Act require the City to inform its employees about the Act? Yes. The City must inform all existing and prospective employees about the smoking prohibitions in the Act. Section 142D.6(2). This notification should be included on all job applications. Will department directors or division heads have any responsibility to notify existing or prospective employees? Although Personnel will provide the initial notice, if a problem arises, the supervisor will need to address it and contact Personnel if in need of assistance. Does the City have to post no-smoking signs? Yes. The Act requires signs to be posted "in and at the entrance to the public place, place of employment, area declared a nonsmoking place.. [and] outdoor area...." Additionally, no- smoking signs must be placed in all City vehicles. Section 142D.6(3). Must no-smoking signs be placed in police vehicles? Yes, with the exception of unmarked police cars. The Act contains specific requirements for the contents and design of the signs and allows the City to use the sample signs provided by DPH. Section 142D.6(3); 641-153.5(1)(f). Please call me if you have additional questions. city of Iowa city MEMORANDUM 1P3 Date: June 4, 2008 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Absence I will be out of the office the week of June 9 -June 13, 2008. My staff will know how to reach me. cc: Michael Lombardo Dale Helling Marian Karr elea nor/mem/abs8-12-02.tloc Cit of Iowa Cit 1P4 Y Y MEMORANDUM --~ Date: June 4, 2008 To: City Council From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Recommended revisions to Title 15, Subdivisions At your June 3 City Council meeting you set the public hearing for June 17 on the proposed revisions to the City's subdivision code. You requested materials outlining the proposed changes be sent to you in the June 5 information packet. Attached are the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended revisions to the City's subdivision code. The attached draft is a redlined version of the subdivision code with suggestions for deletions shown with strikethrough notation and newly proposed language shown with underlining. The proposed changes to the subdivision code are intended to: Update subdivision standards to reflect comprehensive plan goals by including street connectivity standards, a wider variety of street types, reduction in local street pavement width requirements, updates to right-of-way widths to accommodate street trees and utilities, and improvements to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists; • Clarify definitions, purpose statements, and standards within the code; • Clarify submittal requirements and approval procedures to streamline the approval process for both developers and the City; Codify current practice with regard to secondary access standards, street naming standards, private street policies, clustered mailbox provisions, and cost sharing procedures with regard to public improvements. The revisions to the subdivision code were drafted and reviewed by various City departments, including the Planning, Public Works, Housing and Inspection Services, Parks and Fire Departments. A first draft was sent out for public review last year. We received comments from the Greater Iowa City Home Builders Association and from 1000 Friends of Iowa. Staff reviewed those comments, made revisions, and sent a "staff recommended draft" to the Planning and Zoning Commission earlier this spring. The Planning and Zoning Commission held three public meetings to gather public input and discuss the proposed draft. The attached document reflects the changes recommended by the Commission with input from the public. Also attached is the decision matrix that the Planning and Zoning Commission used to keep track of and make decisions about amendments requested by the public and the written correspondence received from the public. I will make a presentation highlighting the proposed changes at the Council meetings on June 16 and 17. Let me know if you have any questions. Cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS This Title shall be known as and may be referred to and cited as the Subdivision Code. This Title is intended to encourage orderly community development and provide for the regulation and control of the extension of public improvements, public services and utilities, the improvement of land and the design of subdivisions consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan, as amended. ALLEY: An open public way intended er~ly for use as a seeepdary means of vehicular access to abutting property. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT: The reconfiguration of the boundary line between abutting tracts, lots or parcels that results in conveyance of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of land. COMMISSION: The Planner and Zonin~c Commission of the city. DEFICIENCY• An error on or omission from plat specifications and/or other supporting documents required as part of the subdivision approval process including but not limited to: • Missing or mislabeled easements; • Inaccurate measurements; • Missingor inaccurate stormwater calculations; • Mislabeled symbol markings in legends; • Inaccurate street cross-sections; • Buildino lots that do not meet minimum zonino standards; • Or similar. DIVISION: Dividing a tract, lot or parcel of land into two (2) portions by conveyance or for tax purposes. A boundary line adjustment or the conveyance of an easement, other than a public highway easement, shall not be considered a division for the purposes of this Title. LOT: A tract of land represented and identified by number or letter designation on an official plat. OFF-SITE COSTS: The feaseRable costs incurred by a developer in constructing, improving, or otherwise extending public improvements from existing public improvements through or along properly not owned by said developer to the boundaries of property under development and which improvement are capable of serving other properties. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ i~_ _ r+.i .l_ ~_-___-L-.-~:..~ nh- within the subdivision intended for shared use by the residents of the subdivision or by the public e g public or private open spaces and/or walkways. PARCEL: A part of a tract of land. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The principal structures, works, component parts and accessories of public infrastructure that become part of, are placed upon or affixed to real estate, including, but not limited to: • Sanitary sewers; • Storm sewers, the lines or pipes and drainage swales; • Bridges and culverts; • Streets, try and sidewalks; • Water mains; • Storm water management facilities; • Public open space improvements. STREET, ARTERIAL: A street, the principal function of which is to provide for through traffic and which is designed to carry large volumes of traffic. "Arterial streets," as referenced in this Title are those streets shown on the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Arterial Street Plan, as amended. STREET, COLLECTOR: A street, the principal function of which, is carrying traffic from local streets to arterial streets. STREET, CUL-DE-SAC: A local street terminating in a turnaround. STREET, LOCAL: A street used primarily for access to abutting property and for moving local traffic. STREET, LOOP: A local street with two (2) intersections with another street in an alignment roughly in the shape of a "U." ~ -`_ M-•~ -~_} ,,:},.,,- ,.',,,, ..F }~.....}-,,,,} STREET: A public or private street as defined in this Title. STREET PRIVATE• A privately-owned way that is intended to afford a means of access to abuttino property and for moving local traffic. STREET, PUBLIC: Aright-of-way, dedicated to and accepted for public use, which affords Hie-prinelpa~a means of access to abutting property and a means of vehicular travel. A public street is owned or controlled by a government entity. SUBDIVISION: Division of a tract, lot or parcel of land into three or more lots. SUBDIVISION PLAT• the graphical representation of a subdivision of land prepared by a registered land surveyor having a number or letter designation for each lot within Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 the plat and a succinct name or title that is unioue for the county where the land is located. SUBDMSION PLAT, MAJOR: A subdivision plat that ifle~ades involves the construction of one or more new streets, selective access drives or street extensions. SUBDIVISION PLAT, MINOR: A subdivision plat that does not involve the construction or extension of streets. ' .~ ~ ~ ~ A. A~ plat or replat of a subdivision of land located within the City under the Code of Iowa, as amended, shall be certified as approved by the Mayor and City Clerk and the certification affixed to the plat or replat only after approval by a resolution of the City Council as set forth in this Title. B. Pursuant to section 354.9, Code of Iowa, as amended, all subdivisions located within two (2) miles of the City's corporate boundaries shall be subject to City review and approval, except for those areas exempt from such review pursuant to the Johnson County/ Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement. C. Any division of a tract, lot or parcel shall be administratively reviewed and approved by the City Manager or designee for compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Prior to recording, a division shall be certified as approved by the City Manager or designee. 15-1-5 Issuance Of Building Permits Restricted A. Where a subdivision is required, the City shall not issue a building permit for construction on any lot, parcel or tract unless and until: 1. A final subdivision plat has been approved and recorded; and 2. The City approves subdivision erosion control measures in accordance with this Title; and; 3. The City accepts the public improvements as specified herein, with the exception of sidewalks and stormwater management facilities, said exceptions being allowed after building construction has commenced as set forth herein. B. If the subdivider desires a building permit prior to installing the improvements, the owner must deposit with the City Finance Department an escrow equal to the cost of improvements plus 10 percent thereof as specified in oaragraph 15-2-3C-9. C. No building permit and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any division unless such division has been approved as set forth in this Title. 15-1-6 Develo ment Activit Restricted A. No person owner or responsible party shall do any_grading in any areas as described in Chapter 17-8 Grading Ordinance without first obtaining a gradino permit from the Building Official. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 75, 2008 B. No person owner or responsible party shall do anygrading in any areas as described in section 17-8-15 Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control without first obtainino a Construction Site Runoff (CSR) Permit from the Citv. C. Unless specifically exempted an application for Sensitive Areas Review must be submitted D. No public improvements shall be installed without approval of construction Dlans by the City Engineer or desionee. 15-1-7 Cit 's Ri ht To Install Im rovements A. If the subdivider, its assigns or successors in interest, sell or convey lots in a subdivision without constructing or installing the public improvements, the City shall have the right to install and construct such improvements. The costs of such improvements shall be a lien and charge against all the lots in the subdivision under the provisions of the Code of Iowa, as amended, except the cost of installing sidewalks, which shall be a lien only against the lot or lots abutting or in front of which sidewalks are installed. The cost of such improvements need not meet the requirements of notice, benefit or value as provided by State law for assessing such improvements. The requirement to construct such improvements is and shall remain a lien from the date of final plat approval until properly released by the City. B. When required improvements have been installed to the satisfaction of the City, the City will, upon request, promptly issue to the subdivider, for recording in the County Recorder's office, a good and sufficient release to various lots in such subdivisions so that this Section will not constitute a cloud upon the title of the lots in the subdivision. However, with reoard to the subdivider's obligation to construct stormwater management facilities, the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 below apply 1. With respect to a subdivider's obligation to construct stormwater manaoement facilities the City shall provide a partial release for the development from any liens or clouds on title to the development by reason of such stormwater management oblioations provided the City Engineer certifies that the following conditions and/or events have occurred: a. The facilities have been substantially completed; b. An escrow amount has been established with the City in an amount approved by the Citv Engineer to which the City's lien should attach immediately upon execution or recording of the partial release; 2. The City aorees to issue a total release for the facilities upon certification by the Citv Enaineer in writino that all of the followino events and/or conditions have been substantially completed: a. Permanent ground cover is established and moveable; b. Erosion and sedimentation are controlled in conformance with the approved plans and specifications; Review may occur concurrently with Subdivision Review as set forth in this Title. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 c. The facilities are complete; d. All land within the tributaryarea in the development or a lesser amount of land as approved by the Citv Engineer has been developed 15-1-8 Exceptions A. Modifications of Requirements i. Upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission or on its own motion, the City Council may vary, modify or waive the requirements of ^-`~;e Caper Chanter 3 of this Title Subdivision Design and Reouired Improvements provided one of the following aualifvina circumstances are met: antler-tkeieNewiflg ,.«., a. If the subdivider can demonstrate that strict compliance with the requirements of ^-`'~'~ `' ~` `"~~ ~"~°fe~ Chapter 3 of this Title would result in extraordinary hardship because of ,excessive costs due to eFeEker-sack non-self-inflicted conditions; eFand if the subdivider can demonstrate that strict compliance with the requirements of Chanter 3 of this Title would conflict with the objectives of these subdivision regulations; or b. If a subdivider can demonstrate that strict compliance with the requirements of ^-~'-'~ ~ ~` *"'^''"°°{°r Chapter 3 of this Title would result in peer subdivision design that would compromise public health or safety or could result in the substantial degradation of natural features even after application of appropriate provisions of Article 14-5I Sensitive Lands and Features. 2. City Council may act to vary, modify or waive a requirement only if it finds that the public safety and interest is protected and that such variance, modification, or waiver will not hinder development of neiahboringproperties and that the variance, modification or waiver will not nullify the intent or purposes of this Title or of other Titles of the City Code. B. Unusual Plats . . ~~ ~. C. City Council Action The City Council must approve any variance, modification, or waiver of the general requirements set forth in this Cap1:e~Title and must note this approval in the resolution approving the final subdivision plat. 15-1-9 Selling Before Approval; Penalties A. Except pursuant to an agreement expressly conditioned on final subdivision approval, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to agree to transfer or sell or to transfer or sell any land which forms a part of a subdivision requiring City Council approval under this Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 Title before City Council grants final subdivision approval. Each such agreement, transfer or sale shall be deemed a separate violation. B. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to agree to or attempt to transfer or sell, or to transfer or sell any division which requires approval under this Title without first having obtained approval by the Citv. Each such attempt, agreement transfer or sale shall be deemed a separate violation. C. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute injunctive, mandamus or other appropriate action or proceedings to prevent any pending sale or transfer or to prevent any further sale or transfer in violation of this Title. 1 Any violation of this Title shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or Municipal infraction or environmental infraction as provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of the City Code and shall be subject to the penalties specified in 1-4-2D except for environmental infractions. which shall be subject to the penalty for same as specified in 1-4-26-2 as amended. Each day that a violation occurs and/or is permitted to exist constitutes a separate offense and civil and/or criminal ~nalties shall be computed accordinoly. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Drajt May 1 S, 2008 CHAPTER 2. PLATS AND PLATTING PROCEDURES 15-2-i Concept Plan A. Applicability Whenever the owner of any tract or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the City or within 2 miles thereof wishes to make a subdivision of the same, the owner or the owner's representative shall submit a concept plan to the Department of Planning and Community Development for review prior to submission of a preliminary plat. B. Submission Requirements The concept_plan must include the following information: 1. The proposed layout of streets lots location of stormwater facilities, and open space. 2. General tooooraphy based on existino topographic maps or other resources. The property is not required to be surveyed at the concept plan stage. 3. Approximate footprints of any existino above-ground man-made features located on the subject property including buildings and other structures streets sidewalks etc.• a. Surrounding land uses and approximate location of building footprints on abutting properties; 5. Sensitive features including streams, wooded areas, known wetlands or potential wetlands, known archeological sites, etc. 6. Other necessary information pertainino to the existino conditions of the property as reouested by the Citv. C. Review of concept plan 1. Upon receipt of a concept plan the Department of Planning and Communi Development shall review the concept plan in the context of the standards of this Title other Citv Code requirements and Comprehensive Plan policies and will have the discretion to solicit comments from other city departments. 2. The Department of Planning_and Community Development will provide general written comments to the applicant within 20 business days of receipt of the concept plan based on the information submitted by the applicant. These comments are intended to provide guidance to the applicant in preparing the preliminaryplat and are not to be construed as comprehensive with regard to compliance with the Citv Code. 3. The Preliminary Plat shall not be filed until said written comments regarding the conceit plan are provided to the applicant. 15-2-2 Preliminary Plat A. Submission Required; Waiver 1. After conferring with the Department of Planning and Community Development on the concept plan, the owner or owner's representative shall submit to the City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 twelve (12) copies of a preliminary plat for consideration. This submission must include accurate and complete information as set forth in subsection 15-2-2B, below. 2. The City Manaoer or designee(s) will check the application for accuracy and completeness A "complete application" shall mean the followino: a. A_plat with accurate measurements and dimensions and easements identified; and b. All information as specified in 15-2-2B, below, has been submitted: 3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application is incomplete If an application is found to be incomplete, the Citv will inform the applicant and reserves the right to discontinue staff review until a complete and accurate application is filed The start date for any applicable time limitations for the application under review will be the date when a complete application is submitted. 5. The City C~uneN may waive submission of the preliminary plat if the final plat includes all the requirements of the preliminary plat. B. Plat Specifications and Accompanying Information The preliminary plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to 50 feet (1" = 50'); pFev+de~ however, if the resultant drawing would be larger than 24 inches by 36 inches (24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to 100 feet (1" _ 100'). In addition a dioital version of the plat must be submitted as per Citv specifications. Each plat must include the following information: a. Legal description, acreage and name of proposed subdivision; b. Nameu and address es of owneru and subdivider; c. Names of the persons who prepared the plat, owner's attorney, representative or agent, if any, and date of preparation; d. North point and graphic scale; e. Contours at 5-foot intervals or less; f. Locations of existing lot lines, streets, public utilities, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, drainpipes, culverts, watercourses, bridges, railroads, buildings, storm water detention facilities and any other public improvements in the proposed subdivision. g. The existing streets and City utilities on adjoining properties. h. Layout of proposed blocks (if used) and lots, including the dimensions of each, and the lot and block number in numerical order. For lots where the lot width is different from the lot frontaoe, the lot width must be indicated on the plat. i. Location of any proposed outlot(s), identified with progressive letter designations, and the purpose of said outlot s clear) specified on the plat j. Proposed location of clustered mailboxes. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 k. Location and widths, other dimensions and names of the proposed streets, alleys, roads, utility and other easements, parks and other open spaces or reserved areas. 1. Grades of proposed streets and alleys. m. Across-section of the proposed streets showing the roadway locations, the type of curb and gutter, the paving and sidewalks to be installed. n. The proposed layout and size of water mains and sanitary sewers. o. Proposal for drainage of the land, including proposed storm sewers, ditches, swales, bioswales, rain gardens, culverts, bridges, storm water management facilities and other structures. p. A signature block for endorsement by the City Clerk certifying the City Council's approval of the plat. 2. The preliminary plat shall be accompanied by the following information: a. A location map with north point showing an outline of the area to be subdivided. b. A grading plan, includingproposed methods for the prevention and control of soil erosion, pursuant to the Grading Ordinance, Chapter 17-8 of the City Code. c. If access to State routes is proposed, the plat must be submitted to the Iowa Department of Transportation for review. Comments from the Iowa Department of Transportation must be submitted with the proposed plat. e. For properties containing regulated sensitive features as specified in Article 14- 5I of the Citv Code, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan must be_submitted as set forth in Article 14-5I. C. Fees A fee shall be paid at the time the preliminary plat or any combination of preliminary plats and/or plans is submitted to the City Clerk, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. D. Review of Plat; Approval or Disapproval 1. Upon filing the preliminary plats as required by this Section, the City Clerk shall forward 11 copies of the preliminary plat to the Department of Planning and Community Development. 2. The Department of Plannino and Community Development shall distribute said copies to the appropriate City Departments for review as designated by the City Manager. 3. Said designee(s) shall examine the plat and application to insure compliance with the requirements of this Title, other relevant provisions of the Citv Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 1 S, 2008 Code, Comprehensive Plan policies t.".'.='~`c~`~- and with State law. Upon completion r- of examination, the ~ Department of Planning and Community Development shall forward a written report, including recommendations, to the Planning and Zoning Commission. No plat shall be forwarded to the Plannino and Zoning Commission with more than six (6) deficiencies. 4. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative must submit ten (10) revised copies of the plat for distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. The Commission shall study the revised preliminary plat, review the application of the owner and review the report from the Department of Planning and Community Development 6. The Commission shall recommend approval or disapproval of the the plat within 45 calendar days ,"~- ^ "M~--~^^ '^ «"^'"~•'"'^-'' ^f the date the City receives a complete application, or the preliminary plat shall be deemed to be approved by the Commission. The owner or owner's representative may, however, agree to an extension of time. 7. After receipt of the recommendation of the Commission or after the time of any extension has passed, the City Council shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the preliminary plat. E. Effect of Approval Approval of a preliminary plat by the City Council does not constitute approval of the subdivision but merely authorizes the subdivider to proceed with the preparation of the final plat. In the event the City Council approves the preliminary plat and the final plat submitted does not materially and substantially deviate from the preliminary plat and if inspection by the City reveals that all plans and specifications for construction of improvements, as required by the City, have been met, the final plat shall be approved by the City Council . Approval of the preliminary plat shall be effective for a period of 24 months unless, upon written request of the owner or subdivider, the City Council, by resolution, grants an extension of time. If the final plat is not filed with the City Clerk within 24 months, all previous actions of the City Council with respect to the plat shall be deemed null and void. 15-2-3 Final Plat A. Submission Reguired 1. 2. The Department of Planning and Community Development will check the application for accuracy and completeness. A "complete application" shall mean the following: to submitted to the City Clerk within 24 months of approval of the preliminary plat, unless an extension has been approved by the Citv Council. This submission must include accurate and complete information as set forth in 15-2-36 and 15-2-3C, below. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 a. A final plat with accurate measurements and dimensions, and with easements correctly identified: b. An accurate legal description; c. All required legal documents and accompanying instruments as specified in 15- 2-36 and 15-2-3C, below: d. Construction plans according to the specifications of the Citv Engineer; 3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application is incomplete If an application is found to be incomplete, the Citv will inform the a~licant and reserves the right to discontinue staff review until a complete and accurate application is filed The start date for any applicable time limitations for the application under review will be the date when a complete application is submitted. 4. Upon approval by the City, a final plat may include only a portion of the development illustrated on the preliminary plat if that portion can function as a separate development, including access and utilities, and if no essential public infrastructure extensions are delayed Whether or not said infrastructure is essential in nature shall be determined by the Citv. 5. The applicant shall note any variations from the approved preliminary plat. Requests for minor changes that do not constitute substantive chanaes may be approved outlots changes to the proposed uses of the various lots and outlots, and other similar changes that would result in a substantive change to the character of the subdivision may result in the necessity to file an amended preliminary plat. B. Specifications The final plat shall meet the following specifications: 1. The plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to 50 feet (1" = 50'); provided, however, if the resultant drawing would be of larger dimension than 24 inches by 36 inches (24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to 100 feet (1" _ 100'). 2. Twelve (12) prints of the final plat shall be submitted showing the following information: a. Accurate property boundary lines, with dimensions and bearings or angular dimensions, which provide a land survey of the tract, closing with an error of not more than one foot in 10,000 feet. b. Accurate references to known permanent monuments, giving the bearing and distance from some corner of a lot or block in the City to some corner of the congressional division of which the City or the addition thereto is a part. c. Accurate locations of all existing and recorded streets intersecting the property boundaries of the tract. d. Accurate legal description of the property boundaries. e. Street names and street right-of-way widths. ii Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May /5, 2008 f. Complete curve notes for all curves included in the plat. g. Street center lines with accurate dimensions in feet and one-hundredths of feet with bearings or angular dimensions apgles to street, alley and lot lines. h. Lot numbers and lot line dimensions. For lots where the lot width is different from the lot frontage the lot width must be indicated on the plat. i. Block numbers, if used. j. Accurate dimensions for any property to be dedicated or reserved for public, semi-public or community use. k. Location, type, material and size of all markers. Name and street address of the owner and subdivider. m. Name and street address of owner's or subdivider's attorney, name of persons who prepared the plat and the date of preparation. n. North point, scale and date. o. Certification of the accuracy of the plat by a registered land surveyor of the State. p. Location and width of easements for p~lic-ar~d-6it~y utilities. q. Certification by the ptibHe utility companies that t#~e-Ieeat+eA-ef ~blie utility easements are properly placed for the installation of pablie utilities. r. A signature block for endorsement by the City Clerk certifying the City Council's approval of the plat. s. A note on the plat stating. "notes on this plat are not intended to create any vested private interest in any stated use restriction or covenant or create anv third party beneficiaries to anv noted use restriction or covenant. 3. The applicant shall submit a digital version of the final subdivision plat as part of the application Drocess. Once the plat has been approved by the City Council, a final copv of the dioital version of the plat shall be submitted to the City Engineering Department. Said final digital copy shall be compatible with the Johnson Countv as changes in technology occur. C. Accompanying ii+str~-ents Documents The final plat shall also be accompanied by the following ier~documents: 1. Owner's Statement An acknowledged statement from the owner and the owner's spouse, if any, that the subdivision as it appears on the plat is with their free consent and is in accordance with the desires of the proprietor and the proprietor's spouse. This statement may include the dedication to the public. 2. Dedications Dedication of streets and other public property, including perpetual easements for the installation, operation and maintenance of City utilities. iz Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 1 S, 2008 3. Mortgage Holder's or Lienholder's Statement An acknowledged statement from mortgage holders or lienholders that the plat is prepared with their free consent and in accordance with their desire, as well as a release of mortgage for any areas dedicated to the public. 4. Encumbrance Certificates If there is no consent from the mortgage holders or lienholders as specified in 3 above. and if the land being platted is encumbered in the manner set out in the Code of Iowa, as amended, a certificate shall be filed with the County Recorder showing an encumbrance bond in an amount double the amount of the encumbrance and approved by the Recorder and Clerk of the District Court. The bond shall run to the County for the benefit of the purchasers of the land subdivided. 5. Attorney's Opinion An opinion from an attorney at law showing that the fee title is in the owner and that the land platted is free from encumbrance or if encumbered, listing the encumbrances and the bonds securing the encumbrances. 6. Construction Plans A complete set of construction plans for all public improvements meeting Citu specifications must be submitted to the City Engineer's Office. 7. County Treasurer's Certificate A certified statement from the County Treasurer that the land being platted is free from taxes. 8. Counri Auditor's Certificate A certified statement from the County Auditor approving of the name or title of the subdivision as succinct and unique to Johnson County. 9. E':~,-• °-~°-=_-'_ ^_~`~-~`-• ' ^""- "° ^-°'"` Subdivider's Agreement speei€~atier+s~ b. An agreement executed by the subdivider which agrees, as a covenant running with the land, that the City shall not issue a building permit for any lot in the subdivision until the subdivider installs the public improvements, except sidewalks, according to plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer and until the City Engineer approves subdivision erosion control measures. If the subdivider desires a building permit prior to installing the improvements, the owner must deposit with the City Finance Department an escrow equal to the cost of improvements plus 10 percent thereof in cash or an irrevocable letter of credit oavable to the City in a form approved by the City Attornev. At the City's discretion, this escrow may be divided by the number of lots in the subdivision and collected on a per lot basis prior to the issuance of a building permit. Subdivider must further agree, as a covenant running with the land, that subdivider will install sidewalks abutting each lot in the subdivision as set forth in this Title, that the obligation to install the sidewalks remains a lien on the lots abutting the sidewalk until released by the City and that, in the event subdivider fails to install the sidewalks, the City may install the sidewalks and assess the total cost against the properly without meeting the requirements of notice, benefit or value required by State law for assessing improvements. 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May !5, 2008 F L. I F .I' L. II M I L.+ M+ -. ...F ..F ~L... ....4'...+t...l ....,.! ..F 8F d. ,The ~ subdivider's agreement shall state that the subdivider, including its grantees, assignees and successors in interest, agrees that public services, including but not limited to street maintenance, snow and ice removal and solid waste collection, will not be extended to such subdivision until the pavement is completed and accepted by the City Council by resolution. e. The subdivider's aoreement shall state• "Plat notes and surveyor's notes on plats serve to provide notice of how a subdivision is expected to develop. Said notes are not intended to create anv vested private interest in anv stated use restriction or covenant, or create any third party beneficiaries to anv noted use restriction or covenant. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, subject to an~apolicable public notice and approval process required by law to alter or amend anv plat note, or to sell or vacate any right-of-way, street, alley. park, easement open area or other land set apart and dedicated for public use within the plat. The City further reserves the right, upon request of the owner or successor in interest, to vacate the plat and/or relocate any easement, alter lot boundaries or allow said land to be reolatted subject to any applicable public notice and approval process required by law." f. The subdivider's agreement may include other conditions peculiar to the subdivision as allowed by law. 10. Iowa Department of Transportation Permits Approved IDOT permits must be submitted, if required. D. Review; Approval or Disapproval 1. Upon the filing of the final plat as set forth above, the City Clerk shall submit 11 copies of the final plat and the application to the Department of Planning and Community Development. 2. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall distribute said conies to the appropriate Citv Departments for review as designated by the City Manager; 3. Said designeejs, shall examine the application asjd the plat, the construction plans, and the legal documents to insure compliance with the requirements of the City Code, t"_ ^.~--~-~_~`__- apd-ef State law, and the oreliminarv I~at. ~ , 14 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May /5, 2008 a. The costs of engineering examination of final plat and construction plans shall be paid by the subdivider and shall be the actual costs of the engineering examination and review as incurred by the City. 7. Upon completion of said review lion staff shall recommend approval or disapproval of the plat within 45 calendar days ~"-- ~ "^~~^~ ^^ `^ `"^'"~~~ `~ of the date the Citv received a complete ao~lication, or the final plat shall be deemed to be approved by the staff ~~ia:,. The owner or subdivider may, however, agree, in writing, to an extension of time. 8. Following staff evaluation, ~ ,the owner or owner's representative shall submit a digital version, a transparent reproducible copy and 8 prints of the revised final plat with the signatures of the surveyor and the respective utility companies to the City Clerk. 9. After receipt of the recommendation of the 6er~issien staff or after the time of any extension, the City Council shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the final plat. The City Council must take action on the final plat within 60 calendar days of tke submission of a complete application for a final plat to the City Clerk. If the City Council does not approve or disapprove the plat within 60 calendar days, the final plat shall be deemed approved. The owner or subdivider may, however, agree, in writing, to an extension of time. ~s Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 CHAPTER 3. DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 15-3-1 General Requirements A. Design of the subdivision shall comply with the standards of this Chanter, provide for the orderly growth and development of the Citv demonstrate consistency with the Iowa Citv Comprehensive Plan and any specific adopted district plans and take into consideration the natural features of the site and patterns of adjacent development. B. The subdivider of property shall be responsible for constructing all public improvements associated with the proposed subdivision according to City Code unless exempted from such reouirements according to the provisions herein C. Public improvements as defined in this Title, shall be constructed and installed accordino to the standards established by the Citv. Copies of said standards are on file in the office of the City Enoineer. ',15-3-2 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. 1. Arterial streets must be located and extended in general accordance with the JCCOG Arterial Street Plan and Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. 2. All streets sidewalks, and trails should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and trails within the development, and to the property line to provide for their extension to adiacent properties. Each subdivision must contribute to the larger interconnected street pattern of the City to ensure street connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in the diffusion and distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and continuous vehicular and pedestrian travel routes to neighborhood destinations. 3. The road system shall be designed to permit the safe, efficient, and orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic: to meet the needs of the present and future population served; to have a simple and logical pattern and allow that pattern to continue through adjacent properties; and to respect natural features and t~ooraohv. 4. 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, existino 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. 16 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 B. Minimum Access Standards Adeouate street access to an area or neighborhood is required as part of subdivision approval or prior to the approval of additional subdivision lots. The standards in this subsection are intended as minimum standards in areas where connectivity is limited by A above. The followingyuidelines will be used by the City in determining whether additional street access is a prerequisite to additional lots or developable parcels being droved by the Citv. Additional access may be required if a proposed development will result in any portion of a street that provides a sinole means of access to an area beino overburdened with traffic. 'Overburdened'shall be defined as a projected volume. which exceeds the midpoint design volume as follows: a. Local street: 500 vehicles per day b. Collector street: 2,500 vehicles per day 2. Projected traffic volumes shall be determined by using the most recent Average Daily Traffic count when available, and adding it to proiected traffic generation as determined by the City. In the absence of a recent traffic count, projected traffic volumes shall be calculated by usingproieded traffic generation for both existina and proposed development. 3. Additional means of access may also be required if any of the following conditions exist or will exist if additional lots or developable parcels are approved: a. There are physical features that may increase the probability of blockages along the single means of access to the development. These physical features include but are not limited to: slopes 8% or oreater; floodplains as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; a bridged or culverted roadway; trees adjacent to the roadway with trunk diameter greater than four inches; a grade separated highway; or a railroad. b. The existino access is insufficient to provide efficient, safe, and/or cost-effective development. c. The street, which provides a single means of access to the area, is a local or collector street along which there are existing or proposed facilities that may increase the probability of pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities include but are not limited to schools, daycare centers and parks. d. There are land uses located along the subject street that serve special populations, which may increase the volume of emeroencv vehicle trios. These uses include but are not limited to adult daycares, facilities serving elderly persons, or persons with disabilities. 4. For a situation requiring additional means of access based on the above criteria, a single means of access may be permitted as a temporary condition. A temporary condition is one in which there is secured, written assurance from the private subdivider that the road, which will provide the necessary access, will be constructed within three years of development or, alternatively, said access is scheduled for 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May l5, 2008 construction no later than the third vear of the then current Capital Improvements Program of the City. C. StreetTvoes Table 15-1 Standards for Street Rights-of-Wav provides a summary of various street spes The information in this table is intended to provide Quidance for the design of the street network within a subdivision When designino a subdivision street types should be chosen based on the intended function of the street and anticipated level of traffic. The Citv will review the proposed streets and determine the appropriate street tvpe based on the factors set forth in this section. D. Dedication of Riaht-of-Wav Land shall be dedicated to the Citv for all public street rights-of-way within the development and for anv public street right-of-way that is needed for streets that abut or will abut the development. E. Alternative Street Designs/Modifications 4L... M.. ....~., ...F~.... • u n IS Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 Table 15-1: Standards for Street Ri hts-of-Wa Mmrgi~tnil ~', PaJCm¢aE''~idkh l~, (Y'['ri~C Parking Ma~tmum . Sid@15n1k' ~ ~~i>< Rrght Ay; " ,> . ~ Lan~s~ ~' ', Gr>~do : Width' fi ~ wrdt4 «''t.~ra , .~~ +,~i~, , . , ,~l~SI ~ t, .: , ResidentiallAlle /Rear Lane 4G 20 ft. 16 ft. 2 No 12% N/A Comm'er'cial=plley/ltear Lane 20 ft. minimum 20 ft., varies 2 No 10% N/A / varies Stree Loo 100 ft. 22 ft. 1 shared Yes. on one ] 0% 4 ft. p minimum / side residential varies side of street onl Low volume Cul de Sac 50 ft. 22 ft. 1 shared Yes, on one 10% 4 ft. both side sides Cul de sac 60 ft. 26 or 28 ft - 2 - Yes 10% 5 ft. both _. r sides Local Residential Street '~ 30 60 ft. 26 or 28 ft. 2 Yes 12% 5 ft. both sides Local CommerciaUlndustrrnl ;!.. 39 60 ft. 28 ft. 2 - Yes - 8% 5 ft. both Street `"` " sides Co1leMor Street (all land usesfr:~ 6B 66 ft. 31 ft. 2 Yes 10% for 5 ft. both residential; sides 8 % for commercial or industrial Co1leMor Street w/ bike lanes° 66 ft. 34 ft. 2 No 8% 5 ft. both sides 2-lane Arterial Street 89-k- 100 ft. 4$ 31 ft. 2 No 8% 8 ft. one minimum side / 5 ft. one side Arterial Street w/ bike lanes 100 ft. 34 ft. 2 No 8% 8 ft. one minimum side / 5 tt. one side 4-lane Arterial Street 100 ft. 54 ft./varies 4 No 8% 8 ft. one minimum depending if side / 5 ft. median is included one side Arterial5treet w/parking 100 ft. varies, based on 2 Yes 8% 8 ft. one minimum: more number of lanes side / 5 ft. may be reouired and whether one side d~ending on narking is parallel aro lone or angled. confi oration 3-lane Arterial'Street ' 100 ft. 46 ft., /varies 3 No 8% 8 ft. one minimum depending if side / 5 ft. median is included one side Loon streets provide access for 12 or fewer dwellings. z Low volume col-de-sacs provide access [0 10 or fewer single family dwellings }For residential streets with less than 28 feet of augment width arkin is restricted to one side. @~LGI-R~CILCC L Q/l p~p~iGGCp1-~CTGGGI LL III rn 19 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May !5, 1008 i L L F L .:~ .. ..a... 1:..,. ..F al.....a.....t F.........1.:.. .. a,, a ..... ..a...... a ... F. Measurements and Construction Standards 1. All right-of-wav improvements must be designed and constructed according to the design and construction standards established by the City. Said standards are on file in the office of the City Engineer. , 2. All street widths shall be measured back-of-curb to back-of-curb. 3. The minimum outside radius of the pavement of cul-de-sac bulbs and loop streets is 39 feet. A center median is required at the center of the cul-de-sac bulb with a minimum radius of 11 feet. For IOOD streets a median is also reouired with a minimum width of 30 feet. In residential areas, center medians for cul-de-sacs and loop streets are required to be landscaped to at least the Sl standard as described in Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards. The subdivider's agreement shall designate and set forth procedures for property owners or a homeowner's association to maintain the landscaped area within the center median of loon streets and cul-de- sacs. Said instrument shall provide that if said services are not provided as required zo Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May l5, 2008 therein the City shall have the right to perform said services, and the cost thereof shall be a lien and charge aoainst all of the subject lots. G. Street Intersections 1. A maximum of four legs are allowed at any one intersection. T-`~-~~~"~~~ -` --°~ FL..... a...,. ,.t.....4,...i .. '..t ..I..,II ..,.t M.. .. m'i-F,..1 2. .The distance between street intersections must be at least 125 feet centerline to centerline. 3. Intersections of street center lines shall be between 80~ and 100. 4. Corner lots abutting on an arterial or collector street shall have a minimum radius of fifteen feet (15') at the intersection. 5. Dead end streets and alleys are not permitted except at subdivision boundaries abuttin ep undeveloped areas. In such cases a temporary fire-apparatus accommodating turn-around may be required and, if required, must be constructed to City specifications. H. Traffic Calming Features 1. The street network, block lenoth, and layout of lots should be designed in a manner that discourages speeding traffic and unsafe drivino behavior. 2. In order to minimize the potential for speeding traffic and create a safer environment for pedestrians and bicycles, the City may also, in cases where it is warranted, re~c uire traffic calming features to be designed into the subdivision. These features may include but are not limited to discontinuous streets, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, medians, or traffic circles. I. Street Names The City reserves the right to deny the use of street names that are not in the public interest. Street names must be consistent with the following standards, unless an exception is approved by the City: 1. In order to ensure safe an efficient provision of public and emergency services, each proposed street name shall be distinct from other street names within the laroer metropolitan area; 2. Street names that are overly lengthy, difficult to pronounce, or that may be considered inappropriate or unappealing shall be avoided; 3. For new streets, the following rules apply: a. The term "street." should be used for anon-dead-end roadway alioned in a north-south direction. b. The term "avenue" should be used for anon-dead-end roadway alioned in an east-west direction; c. The term "boulevard," "road," or "drive" may be used for a roadway that is alioned neither in a north-south nor east-west direction, but which chanoes direction or meanders; d. The terms "lane," "court," or "circle," or "place" should be used for cul de sacs or low volume loop streets. 21 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 4. Cul de sacs or low volume loop streets may use the same name as the roadway with which it intersects. For example, a cul de sac that intersects with Rose Avenue may be named "Rose Court." However, if more than one cul-de-sac or loop street intersects with Rose Avenue, an additional "Rose" name may not be used. 5. Similar names may not be used for streets that are in different locations within the city For example the name "Rose Drive "may not be used in one neighborhood, if there is already a "Rose Avenue" in a different neiohborhood. J. Private Streets Private streets in single family residential areas are not allowed. 2. Reouests for private streets in multi-family, commercial, and industrial areas will be considered, provided that connectivity to adjacent properties is not needed and the responsibilities for maintenance, snow removal, garbage service, and street sweeping is clearly established according to the provisions of paragraph 3., below. 3. If private streets are approved, the subdivider must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures to be followed for maintaining private streets the subdivision, or desionated portion thereof, through the use of an owners association or other entity satisfactory to the Citv. Said instrument shall provide that if said services are not provided as required therein, the City shall have the right to perform said services, and the cost thereof shall be a lien and charge against all of the owners of lots so designated in the subdivision. K. Cost sharing for pavement overwidth In the event arterial or collector streets are required in a subdivision, the City shall pay for the excess pavement required over that required fora 28-foot wide local street. The City Engineer shall calculate the excess cost. Such cost-sharing shall be according to the procedure set forth by the City Manager. Ay payment for pavement overwidth by the Citv shall be pursuant to State law. L. Cost sharing for street upgrades 1. At the discretion of the Citv, subdivisions may be approved that access existing public the future reconstruction cost of bringing the segment of the subject street that abuts the subject property to City standards. When determining whether such an approval will be granted, the Citv will evaluate the street based on factors such as roadway surface. sight distance. anticipated traffic levels. and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. If the City permits a development to access a street that does not meet City standards, the subdivider shall contribute to the cost as follows: a. Local Streets Local streets are streets that serve as access to property and carry insignificant amounts of through traffic. Therefore, the subdivider shall pay 100% of the cost of upgrading a local street to City standards for that segment of the street upgrading the subject street segment to City standards. The City will expect the zz Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 subdivider of property on the other side of the street to contribute the other 50% of the costs at such time as that land is subdivided/developed. Costs to reconstruct the street will be determined by the City Engineer. b. Collector Streets Collector streets are streets that collect traffic from a subdivision or neighborhood and direct it to and from the arterial street. The function of a collector street is 50% access to property and 50% through traffic Therefore the subdivider will be required to contribute 50% of the cost to upgrade a collector street to Citv standards for that segment of the street that abuts the subject property with the City contributing the other 50%. If a subdivider controls land on only one side of the collector street, they will be required to contribute 25% of the total cost for the subject street segment. The City will expect the subdivider on the other side of the collector street to contribute the other 25% of the cost at such time as that land is subdivided/developed. Costs to reconstruct the street to City standards will be determined by the City Engineer. c. Arterial Streets property and 75% through traffic. Therefore, the subdivider will be required to contribute 25% of the cost to upgrade an arterial street to Citv standards for that segment of the street that abuts the subject property, with the City contributing the other 75%. If a subdivider controls land on only one side of the arterial street, they will be required to contribute 12.5% of the total cost of the subject street segment. The City will expect the subdivider on the other side of the arterial street to contribute the other 12.5% of the cost at such time as that land is subdivided/developed. Costs to reconstruct the street to City standards will be determined by the City Engineer. Public sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian connections shall be constructed in the public right-of- way according to the following_standards: A. Sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian connections shall be constructed according to Citv standards. Said standards are on file in the Office of the City Engineer. B. rte--~~-' ~O~~'~'-~'~ Five-foot-wide concrete sidewalks must be constructed alon~c both sides of all local and collector streets, except for connections to existing sidewalks as provided in subsection D, below. For low volume cul de sacs and loop streets, as described in Table 15-1, the required sidewalk width may be reduced to four feet. C. Along arterial streets, afive-foot sidewalk is required on one side of the street and an 8- foot sidewalk on the other side, except as allowed in subsection D, below. The City will determine on which side of the street the 8-foot sidewalk will be placed. When an 8-foot sidewalk is required, the Citv, at its discretion, will either pay for the excess pavement required for the developer to install an 8-foot sidewalk rather than 5-foot sidewalk, or collect the estimated cost of the 5-foot sidewalk from the developer and apply said cost to 23 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May l5, 2008 construction of an 8-foot sidewalk by the Citv. Anv payment of excess pavement costs by the City shall be pursuant to State law. D. In cases where the proposed sidewalk provides a connection between existing sidewalks that are less than the reguired width the proposed sidewalk may be constructed to match the width of the adiacent sidewalks. However, this modification is not allowed in cases where one end of the proposed sidewalk will provide a connection to future sidewalks for new development. In such a case, the sidewalk should be tapered to provide a transition between differing sidewalk widths. The City will determine where along the street the transition should occur. E. All sidewalks and trails must connect to other sidewalks and trails within the development and to the property line to provide for their extension to adjacent properties. F. The subdivider will be responsible for the construction of a public sidewalk along the frontage of private oven space public open space reouired to be dedicated to the Citv according to the Article 14-5K. Neighborhood Open Space Requirements, and along the frontage of other outlots as necessary for a continuous sidewalk system to be created. G. . In residential subdivisions, blocks longer than 600 feet must have mid-block pedestrian connections between adjacent streets, unless said connection is deemed to be unnecessary and is waived by the Citv. At the time of subdivision, these connections must be platted as minimum 15-foot-wide easements; if the connecting sidewalk is greater than 5 feet in width, the easement must be at least 20-feet wide. Within this easement a sidewalk must be constructed to City standards that is equal in width to the sidewalks to which it provides a connection. If the mid-block sidewalk connects to sidewalks of two different widths, the mid-block sidewalk must be equal in width to the wider sidewalk. The area and sidewalk within the pedestrian easement must be maintained by adjacent property owners according to the subdivider's agreement in a manner similar to maintenance requirements for public sidewalks. H. Where a trail extension, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or an adopted trails plan is located on the subject property, the City may require an easement or alternatively, may require dedication of an outlot for the trail. Construction of the trail or portion of a trail may also be reouired in instances where said trail or portion of a trail primarily serves the needs of the proposed subdivision/development. In this situation, the trail will be treated as a public improvement. Dedication of land for a trail extension shall count toward the omen space requirement for the development, provided said land is consistent with the standards for open space as set forth in Article 14-5K of the Citv Code and provided said land dedication is acceptable to the Ci A. Blocks 1. Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a pattern that ensures the connectivity of streets, provides for efficient provision of public and safety services, and establishes efficient and logical routes between residences and non-residential destinations and public gathering places. za Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 2. F TL. '.,I M F L. 1.1 I... L.,II L....-. FC..:....~ «.... ...:« 1..,.. «:,.rn e.F I..«.~ro ....~...II «ti,..•:.,.ti L... I....,. «~.... "^ F....« To provide multiple travel routes within and between neighborhoods block faces along local and collector streets should range between 300 and 600 feet in length and for residential subdivisions have a width sufficient to accommodate two tiers of lots. Longer block faces may be allowed in cases of large lot commercial industrial or rural residential development, or where topography water features or existing development prevents shorter block lengths although mid-block pedestrian connections may be required (See Section 15-3-3, above). Block faces are measured from centerline to centerline. 3. Block faces along arterial streets should be at least 600 feet in length. Intersedin collector streets should be spaced in a manner that provides adequate connectivity between neighborhoods but also maintains the capacity of the street for the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Longer block faces may be required along high capacity or higher speed arterial streets where the interests in moving traffic outweigh the connectivity between areas of development. The City may approve shorter block faces in high density commercial areas or other areas with high pedestrian counts. 4. Cul de sacs may not exceed 900 feet in length. The length of a cul-de-sac is measured from the center line of the street from which it commences to the center of the t~-aFeund bulb. B. Lots 1. Lots must be platted in a manner that will allow development that meets all requirements of Title 14• Zoning Lots must be of sufficient size to accommodate an adequate buildable area and area for required setbacks, off-street parking, and service facilities required by the type of use and development anticipated. 2. Lots with multiple frontages must be platted large enough to accommodate front setback requirements along_street-side lot lines. 3. If a property with frontage along an arterial street is proposed to be subdivided, developed or redeveloped for any Multi-Family, Group Livino, Commercial, Institutional or Industrial Use, across-access easement must be provided by the property owner to all adjoining~rooerties that front on the same arterial street that are or may be developed as Multi-Family, Group Living, Commercial, Institutional Use, or Industrial Uses according to the cross access standards set forth in section 14-SC-7 of the City Code. 4. In residential areas, double- and triple-frontage lots shall be avoided~xee~irj ,: ~,. I....-.«~.........~,._,......I .,I..~,..,. ,...I:,..,«,... «~...:. , .Where such lots are restrictions, the following standards apply: a. Lots with multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone in which the lot is located. The additional required lot area shall be used to increase the depth of the lot between street frontages. Corner lots with only two frontages are exempt from this requirement, however, said corner lots should be platted with enough land area to accommodate the reouired front setback area along both frontages. 25 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 1 S, 2008 b. landscaped buffer area along the arterial street frontage The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation approved by the City Forester. The veoetation shall be required alono with other public improvements for the property Lots where dwellings will have front buildino facades oriented toward an arterial street are exempt from this requirement. If a buffer area was required during subdivision, no solid fences will be allowed within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the plat. On corner lots, the landscaping within the buffer must be planted and maintained to comoly with intersection visibility standards. 5. Side lot lines shall approximate right angles to straight street lines a,~-radialangles te- or be approximately radial to curved street lines, except where a variation will provide a better street and lot layout. For purposes of this subsection, "approximate right angles" means angles between 80° and 100°. 6. Residential lots shall not be designed with irregular shapes such as a flag or panhandle shape where the structure on the lot may be hidden from the street behind another structure. 7. In residential subdivisions, lots must be arranged to allow easy access to public open space. The subdivision layout should be designed so that the location and access to public open space is readily apparent to the public. Subdivision layouts where public open space is surrounded by private lots that back up to the public open space are discouraged. Technioues, such as single-loaded streets along park edges or along seoments of park edges and well-marked trail easements are to be utilized to satisfy this requirement. C. Provisions to Minimize the Effect of Highway Noise Subdivisions adjacent to or within 300 feet of the Interstate 80 and/or the Highway 218 riohts of way shall comoly with the followino provisions, intended to reduce the effect of hiohwav noise on residential areas. 1. Anv portion of a residential lot that is within 300 feet of the Interstate 80 or Highwa 218 right-of-way shall be identified as a noise buffer, and no residential structure will be permitted within this 300-foot buffer area. The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation approved by the City Forester. The vegetation shall be required along with other public improvements for the property. Existino trees and veaetation may be used to comply with this requirement as approved by the Citv Forester. Accessory structures and yards are permitted within the 300-foot buffer area provided the required vegetative buffer is maintained. 2. The 300-foot buffer for residential structures may be reduced with approval by the City if the subdivider constructs an earthen berm, decorative wall, or other similar identified by the AASHTO as'the neighborhood.) dBA is the noise range in an urban res/denGal 26 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 3. The 300-foot buffer for residential structures may also be reduced with approval by the City if the subdivider demonstrates that existing topography results in hiohwav noise being no more than 60 dBA just outside the prooosed residential structures. 15-3-5 Neighborhood Open Space Requirements A. Intent and Purpose The Neighborhood Open Space Requirements are intended to ensure provision of adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities in a manner that is consistent with the Neighborhood Open Space Plan, as amended, by using a fair and reasonably calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and/or developing land for those purposes. Active, usable neighborhood open space includes pedestrian/bicycle trails preferably located within natural greenway systems, and also includes neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. Portions of community parks may be adapted for neighborhood use, but this Chapter is not intended to fund the acquisition of community parks or large playing fields for organized sports. WHtle-t#~is B. Dedication of Land or Payment of Fees In Lieu of Land Required As a condition of approval for residential subdivisions and commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the City and in accordance with the provisions of Article 14-5K, Neighborhood Open Space Requirements A. Extension of energy distribution lines and communication distribution systems necessary to furnish oermanent electric service and communication system service to new development within a new subdivision shall be made underground from existing systems accordino to the orovisions set forth in Chapter 16-2, Public Utilities and Use of City Right of Way. B. The aoolicant shall provide all easements necessary for access to street lights, to allow energy and communication system services for the subdivision, and the easements shall be included as part of the plat of the subdivision. C. In new subdivisions, the electric public utility company shall provide underground wiring to the pole sites for aoorooriate street lights as determine by the City Manager or designee. A. The subdivider shall provide a complete sanitary sewer system, including stubs, for each lot which shall connect with a sanitary sewer outlet approved by the City Engineer as set forth in Sections 16-3-4, 16-3-5, and 16-3-6 of the City Code. The sanitary sewer in each defined drainage area shall extend to the subdivision boundaries and beyond, as necessary to provide for the extension of the sanitary sewer to adjacent property, as determined by the Ci z~ Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 B. Project specific tap-on fees may aogly as set forth in Section 16-3-2, Proiect Specific TdD- On Fees. C. . The ,~ . If City reouires a sanitary sewer to be greater in size than that needed to service the subdivision itself the City may share in the expense thereof on a pro rata basis Such cost-sharino shall be according to the procedure set forth by the Citv Manager Anypavment of excess costs by the Citv shall be pursuant to State law. A. The developer shall provide the subdivision with adequate drains, ditches, culverts, complete bridges, storm sewers, intakes and manholes to provide for the collection, management, and removal of all surface waters as set forth in Chapter 16-3-7, Storm Water Collection, Discharge, and Runoff. These improvements shall extend to the boundaries of the subdivision and beyond, as necessary seas to provide for extension by adjoining properties, as determined by the City. A. The developer shall provide the subdivision with a complete water main supply system as set forth in Section 16-3-3, Potable Water Use and Service, including hydrants, valves and all other appurtenances, which shall be extended into and through the subdivision to the boundary lines and beyond as may be necessary to provide for extension by adjoining properties, as determined by the City. The system shall provide for a water connection for lots and shall be connected to the City water system. B. If City requires a water main to be greater in size than that needed to service the subdivision itself, the City may share in the expense thereof on a pro rata basis. Such cost- sharing shall be according to the procedure set forth by the Citv Manager. Any payment of excess costs by the Citv shall be pursuant to State law. 28 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 A. All new residential or commercial developments platted after (the effective date of these reoulations) that receive curbside delivery of mail shall have clustered mailboxes, unless an exception is approved by the United States Postal Service. The location of mailbox clusters shall be noted on the plat. B. Mailbox clusters servino residential developments shall be conveniently located for residents To that end mailbox clusters should be located within one block or approximately 600 feet walking distance (whichever is less) from any residential property served by said mailbox cluster Adjustments to this distance criteria may be approved when there are not enough lots within one block or 600 feet to form a cluster. Mailboxes should be located in a manner that provides safe access for residents, e.g. does not reouire residents to cross heavily trafficked streets, etc. Driveways shall be allowed no closer than 12 feet from the location of a clustered mailbox as measured alono the curb line of the frontinq street Mailboxes must be located in a manner that will not violate the City's intersection visibility standards. Locations and design must be approved by the Citv and the United States Postal Service Depending on the size and location of the clustered mailbox the Cit~mav require a vehicular Dull-over lane built to City specifications. C. Mailbox clusters shall be located on a concrete pad built to Citv specifications. To provide for pedestrian access a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided from the mailbox cluster to the adjacent public street and sidewalk. An accessible route shall be provided according to ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The cost of installation, including but not limited to box units and concrete pad and sidewalk access shall be borne by the developer and subseouent maintenance shall be carried out by the United States Postal Service. An iron rod ' "~ ~ `~"'"'" ~" `'~""""`"_ ""'' '" ~"'"""'""" meeting specifications of State Code shall be placed as follows: A. At the intersection of all lines forming angles in the boundary of the subdivision. B. At block and lot corners and changes in direction of block and lot boundaries. C. At the beginning and endino points of curves and at lot lines intersecting the curves. 15-3-12 Specifications A. The type of construction, the materials, the methods and standards of subdivision improvements shall be according to City standards. 1=nginee~. Said standards are on file in the office of the City Engineer. B. Construction plans and specifications, including~lans for subdivision erosion control measures, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. RIaRs ` '--''••°- ""}-~' _ ~~ -'~~ `" "••""~~""''. Construction shall not be started- commence until the City Engineer approves the plans and specifications. C. If the infrastructure and/or grading cannot be designed to comply with City standards a new preliminaryplat may be required at the discretion of the Citv. 29 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May 15, 2008 D. Record of Construction drawings must be submitted in hard cony and in digital form before public improvements will be accented by the Citv. 15-3-13 Inspections A. The City Engineer or designee shall inspect the installation of all public improvements in new subdivisions to insure compliance with the requirements. B. The subdivider shall bear the cost of such inspection, which shall be the actual cost of the inspection of ~ the City. C. Grading shall be inspected and certified by the developer's engineer. A. From time to time off-site public improvements are necessary to enable the subdivision and development of a property At such times the subdivider shall be responsible for the extension of infrastructure. If said infrastructure or certain aspects of said infrastructure is included in the City's Capital Improvements Program in a year coincident with the development proposal, the City may, at the City's discretion, assume responsibility for the extension of the subject infrastructure. ,~ C. Off-site improvements shall be designed and constructed according to plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer and shall be of sufficient size and capacity to serve the full area capable of being served by the type of improvement so that the City will not be required to construct parallel or duplicate facilities. If said infrastructure is greater in size than that needed to service the subdivision itself, the Citv, at its discretion, may share in the expense thereof. Such cost-sharing shall be according to the procedure set forth by the City Manager. Anypayment of excess costs by the Citv shall be pursuant to State law. ~, ,~ , ,...«~.. IQ~J' ~~. 30 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May /5, 2008 i r • i r i i i-~ivm••i cc r ' ' I Tt.r /""}..Ir rL. r..r 'F .. .: II L.r }I.., .1'FF.......r.. i " ' e.e•} L.ra...rr.. }L.r .. " ~ ~ r u.c F^F i i SN~IVf516fr TF }I.r !"}., rirr}r }.. ... L. L..1'..:.lr. Fr. }L... r..nM ..F y .; a}L r ..~ ~~ [1\ TL.r /"}.. r.lr }I„r !`r r. rl.r r Dlr.. }r rl. r... }~,,, .I r....lr....~lr r.}r .. rl .lr.J '.. }Mr .. r'I rL.Ir F... rl r..rl...........} ',.. hl... r4....} . ~.~ o . I r}}...1 r}„rr}r .. rr} },~ r rL..; }„ L.rr L.rr., r .L.r}rr};rll., r ..I..}r.l B. r..a..~..~..a..a•.... ..L.rr rll rF }I.,r Ir...,l '.. }I.r r -. L.rr 1... ..I-~K...1 ~...~I L...'Irlie.ei e. m'}r I. r..r • „}I„r rilrr .: }I.,r~ }I.,,. l`r......r l..... r'. r DI-... M-.r I....... ~ ...1...~ ' ~ ,~}r ra r ...1 ~ iF }L,r !"}.. !`r .: I .. L.r}r }r r.1 r..} r r..l'r }L. r....rl'.. .r} r r}r'r r Ir..rl '~ .cya. 31 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended Draft May I5, 2008 i i i i i i i i i i i i ~. i r 32 N ~ ~ cn~ m m ~ DoiD N ~ ~ ~ v DD G to ~ c c m ° m w c n a ~ m m ' 'o ~ O c y m ~ "' m a ~-o ~ d a m ~ ~o ~ n~ ~ ~ O m ~ 7 ~ ~'z ~, m cn~ ~ =fD m a f/1 " O ~~ =rte O QO p ~ n ~ ,wpm , ~DO ~ ~ ~ ~~ oo~~, ~ 7 ~ ~ o D aQ ~fD~ ° -~ 3 ~~ c w 3 3~ ~o~ ~ ~~ f , 3 m 7 fA ~ fU .r 7 o C i ~ ~` lD Z ~ ~ O N . -' 7 C" O '" ~ _ " 3 m amvmc~vao ~~f W d-i m y nom °-~.a v Qam ~ m .,N,_ 'N.. v, y~3 7 ~ ~m ~ ~ s~ 3 >7 -I o.o~Dmm""z y7< °~ ~ O N 7 y "d 7~- 7 ~ N N d 0 7 601 O 6 N~ ~ OO fD O ~ y `G ~< ~ f D N N~ S~ Q `7G Q Z ,, .. R l ~cN 7 ° ' ~~~m ~ ~ v~0 ~y. - y .-. -I O ~ ~~ ~ N ~ a D N~ y ~s 3-. o ~ f a -~ V)~1 ~ .f; m o 7•m m ?7 N N O o dm ~ ~~ -~, .~ j ~ T1 - d ~p ~, O ~ C '~~~~~ ~ ,~ . ~ O fD ?~d T d ~~ ~m m o o= ?~ v ° ~ d m o N ~ f7 0 ~ om~ y-o o ac ~ m o r < N Q p N v N 3 N o ~~ N 3 • 7 0 O N ~ ~ . Z O N O " C ~'~ ~' '.~` " G O N? N N N N N V.. 7 - N •+: [Y~ J ~ N ~ 7r 0 = ~ N 'O ~ Q O S U !n fD N 7 f 7 Ayr 0 d Q G n (7 C N C~ N ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ _ N ~ C~ -7 A~ O j O ~'. ~ ~ v (D + N , d C . -. ' a O ~ O ~ ~ O ? ~ N ~ ~ fA N N N ~ N ~ TI W N y. Q a C ~ - O O C Q ~ C p 7 7 0 O 7 ~ p f0 a 7 N _ 7 (~ N ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ Q 7 fA ~ O "' 7 d N .: rn o ' ~ m~ v o ~ o ~ m n~~ 7 ~ m~ C » 7 m ~-o ~ N - ~ m ~~ f O 3 C ~ 7 N o m ~ < ~ o C N ~ 7 C 3 (D ~ ~ fU N ~ U N C- ~ Q'~ N fD •~ ~ ~ N `G ~ •• O N N N f0 7 ~ m SU (~ e y~ E' ~' :~ W a V~ ~ o N ~ o N e? 3 Z co3a ~3a .. W 'n `°~° `D~°m o3, O m N y 7 N y 7 7 M N D o- o °- p C R1 (p N ~t,ti `, w cn~ ~ ~~ v ~ w ~ ~ 'o s c m a c 9 p) N N N N ~ O -` ~ N o <D 4 ~ G7 < C (7 D 3 ~v 3 m ~ ~~ ~ ~ -°o~ a ?O~ -° °: ~ a , _ .. M a N O' ~ - ~ p O m. v s~ ~ o- m ' 7 m v~a.~ 7a ~~o- K, -p o O o ~~ O 7 a ~ o - 6 ~ tOp ~ ~ 4 C ~ ~ M O a to O 7 n N y L1 0 a N 7 0 O p~ "'~ , a a c 0 N - n m N N N c - Q O a -, O Z o 7a a ^ o ~' w oamm ~ f/1 O p c O a ~ 3 N N ~ O 7 N Q G N - ~a D_ S = 0 ~ ~ N N O N ~ C1 j ~ N ~ a 61 O 91 7 7 3 (D O X O ~ N - N d d 7 p ~rtN' ~ a 2 N 3 ~ m y . ",I O ~ 7 N fD O C ~ O O (D O' N O ~ a0 ~ S 7 7 N ~ 7 ~ N af0 ~ ~ 7 ~ Q fD ~ ~ p C ? N a ~ O (D N . 7 m o. c O m U? (J tN m ~ ao am 7 aag a ~ ~ ':N mmm,m y v 7 ~~ ma ^'.;,~ .z 0 ~ ~, O O_ 0_ ~ ~ f1 ~ O- (/i' j' n' w ~ ~ fD 61 S O ~"' ~~ 3 ~ m ~ o d 7 n 7 _ .Ni m N m a ~ 7 ~ ~ 7 N n ~ m ~ o~v aC) j O N ~ n 0. m o ~'~_ O ~ N 7 N o ;s~,~, N A .~ ~ .Zl n ~ p ~2 ~. ~ ~ , = v ~ V ~ ° om.~~ v ' p C1 N v 3~ ~ W ' t ~ o ~ m 7- ~u ,~.' »~ m n D N o n v w ~ c ' ~ ~' ~ `~ ; -? c o o = ~ s m 7 C. IG - ~°~ 3, d ,~' m ~ 4 3 ~ v~'sv ~~~ ~~fy,o v ~da~ m ~ 7mm~x v.~.o Nm~~7 m ~mw k d O N D ' N O~ 7 (D O N S1 ~ fD N ( O ~ 0 n N ~ ~ r ~- . ~. !1 7 y 0 01 N n ~ O ~ . _+ ~.C Q " .i1:i01 r°i A ~ 7 0 C1 O F O F O O a ~. N C ~ , .O ~ (O n ~0.7-I O .r' ons ~ 7 S •°=co 9'w ~ ~ n ovo~. _~7 t e. O ~ o v m ~ x, 30 o ~ n , p ~~ ~ < < w 3 Z N y ~ C~ ~ ~ N 7 0 0 N j O ~ N fD ~ y ? N 7~~ m w vco v~ ..N m ~~ ~ 3 m o,~~ -o-v. o f v N.m m gvco y ~ 7' 7 ~ 91 `G N 7 N `G N 0 (O N ~ ~ O - ~ n (D N .~ S (D O .-. C ~. p ~ ... T C O S 7 , R N . . O A (O S N . . O n (O ~ n~ O (~ 7 ' N fp 7 N n ~~, i` ~ ~~~ ~~m X0 ° :7 0 ~' m o . _ '~ °' 3 v n ,.. S mr. 7 mm N 7 3 N .' fD S fD fD ~ ~ S N N 7 ~ ~ ~ fD 5 ~ N . p ' 'O fD ~ N N N fD C1 X e ~ Y7 ~ ~ ~ 7 S (D 7 C ~ y ~ (D ~ O ~ N A c~ ~ n ~D`~ o°~ E m ~~'n~ m ~ ~'<< S 7 n 7 y 0 7 7 f0 S fD /D (D 7 7 ^" -^ fU SO' N . 'Tl N N O p 7 N L! ~' (D `2 ~ N O N 01 (D ~ fD (O C O_ N N N ~ ~ O O ~ -~ N 7 ~ O ~ 7 01 fD fD 7 fD < fD .+ (O " ~ 01 ~ (D 7' C7 a 3 m ~o~ m o ~ ~3.~~n x m~ c ~,.w X 0 y 7 7' J N 3 fD ? O N C 7' O<~ V U~ 7~ 4 a o p ~ 0 co m y N <_ n ~° m ac Q7 °~ m o ~ e~~- f /1 O ~ ~ `~ Q U N O U N O 7 fD -n "' fD - N p 7' fD ~ ~ ? O ~ fD 91 ~~~ QC'1 ~ o N n;::~ m ~ o N.3' n 7 _. ,, ~ ~ ~ N N CA A p- C)~-o 0 No 3 o,f o ~ V ~ o c m ~ ~, o d m . m o m~ 7 n so m ~ ~'< ~ ~ N n m ~ ~ 3 7 y 3~~-a c • ~ m ~~s~ ~~m o ~ ~ _ y O y u O . y ~ O 0 0 `< 7 _ N i <D p .. ~ ~, W O O ~ m 7 0 7 0 7 C d 7 d ~m ~ <D °. ~. ~ m 7 °'a ~ z ~ 3 ° 3m m°v F .' . f _5s 3 ~ ~ ° o ~ ~ m ~ C `~ o~ ~ m~ a , m m m °~°~m~<a A ~ y • o ° ~ ~ 7 f ~ o to _ _ ° o 7 ~ ? ~°~7 m m~~ =~ 'x W ~ "O n ~n m ~ O X 7 7 ~ ~ ~ fn O (~ A. fD O p Z Q d -c ~ ~ N S ~ O ^ ~ ~ N .C+ fD ~ O p fD p~ ~ Yl 1 i O N ' N (D O N ~ 7 n 0 O 7 7 n ~ d S~ < N 7 N - '- 0 ~ j O p 7 "O 7 O l O- ~ O ~ . . ~ O ~ ~ _ N N O N O S O ~ ~O N 0 ' 7 ~ 3 ~ 7 S N n 0 S S~ fD .p» N ,C ~ y ~ n O j 3 N 7 ~ (D N~ S,~ 7 (D (D O N ~ .: Z ~ 7 (D (D i p~ (DU 0 M a7 a 7 0 ~ O < ~ v y m v -o -o ~~' ~ ' O fD ~ ~ N V ~ O (° 91 ~ O N ~, .d.. d _ 0 0 (D ~ ' O (D ~ Q p _ n N 7 Q N 91 ~7.. ~ 7 N ~ N C ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O S N~ ~~ ~ ~ N. (D ~ (D ~ ~ j N ' d 2 y a O Ml ~ 7~ N ~ d p~ 7 O ° 7 ° . . d ~ ~ - -°o ~ o. a ~ a m. m ~ o C sv f ~ v °-.~ (D ~1 j 7 O N S O .. . S N d O ~ p_ N ' d 7 fD G N (D N N O N 3 O N (p ~ O O O O a §~ ~ v s~~ n ~ ~ y ? m ~<ovo.~~m ;.,~*,. in ~~ ~ c m~ 0_7~~ m~ o p fl • 7 . ( (D ~ j `G ~ 7 N 91 ~~ N °- Q .~. ~ m (D 'p O ~ ~ O O ~ D 0 ~ . ( .O. (7 N O 7 f0 ~ fD (D ~ - n O N U d 7 C d r 3 ~ 9 _ .a Q N. ~ N (')~ ~ ~D. N j O ~ ' ~N S c O y j O 7 (D 7 O ~ °~~ ap', 7 O N ~ O m3m o3" ~ y ~ N n7 o s N c a m O ~ a s < O n m ~ N m O ' N . w ^. N ~ o s ~ ate. m 3 S A d N () ~ d D N~f~m 3 a ~ ... d a ~ m n' sJ~o m 7 o T z ~ a o~ ~ 3 m ~ " fD 7 N .7i N d d T ~ N ~ y O "' ~_ N ~ ~ d N N ~ N< (7 ~ 01 N ~_ 0 O 91 ~ N 91 01 "O ~ m K y C N 7 N O (O "" N ~ 7C N 3 (D n O ~ N 9 U d C C - y 7 U (D - -~ 7 'O "O ~ (D ~ ~ - d N N 7 n 7 D C O C O C ~ . . n N N 0 ~<~ j~ N ~ f N . + . a . ~. 7 ~ ~ N~ O N N N (D N SU 7~ 7~ _ O. ~ O y 7 O 7 `~ N 0 ~- 01 (p N ~. O 0 y Z O fD Q O - 0 0 0 0 0 fD (D fD 7 0 Q y~ Q ~,C m ~ f° < ~ ~ Q~ s ~N v ~ < O ~ ~ m~ a~ ? •3 3 (D t0 S "Z•'O (1 n .(D+ ry m 3 7 N '• N N~ - N a 3 ~ O 3 O O ~• A ~ N 7 N ~ O O 0 ' `< N 61 (D 2 - • N .. N 7 lD O (D (7 N y _ ~~ p y _ fD d ~ ~ O' ~ y N .< N N O O O ~ O y O ~ 7 n C ' 0 ~ n 0 N (D ' '^. ~ O ~ y O O O~ N ~~ fD n 7 -. , 7 N O~ 7 f7D O 7 0< O H O • N ~ 2 ~ ~ 7 p~ W O (D tl1 C O y < N ~ N .+ ~ O '~ 7 ~ N O O S (D fD "` N t0 ~ 7" O_ N ~ N N ~•° m o-N Os 03 m~ ~ N O ~~y~~ <fD o <~D~~°01 ~ 3 O W~ ~ " 0 3< N f n y N N .O. O O .O N 0 -O tp O N A S 7 (D O ~~ ~ C_ 7 ~ N O a ~ n ~ 'O c .7-. ~ fD 00 F v '~... • m ~ d 0 (/1 C !p C ~ y 0 VI 7 C 3 Q~ ° 7 ~ s ~ 7 p`< N ~v ~ n, O d "O fD fD 7" •< ~p d N ~ ~ n d N r 3 v-p m m .m ~ ~ ~-° '~ m m ~ sx°' ~ ° - v ~ w • a o ~ N v o ~ - 7 . S j v m o~v a`n. j o N ~ n O 3 m o ~ N• _ o N 3.~ ~ S a ~ m S ' . (/1 V ca °-~D ~a ° O '. 7 c ~ m ° ~. o° m c m p _ m° -- ~ a ° N n N y d r a ~a~ ° ' 3 n ~9~. < m O m~ ° ~ X ° a a m O ~ ~~ m ~ N (O Q M f~ n .r .'~. ,~ O ~'~w '~ -n ~~ o ~ m ~~ a~ ~ -°1a sn°~~ ' 3 3 0 ~ m~ 3 ~ m O O U ~ ~ N~ ~ (D N N 'O ~ K n p n '~ "O y~ n N y k • ~ ~ ~ A ~ 3 3 ~ ~ 3 ' ~ ~ ~ -°° v ~ m o .~~ ~ " ~ m~ m m m v m m v f° n p N 3 ~ c i. N C N ~ . U O y N . 7 N 7 _ (D • _ (D ~ ~ r- ~ V , Q N 7 N n p_ p Vl fD 7 p 7 N '. N x < O N ' O M N N N (D N fD d O N N . Q O N N V ~ O ~ ? 7 N N 7 f0 61 ~ , O p ~ f0 (D -O N ~ f1 N d ~ N j ~ ~ ~' n (D 6 N ' Q N y' ~ O 01 K N C N Z ~ N (D ~ , . f~ n N N O 7 ~ ~ N fD N C f0 N ~ N N D ~, O . < ,~ fD p 7 . y (~< ~ ~ y ~ C7 to ~ m vco o l ~ av m m ~,o~ ~ o~ m p' . '~ Q ~. O~ ^' .~ f7 . O (D n Q O 1 N ~: x y O N ~' (?(~ 'D ~ ,F •D ~ n ~ ' N - O N d (Cn ~ N (D d .0.~ (D ~" y Su 7 .Nr S ~ .~+ N (p' O N (D 7 N O N O N E N . ~ d j O n O C~ d 7 N N ~ N 3 .N~. . N ~ O C 7 T 7 n 7 „~. O y , O O~ d . ~. Q (D (O S N ~~ 7 N a ~' N ~ (D O d N (D ~ (D 7 S N ~ N . O Q " fD F ~ N U .~ 7 N (D ~ N O (D O 0 0 6 (p f0 j O (D O p 0 ~ 7 fD '. < O d O- =^. 6 ~ a O n ~ ~ ~ n U ~ N ~ C ~ a < f il ~~ TN <' N (Sp- Q' , ~ O 01 p N N SII (D O N. N S N O ~ 7~ i y ~ N O N 7 (D 7 N ~ fD ~ -~ N~ O_ V M O N O ,(J =^ (n O "O N O N 3 7. ~p v N p^ O- ~ C~ ( / J ~ 91 ~; p Q p 1 O' ~~ X 01 .C N 7 N O O S <.- 7 f0 n N N ~ . f Y1 ~' C N F ~ p ~ (D C Q ~`' _ N N (D N O fD ~ O 7' fD~ C N D _ N N ~: j l (O ~ C (D ~ ~. C~ O O ~ Q ~ (D 7 n C _ d ~. o ~ ~ 9'a as v, ~ ~m ~ N ~ y 7 U ~ ~ ~ (D ~ N ~ O ~ ° ~ ~ ~ N fD ~ 7 (D O ~ . 7 N ~ N -'i. ~ .- ~ ~ 7 3 ~ ~~ o a n x m s° F o v o j N ~.~ m° ~ ~ - 7NO 7 d ^,0 77"0 F m ~ ~' ~ o <. m ~' F. v. ~v ao d ~ ~ o c °' m ~ m o n m m ~ o ~ 3 7 ~ O,a o N ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ 3m 3 ov m c d ~ 7 co ° o ~ m -~ ~ c ~ ~ F -' ~ v 7 N ~ m ...- ~ . O S ' n c c ~ ~ - N S ~ ~ (D n ~ d d ' 7 S . .. . _S fU "O n _ v ~ S.O-. K U ~ N M ~ "'n 7 N NfO (D O -~ 7~ ~ n ~' d 01 N (D __. O (D 7 N~ O N 7 7~ ~.. fD ~p fn N N O- O O- O- ' O S N ~ o aa m'm 3fD v an ~~ a m c~ o N n. C a~~ ~y~~ a w"3 .. - 'o 7 s~ ~ ~~n m 7N. _ Q7 fD ~ O rt ~ "3• 3 . r N N ~ ~ ~ N C1 ~ c ~ p scfl N 1 O ~ c ~ o c N v ~ ~ m o W ~p ~ a D ~ ~ m o D < (D y O N (D ° In ~~ma 7 ,,:' v ~ a p e a s G ~ ~ ~cco m 3 y v m~w ~ . a ,~ 0 a~ ~ ~ ~v~~' m X ~ X ~ D_ ~ S 3 o mym°:fD a ~c ~ O ~ m 'vmoc m~ ~ y b, ~< , Q ~ p -w o s ~ \ ~ j ~ N N N y. Z d . (D ~ X p p1 O - _ 1 01 ~ <_'~0 N N 1 (D p S ~ O ~ ~ < O N fD 7 fD ~ y ~ O fD ~ U ~ y d d p ~ G ~ -~ ~ (D f/1 S ~ N ~ < (D N 7 y. (D .~ .° y O y y J O O O C R "O 3 fn n y ~ y O_ n S'O < ~ O 'd 6 ` 3 < N O O < (D n y~ 7 (n C N (/) .. C01 O. ~ N p N (D O' ~ (D N - N m ~ ~ < N O ~ fD y ''`~: °~ ~ my m ~ _~ 3 v n °-o 0 m ~3 ~ o ~ o m ~ m ~ ~ a y i~ N G~ O N Q 0 7 S S O U (D y p tl1 N. Q N y~ O y C y (D fn ~ Q 0 ( p 0 7 N. (7, y O .~. S 0 0 ~ ~< y _ n 41 j C ~ S 01 ~ O H n~ U N U ~ N ti ~ 7 ~ ~ O .» -Q ~< p C S C 3 fD d 3 y S ~ . . ~ N a~ K 'p ~ LI N ~ j? n 7 S ~i G 7 ~ ~ gyp' ~ `t N f~ S 5 7 cp p s 33 ~ ~, O. C7 .p. .~v m N N N (p m ~, N f m y y 0 0 , y N m ? fD. ~ ~~ m n -° ~ c d y O ~ y < ~, U 7 O y . ,.,3oo~ F~m-pp"a f/1 6c .3m ~ m N » , p) ~ . i 3~°mmp> 0 _ ~ y ~v ° ~~~ ~~ < o <3 . fD ~ m m n y ~ C p N " 3 ~ . m a 3 n i ~~ = m 3 O fD (D O ~G (D O c. fD - S S y `< y p~ C O N O d ,~ O_ ~ fD y ~ (D 61 -p N O p (D (D X 7 7 ~ ay, y N N (O `G . O.. !/1 S Q 7 n f0 tp O N 0'1 ~ (D O 'O `G "' O S tit (D~ O ~ S ~ ~ ~ O 7 ~ N N ~N w~ ~ y'3 O 7 V1 a "' y , Q {O ' ~.u '' 3 ~ ~ . O (D N CT (D • C 3 ~ C p ' p O N N p ~' O ~ O• , ~p m 7 ( 3 v w pi; d m N ~ ~n o momn -a y ~~ Yp a ~ ~ m Q n m D a ~ c m ~ m, ~ ~ m' ° 3 ~ CA 7 N ~ N ~ (D - ~ N <D 7 ~ n o_ ~ ° m `° °. fD O S ? N ,7, N ~ = N ID 3~ m ~ N - N i~. 0 d .~~~ C -p ~, 3-p ~ o i-p N v -+ ~,v ~ -~ s~,~ 'p ' m' - 3 p o- O 7 7 m O v ' ~ 7 ~ S m ~ 7 o ~ m K ~ ~ ~ n~ a m m a a s f° ~ n x v co - m m v ~ p ~~~~ m m ~~ N y'~ p ~ ~ ~ o, »3 y .p s w _ ~ o _ ,. O 7 N f0 f0 ' Q ~ (p O N ~~ fD S O W t/1 ' O O C ~ p Q 0 O ~ 0 n, ~ n p N n C - ' Z 3~ y o- T~ c i m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. ~ , N N 3 N (p O y N ~ ~ n ~ O ~~~ w .7. N ~ ~ ~ (D C a n fD . O n ~ y O_ 7 N 0 7 7 7 3 3 'O S p p ~. D- 0- ~ LI n 7 ~ .7.. N .7 ~ ~ Q C O" fD fD N 7 ~' a N N C (~ n ~p ~ d C ~: O d • N ~ C 3 p N~ .p-. 7 .. S 7 _ 7 _ S O 7 fD y (D (D N _ ( p 7 ~ fD ~ S N v fD N • (7 N„ ~ (D n y Ng .< m CC7O~ N C ~ y ~ ~ ~ -p~~~ p ~ N j'O :. ~ o a o O ov < ~-' N ~ 7 N O 7 N 7 N n 7 ~,~ O 3 N p fD O ~ O 3 01 ~ r~~ 4l ~ ~ ~. O 5 N ~ Q.' , (~. ~ o N , ; p j0,.. ~ ~ 3 a w ~, ' ' m 3 0 ~ ;. C,.,_ n7 ~ ~ ~ N J ~ T1 ON vlo a ~ '0 _, ~ ~ 7 C Ul 1 (D C H O N Gl on N' ~ D - O o y ~ g 'O (p m 7 N ~ m N 0 l K ~ v ° D (~~ o o ~ ~ O d N < ~p C n c m ? C - ~ ~ ~ o s ~ m ~ .~. °-' a d a ~ ~-°' o ~-°-~ ~.~ o T m o ~ 7 o ~ s7 ~ ma ~ u; c y~ i ~ n 'o ' a ' 7•~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ y a = w ~ o m ~o ~ -a ~oa-°- v-o .. in .. ~ ~ <'~D ~ v ~D m3 ~ fm 7m ~ ~ ~ S N _ ~ C N ~< y . ~~ ~~ N j , .' S S Z N (D O 7 7 N ~' 7 S n N ~. N 01 O O ,.. N ~ ~ >~ ~ 7 fD j D. ~ ~ .Z W ~ ~?~ mm9 o-o ~ N ... Q ~ X3 0 ° 3 °' 3 s-°' ~ c o N ~ ~ o~ m o 3 m va ~ v Si N S f0 ~ fD N f0 7 6 (O O y vm <mm ~-mm< N ~ ~ p . `G v N ~ N y ~ N N d ~ ~ '< C p ~ M ~ C 7+U ~~ N SII ? N~ l O N N S . ~ ^ ~ - (D ~ O O O < d O ~ N "O 3 ~ C N N N 7 N ? (D 7- 7 7 ~ ~ ~ S~ . w (D Q n O 61 ~ 01 O O7 ~ - - N ~ C N Q C ~ O fD ~ ~ O~ 7 O , O 7' 7 O ag ~ . ~~~~~ ~ 3 m o N ' ~ ~' ~° 3 N ~ O 'O ~ N ~ ~ < fD ~ < p C ~ ~. 3~ 3~m ~~cm ~. ~.~ i v y ao ~ ^- N ~ m 7 (p .r M O .~. (n ~ 01 ~, 7 7 !%1 . (D ~. (D ~ » ~ ~ O . N ~ . "O .'i O N O N ~. O v ~' O S . 7 ~ U O. 01 ~ 7 (D O 7 ' O ~ N O ~~ N . O .» a 7 7 _ ^' N 0 N N O l n < C 61 O S (D (O t N 7.IQ 7 (D ^ O ~' (D (O N ~ N O ~ 7 p7 N 7 N ~x o 3 n 3 u ~ +, 3 7 y D. _ ~ N Q .Z7 0 7 'O O ~< 7 (D N O W 91 N~ ~ N ~ O O O N (D 0~~ 7 ~ 7~ CT 1 ~ _ N (D N D ~ .G 7 O- 7 ( (D n. Q ~' ~ a S 7" ~ N N <~ N 6 1 w 'O N S m c m °7 c ' .. ~ ~ >• a~ N p7 W 0 y ~~D~o ~~ m~~°7'~6~~' O ~ ~, ~ ~ y a 7 N- C~ O n . N ~' m ~ a ~ ~ ~ D o m~ v O ~ ' N (D ~ fD (p 7 (D 7 d ~ .I 0 O 7 ~N j~ C, U °: ~o_~~~w ~ 7 0 7 O y .•. p U (p ~• (p ~ N 7 i 3 (D p~ ~ 7 O ~ N ,? O N N W N fD ~ ~ S ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ O N 7 M 0 O- ,~ (D ~ fD fJ Q O ~ of S ~' O ~3 (7m ~ -I N ~ ~ m X (O .N. (D N ~ ' 7 ~_ d ~ ~ f~ ~ N N ~ fD n ~ O 'a . 7 M fD 7 N ~d -~_O (A .n~.N O1 _ _ -O O O"' 7' ~~ _ ~ ~O O O NAG, 91 7 01 N 7~ (D O O N (D N N E ~ N (7 ~ C .~ O 7 p ~, <, . ,~ ~ v c Q C N 7 ~ Q 0 O_ 7 01 (D C O , .~ O O lD N U d C < G N S . Q N Z d S N y U y O~~ ~ d 0 ~ m 3 n ~ 2 > > c.~ ~ m y o Q ~ ~ °'mc° m o ~ - m 7 ~ a- ~ 3 ~v fD ~ ~ N N C O ~' d fD N pl ~ N p < Q N U - N = O 'O N N„ ~ - N ~ O N C 7 'O N O '^ O d -~ O O ~ (n r p_ O N '~' d N S ~ 9 U C N N ~ ~ ry < N O S N Q N 'O d < „ "S N~ (D 7 U (D 7 'O S fD • . O . ~ (D Q (D 7 C N Y7 _ O y G7 O ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ O z O 7 d O . O- 7 ~1 O. O- a ~ v ~ p (D ~ Q N "O ,.. (D 7 7 fD (D ~ N N Q 6 N (D 7 "O ~ N O O C) N 7 fD (D N O. (D . N.. ~ .7.. U O' S v O Q~ A ~. j a .o N < N ? ~• < ~ N O . -. ~p O (O 7 N O ~ < ~ 7 p N O ~ N ` O W 47 -n, O O. . ' (O 61 O ~ '~ N y ~ ~ O~ O N ~ (D O (D d N 7 S~ ~' fN/l ~ fD S N 7 'O d j O O ~. a r~ (D N 7 N 7 N 6 ~ . O 7 O y p~ 7. . -. . O) 'O ~ N G p~~ ? m '' ~ C 7 7 _ O S ... (D 7 ' O N O. a N 3. ~ N~ ~ W fD O~ 7 O O 7 ~, N ~ fD p z O O N O O N CTt fD N 4: N O .d. ~ O ~ ^~ (D 7 N ~. C N S N ~ 0 ~ N F O N 7~ p~ N 00 3~ N Q ~. ~ O y : C1 o n' - -'N~ s m o o ~ m m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ w 3 ~ ° < ~ w 3 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ `~ fD ~~ , ~ 91 N O D - F O ~. O 7 0 _ 0~ N 7 N C N ~~ 0 N~ W~ N G'1 N N (i 7 ~ ' ' Q N < 'O 7' S ~ N O- (D p_ ~ ~ a 7 O_ 7 O ~ N - 7 Cj 0 O a C ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ 7 A 7 `G a ' N ~ N N O N 3 O (D 0 n 0 7 N 'a 0 p rt 7 <_• (D Q O N N O N- N ` ~ ~ }. " N . - N ~~ L) N 7 "O ~ n ~ N ~ d (D N. N d _ 7 7. fD N -' G .Z : =. p~ O n N O N N N y N O O fD (D 7 N "' a ~ 7 ~ 7 0 0 d G N d ' _ 7 K ~ . N O d ~ ' (D p7 G ( D. d Q d 7 7 7 N O~ O 0_ ~ 7 O- O~ ~ 7 ~ 91 j N S C ~ N ('D 7 d „ p' .7. N C Q fn~ 'O_ (O ~ l (D 7 7 ~ . N C O ~_. 7 7 n ~ ~ ~ " ...~. N ~ ? (D (D N S y (D 7 7' ~p (p C O N d 61 " O a O ~ N O O y S p N a y ` S N ` G N 6 p n y N (D N N O ^ ' N (D a ~ N O v 7 t0 " 0 C 7 n O ~ 7 N N .1 •O ~ N N (D n ~. . i N ti _ O 7 O .N.. K O ' N (D 7 N (O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" O _n j N W » ~ N .n~. N Q fD ~ 0 .G > N F ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ O f ~ N `G a~ K ~ N. O ~ O O ~ 7 1 ~'xoN ~,3 m~~ N y3 ~ N m 7 (D N 0 ~ " j N N 1 W Oa~~ ~ ~ C O N 6U ~ p y O N Q y (D O ~ 3 0 3 v ~ n < ~ 0 i n ~ m ~m ~ ~~o v a ~. ~~~m y'<c~O D N ~° (7 7 ~ (/1 +~ y d 3 ~ (D C ~ 7 N y 7 O ~ o'w~y . a . n N as _ 3;, o° N y w m> 7" Cf 7 N '-:. ~ O_ _ 7 O'y C)C)~N"O .y.~ ' N ACA m O 7 (D C O O O?~ p =~ C Q N ~ ~ O j -O _ n~ 7 0 d~ 0 y j N . Al jc' f0 ~ _' y'~ M 0 O. N y f0 .O. C , 7 ` N 0 ~ y ~° y (D y 0 7 ~ 'p1 O ° zja,a5c ~D 2? w s~ ~ m ° ° °_~ O om am ° o °'< ~ ~ as ' y ~ _ O ~ .~ 3010 (~p y N . ~ O' O S~ y 0 y 0~ < N .0~. . . ~ ~ `< O '~ 01 (") (') K 0 "O n S SU y M (~ N ~ y y O7 O~~ S~ S~ D ,.y 07 ~- (D y ~ `G `G N O ~ ~ y N N O. j y O ~° 3 G. O' U ~~ ~ ~ 0 N (D o .0~. N y Y7 ° c ° ~ . ~ ° ° m a F ~ a~,., m o ,..~ N N ~. o v o s - ~- ' •° m- . o N~~ °• N' =.~ <~ av ~ Fm' m A . ~ y 3 ~: N ~ ° .» o (D 0 p y y y. "O D O fD C) 0 N 0 (D d 91 m a C N ~ _ (D .y. v O y ~ ~ O N d . N • , N 7 ~ 7 ~ 0 ~ 0 v °" 7 (D ~ ~< L~ C . 0 O a~ D . ~. y ~° r' 0 7 N < U N a 0 O 'a 0 p S ~' 0 O.. . -. - (A .y.. 7 f fD ,,.~ O C ~ 7 `< ~ Q d y d ~ _ f11 > ~ ~ ~ (D O fU y ~ ~.:. f p U S ~ fD N(O ~.O N ~ SQ f1l C O ?~ fD .. N a (D O < ~. 07 QO-N ~ y.~ y S ? 7 O N ~ ~ 0 `.. ~~ ~ O O n a ~ O b S 0 6' ~ 0 ~ .. O 0 0 O .. 0 O O~ ~ (D ~ y~~ fD y ~ . ~ . O 0 y O W N 7 - o ' o ' ~ m y v_ ~-a c Q _. c m • y 3 3 m ~ o- ~~ »~ ~ n~ ~ Q y 3.9 ~ ~ o N~ ~ m m ~ _. (D y D_ ~ O_ U O N y 3 61 _' 7 O d 0 Q 7 W ~ y 0~ '. Q 0 U y~ N 3 O (Q . O 6 n O y ~' a O d 7 ~~ 0~ N a fO C N~ O U v ~~ >> ~ O N ~~ y ~~ y W N 0 = ° c~D oo V3 ~ vsn°o~N m> >>~>>~o ~~m _: . _ (/i O -O y O. ~ ' y N~ (D 'O 0 7 N Q O N (D ~ (D O '~ ~ y (D C d am . 7 ~ N ~ C ~ 7 ~ fD 7 `Z ~<co ~~ d S fD ~ 7 m m oo 0 ° am m . g o o o v ~ ~~ ~a ° fD m w~~DCOi s~ ~ so ~D~+~ ~~ 0 n ' O 0^ 0 0 y j ~ ~' (D ~ ~ fD fD Q (D ~ - O N C ^ ~ ~ 0 O ~ ~ (p .C (D ~. ~p (O S . (D C y a ° 3 ~ ~ an" ~ xo N n•3 m~ ~ o y3 N ~ N aTw _ ] y n ~ Q O A W DA ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o n ~. ' ' m , _ ~ _c ° w av.~ m e ~ c ~ sm O ~ O U N ~ d A n y y j n p ~ N W (D O N 1~ fD O ~ O 7 ~ _ N Q.... .7-'r N (D 7 .7~. r 0 ~ O ~ ~ D.. . i c n ~ s < c n o ~ ~ ~ '~ 7 '. , C1 W O ~ y _ _ ,~ 7 0 f F ~ . N - ~ N ~ S <D ~ `G O (D -O O~ 7 Q "O Q ~..C~. U~ N N N' d D N ~ "O .i j~ O~ ~ m k N 6 J~ O fD _-Y. ~ fD N N S ~. ~ ti ~' ~ 0 • 0 .n., ~~ o n Q ~ 0~ N fD f'D O (D C n O C~ ~ N C7 d N ~ p ~' 0 N ~ N~ O N '~ ~ U .y.. <0 _ (D 0 n .~ 7 0 ' O 7~ •O ~ ~' 7 O 3 O N N (D ~i ~ 7 N , < _ ` O N- O (D ~j 7' ~ N~~ p a O. (1 0 1 ~ . . N 7 (D N N ' ~ ~~~ S O p~ (D ~ l ~ 7 7 O j ~j j d 0 Z N n 0 O 0.. 7 O N O ,0.. 0- C n 0- O~ n O ~ ~ ~ , F ~ ~ ~ N ~ 7 ~ ^~ 7 N~ Q 0 .e ~ y~ 0 0 0 ry~~ ai 7 co ~ N~ y- y fD 0 ~ N ~ .~ C 7 ~ p N ~ . - 0 N fD f7 ~ (D N ~ N _ . 61 (~ ~ N p_ ~ n O y - N ry O < ~ ~ ~ N fD O C 7 (D O (D O O. n 7 N O~G' N Cn ~ ~ '~ C 3 (A.. O . 1 ( ~ ~; 61 0 N 0 n ~ n N ~ . r n U7 n 7 fD ' ~ 'T fN • d 0 N ~ ' d ~ (D ~ fD X 7 ti. ~' N N (D ~. Q N ~i ~ ~ . ~. 0 3 < y y o ~ C ~~0 i` ' G ~`mo p 61 °-'7N 91 Q 7 S m 7p 0 -~v C) ~ ~o A ~ _ . » v_ - a S - o a `< `< ~ Q y .y~. ~ 3 N D `Z O ~ C 7 ~ .61. C1 61 .y, 3 O. f0 61 O C < • ~ O 7 <D o b . sN f ~ 7 0 ~.~ o nDm Qm m a > ~ ~0 ~ 0 3 m m y o 0f m 0 7c0o7 0-oa <°. < o7m~0omy d ; , g °~ ~ N 0 °~ N y ~m ° oco ~ ~ o ~ a 7 s7~ ~,~ s"' ~ ~ N 3 `G N N O N 7 _ _ N C K C j (D 0 f~ ~ O ~ ~' - ~ n ~ ~ n O 7 >' typ ~ ~ 3 N N~ N n S O 0 y.. 61 .y.. ~ 7 7' gy ~ ~ N n 7' U 0 0 0 0 Q S C ~ O 7 N y ~ O ~ 7 M ~ ( p O ~ f1 O ~ O O . in N n O O N O ~ O o' 0 . N~ Q ~ N~~ ~ Q N f O 7~ ~ O N 3 L ~ (~ 7 fD ?.-O O O -O ~ (D p'~ ~ ,, fD O_ n ~ y N ~- O 7 ~ ~ N ~ (fl N . N ~ .y ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ O 3 N O N N n n 1D ~ fD ~ -i 0 •< (~ -w (D l 7 ~ .- ~ - N _ O ~ p 0 ~ ~ o- ^ n 0 7 0 n O 0 0 ' 7' p) "' C N O7 (D ~ ~' N O a 91 N n n~ ~ y ~ rn d 7 N~ C< N •< a ~ n /~ m n o ~v 0- 0 ~ m 1 wco n v 0 0 cn~ -o ~c Mn0 ~ m 0co y O 0 (D `~ M ~ N fD ~ y 0 0 a N ~ ay ~ ~ ~ 0 f o O 5 0 •0 m . m 0 ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ 7 7 . O N 01 '< O N N ' 7 0 . n . , .' N . ~. C N C fD = . . 0 0 Q ~. .. ~ 7~ . n fD fD O n y j ~~ p p N~ O O ~ O 91 ~ 7 7 N 7 ~ (p Q 7 ~~ ~ ~~ N< ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7s o N 7 °"0-3~7m ' 0m ~0 m n m ` m 7 n ~F ~ 7 ~ amp nm <00`<7- -O N ~-.. O • O 7 y N ~ y < ~ a C O N 7 y O 01 a s3 m v ~.3 m v an m~ ~ o m~ ~ o N•3 7; N 3 N 0 7 7 .,~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ A m m ,~'»-i (n Tl tu nn o ~ ~ ~ . N O 0 0 fl (D '< ^~ N C N j N ... ~, ~ ( N N , (D ~• j N~ d O ~ n N o 1 J ~~~ m ° ~ a~N-~m ~ d ~ M 3 ~ p 7 7 •"' ~ fD ~ ~ 0 " o ~ G) m • •. p_ ~ n p j w - N ~ D ~ ~ ~ O ~ 7 m 7 7 n -O 0 N ~ 3 A Rl ~ O .~, ~ p .D Cn y 0 i y v N~ `< 7 o' , ohm ~ ~ mym~DO m C l N ~ ' N ~ . ~ ~ 7 ( p 41 (D 7 fl ~ 7 .. . . M ' .. ~. M ' . . : S (D ~ 7 fD (D -o v ~ w rna o D ~p a ga~w F o- ~ r11 N O S f0 a 61 ~ N ~ j ~ fD .0,. fD y.• O- W ~ k N ~ ... N ~ ~ y C Ql Q O ~ ~ O 111 M ~ ? ~ . i ''< U 7 y 7 0 d 7~ O N C .+ N ~l ~< a » N S 7 O O O. 7 ~ 7 O N fD fD ~ ,0.. ~? ~ . ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~' ~ m v ~ m ~ ~ ~ v ~ O N N 7 p d (D 7 F ~ "' ~ .. ~ f,Y „ ~ -~ X rn ~ . ~ N fD 7 n = ~ ~ N y ~ v y 7 3 m a ~ o ~+ ^°. m 0 7 ~ o a~ ~ ~ 0 N 7 y y 7 ~ N to S .. O O (/1 fD (D o- v rn a~ n~ ~ v 7 "O D~ ~ 7 m F~ Z y ~ N O Q O 7 G1 N~ y fD. ~ Q N O ~* 2 2~~ v 3c ~c ~ ~ n1 ~ . ~_m t~ y ~ o ~ ,~m ~~'< ~ m m v o o f ~~ 7 A . 7 C S <°. y 6 0 3 ~ ~ m - ac o ~.< >• O so fD c ID ~~ ~ N O~ O d N O' p < ~ O~ d ~ O C p1 (D O C 7 N ~ y . O N ~o n am < u; o f ~~ ~ 3 o r° ~ 3 ~ 0 , ~.. ~. S "~ "O 3 fl j 7 0 -~ O N O ~ O O fD to fD y C ~ O . _ 1_ 01 C N ~ ~ 0 0 ~ O. C ~ 7 O (~~ n ~_ N iD p~ N 7 < N 7 (D ~ U~ ~ (D < O d < O- (O IQ 7c d f/1 O 7 (D Q. N y O 7 fD S N? p 7 ~ N n N 7 .-r D 0 =' ~ ~ 11'1 ~ p N !O N . O N O 7 7 111 ~ ~' fp/1 C C N (O 7 N (D ~' N p1 < a ~ ~ ~ S m .7. C 01 O (D to O C1 C (p Q O ~ (D T A O Q 7 ~ m 0 7 C~ ~~ p N ~ j O. O ~ d ,,~ ~ m 7 v . -. f° ~ `~ .. m fD ~ o; m N N ~ O no's ' ~ ~ N m ~ c m m m _. 7 fD ~ N N to ' ~ (D .< .0.. N s~~~ ~3m v ~.n vmplp ~o N ~n1~ xo s?o N !DO n 3 moo ~ o ~~ 3 o y3.; y a N n 0 0 O 7 i pp ~ V O (A O ;C1 N O N E cn ~Z1 O ° ~ >v O N < Q m <~ 2 7 m ~' <~ - o aa~ c w C N fD . N ~~ ~ ~' N O /D 'N" -.: j O y N 'a O O "O I O "O N. M O = ~ ~ N (p 7 N 0 f0 T . N N ~ N o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O ~ w ~ ~ ~D. a m - 7 C ~ ,7., N d N ~ .7. N C 61 01 61 ~ O N 0 d O Q j Q W ~ 3 0 O Q N N d 7 7 1D ~ ~ , v m~ -O ~ N~ ~ ~ C = ~ = n s O 7 3 O 7 ' G K (~ Q m ~ 7 N N "O p N ~ O N N V N =' 7 3 N C U (D 'O" , ~ .a . Q N W N N !D N W "~ 7 N O (D U . (D d N ` i (D ~ ~ "O Q N N ~ y ~' N O N fD ( p /1 aC 7Z" ~. G N .~.. a ~ ~ V l0 ~ 7 =" O fD ~ O _ 7 U ~ ~ O ~ N N ~ N (D S S N (D O V Q e i C N ~ n C SO ?i ~ Q N ~ ~ 7 w N -O "Z 0 - . , 61 Q N N ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~~." ~ O C~ S 7 N N n 0 (D Q Z d C~ ~ (D I N `G ~ 7 7 ~ N 'O N SU d D N ~ a O rp~- . L 7 ~ ~ n ~ ~ N O `C LO] S (O'1 O.N.. ~ ~ N . n ? y . a fD S N . 01 (D > > fD U d (D (D 7 ~. j' 7 r' `~ (D N V l O (D (n O 1 6 j..-. Q ~ O C R S N N S Q(p N N N N ~ O~ N N N a d (D (D ~. Cl 7~ O N C d d N~ O . ~. N fD 7~~~ °; ~i a ~~ on3 N NaI~ ~ N ~m~'~~ `rQ ~ 7 N ~ N N~ U ~ O U ~ N~ / d N O O O Q N O O `G F D n d U N . N 'O . . N ~- ~ C tv fD - ~ O O N ~ C O N ~ O B O N N n S ~' ~~ ~ _ ~ N O~ ~. fD N ~ 7 n O O- N f~ N ~~~ O~~ C 7 ~ F (D S O ~ O O ~ ~ (D n `~ ~ N 7 7 N fD fD 3 -.~ O N N i 0 (D U Q 7~ (D . -. N S fU ] C N Q am o m a ~ Q ~?~ o 7 m °-m ~ o ~. °oa p 7 s ~ ~ r ~ N N f0 Oy. S O " ~ y O n C 'G n O fD G p O ~ ~ O C n O O O _ - O- 7 N~ N n 0 ,~ N W (O S < .N. O <p O 7 0 ~ O 1v O y 0'1 Q O~ C C~ V ~~ d _ 61 fD N N 7 ~ N A M 401 ~G ~ 7• d p0-j N y N ~ O ~ j (~ !D Q 07 7 O y ~. U fD < ~ O (D C7, N (D O' - T S n !p N N fD N N S 7 ~ O S N n Sk ID p m m ~o o c m m ~ .3 ~3a ~ ~ -,• ~ ~ 3a y ~ m 3 o Q 6 3 ~~ f° ~ m~ 3 ° O fD W O a j U ~ d m K S j N i~' ' a 7 Q 7 N O O 6 S S N Q 7 u+y , `c '.t f e1~„•;: ~ 7 0 p O v a O .G O t;o; S O ~ » 0... N J cn~ ~v -o ~ p~ ~ S N W ' S C (D (D N O O N fD 7 " N O Q (O O - z L 7 Q (D ~ fD ~ 6 ~ o~ ~~ N~ v n ~ o cn ~ a ~ m ~ ~ - o 3°- ~ ~°°-''m° 4 m ~ C1 (D .7-. 7 0 3 M N =' (U (» N (~ ~ ~ 7, j' ~ M O 7 ~O ~ ~ ~ s ~a~=~ m N7 o~° <<`'s m m am x a ~ ° -° v ~ N p - . m -° ~~ < < v ~ v m :; ~'~ 7 7 m o , ~~-'~m ~ m -°~~~ Z 7 m,~m~ O d ~ ~ N p c y ~` ~. N 0 N 1 .N. 30 N ~ 7 Q _ 7 N O O ~~ -xo o ~ a~ m =~ m~ ~i n ~ N (D S f/1 a ~ ~ (p 7 ~i 41v c ~ < O ' 3 ms~ ~N ~D~~m A ~ c m . °- ° o ~-v m o ~ 7 ~ a v ,c 01 N O ~ o o ~° ~• o o m~ 0, y. fD 7 C 7 , ~ ~ N fD ~ O- N fD -O 7 41 ~. Q,.: r d fp 0 S N C N~ 7' fD ~ y f' f0 O K ~ 6 vii ~ ~ O °: 3 ~ 7 fD m A v o a 3 n ~a -o'm' .~ omo ~a i n i NVO 3 ~. ~ < y 7 N~ O N ~ 7 91 p O 7 m< , v o ~ °~ 7 N f o n y m m N B O ~ _ S N ~ ~ ~ (D C. N ~ N . ~ 7 N ~ N n Q M O~ ~} N . O . ~ N =' - (O N LT ~ ~`N N 7 N~ 7~ O N~ ~ Q N N 7 O1 N ~?. ~ ~, O N d N n < X 7 0 ~. 7 0 N ry<- fD .O. 7. pOj fQ 7 ~ ~ N 7 N Q N N~ ~ ~ N O. ~ 7 N N ~ ~ ~ ~ a 30 M ~ ~ ~ 7 o~ 'm m ~ s °- N °3m~ o.n ~ ~ o N n C m~ 3 o y~ ~ N 7....N N O_ 7 O O 7 N ~ C 01 W ~. (O - n N O N ~ ~ Q O 6 'D -' '9 ~ W O ~ .O+~p O N E c ~ QO i 6 -o my 7 W n N O N W 0 fll m c (D - ~, SO O'S m ~N SAN N p x~x~ ~ O'p-O ~ W a O -°o ~ mo~N m w 3 N v 3m 7D m,Qa~L? ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ 3 p 7 co : 0 X N ~ N o s ~ y ~ O' C (D ~ ~ j ( N p c x v~ ? ~ 3 N -° 3 s ° ~ m o ~ ~ m ~ o - ~ 3 D . y x ~ W 0 ,~ O C N . ~ j N 0 3 _ 7C O n C ~~ .... 3 N D = c a ~e~ M '~~ a' ~ ~o ani om r-ow m~ ~o? ~ -1 - _c m ~ ~ ~ Qm ~ 0 0 3 N ~ ~ ~ ~ on o ~ f 3 F~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ °- ~ m Oo N ~ m a 7 0 ~ m o o. ~ y ,.' N w m y n s N N O ~ N mm~-°m~' o 3 ~ ~m' os ~ ~ 3 0~~ -°~ ~~~ov? K ~ i c m c i o ` ° a ~ ~ o ~.s~ 5 3c 3 o n ~ o ~ ~ m ~~ om m m ' ~ • ~~na of 0 ~ Q N o-~v ~ ~ ~, ~ o <. ~ ~ ~ p in c~ x ~~p ~ v o C. ? f0 n 7 " n1 N O ' ' fQ ^' 7 S N p ~ O IQ ~ ~.. ~/) , O p 3 S O ~ O _ U f fD N _ O _' _ _ W . O ~ O N O C O O O N (p O O O y ~2 3 N (i `< N O S H N 1 ~] N Q S N 0- _ O C O .pe N x ~ O N 3 N ~ (O ~ O O N N N O" ~ ~ N ~ (7 O TI fD , p O ~ j N . S d j . C1 = S Q O ~ nCj O Z ~ . n1 j N f0 0 , N < Q Q n 7 ~ C d Cl N ~ ~ n1 N . O 7 O n ~ a S N O = ~ ~ N fD 0 N N N N S 0 ~ (D O) C S N O a ~ N O 7 O ~ -O t0 M _ O 7 C~ t 0 d 7 O_ d p N 3 d S (D ~ ~ N . S N n n1 ~ N > 7 O _ N O ~. > .. p0 ~ N 7 ~ j > N O N ~ N~ 3 Q. N N Q ~ n1 ~ N p ~ = O ~ e"' O• N O ~ ~ (D ~ 6 1 O N 2 N ~ C 7 7 N N (D T. m m , ~mo m~ ~mo~~»r ~ N N v°~ y»'m ~' <~moo~ A O' ' ~ 7 O ~ ~ fB O. O ~p (D . o ~ ~~ a a° N a m v, v y ~~ m O W m 'o ~+ ~noi ~63 ~~ -°oNNON3 n r m m m m m~ m o f<~~ O a1 ~ ~ m ~ ~m m 3a K 9 =~ ~ Q° m ^ '. ° ~ mco Qo ,.. .3, ~ S Q O . - N 7 ~~ ~ S' N N C d ~ ~' ' r- m fD m N sa'~ m , ., m v+'Oa~ ~ ' O not m 9'~ ~ ~~ m ~~ o ~ - ~: 'ti ('p N_ < O O N O W N O O O~ T N F y. U O N C ' 7 Q C O O N N a L1 O ~ N ~ m °~ m~ ~~~ o o y 0 ~ o -. 7 ~ ~ N (D ~ ~a ~ (O N N N ~ a N p0 ~ .., m M 7 m -~ ~ O d N SU cco a~ o N 7 3 o n Q a ~ N n1 6~ ~ N~ ~ a ~. a m N;o N~ 3 s m ~ o~ r o ~ ~ a° ~ ~ O ~ ~ m m . . . ~- W t, , n3~~ dn':,.. xo N ~ n,3 mm o m y$ ~ ~~~. _ ~ N O. O O 7 W N ^Z7 ° O 7 2~~ C O.Z7 O Q.o ~ Cli N O ;0 N o m ~ ~ C i ~. (D (D ` , ., N ' P ~p =~ w (D (D C y w !p fp ~p 6 ~ ? O 3 ~ O m c ~ o s ' ~~ c 7 g m e ~°~ w N ° K N ~ n O N _ O A "O ~ U N N S O " O N - W N W 0~ y Z ~~ ~ 0~ N`< ~ ~ ~ o Q » ~ ID . . y o So . . ? ~ (77 c7 ? ~ m m s' prj C to o 5 prj N O y N N 0 6 n~ D n7 O' N my (77 -O Q"O 7. (7 7 ~ (p N~ ~ O Q ~ ~ O O Q S (D N .~ O Q S ~• ' C O fD 7 C v N ~ C N O n O ~ 7 n .-. p' ~ y 7 f7 ~ ~ (D ti 01 7 O ~ ~ 7. S 0 O' = 7 ~ Oo r = y ~ . 7~ O 0 m ~ 3 7 ~ y 7 N y' ~ `G (D Q O 7 e~ '-' y O O ... tll d 7~ 01 ~ p ~ N 7 O" N 7 a a ~ y y 7 m y --~ T~ 7 f~ RI N ' N _ ' N ~ ~ N D N k y O N (D ~ fD 7 (O ~; ao ~ O N N d d Q ( 7 n y N ~ (A (D '. ~ (") (/i N ~. X ~ ~ ~ Q (D p n N (D ~+ -yw j' y (D N y =~ O 41 ~ S __ ' fD N ~ O N d ~ O , _ ~ fD y O~ (D (D ,7., O j Q y 7 S ~, y - 7 N S, O~ 7 .O T k y d ~G fD O N ~ p ~ 7 - C ' O O N N n y O d . fD ) O C fD ~ O O O' i C 7 S O y 01 N O O N ? 7 y - O ~ N 7 Q -O O N Vl Q Z p n y (~ Q O ~ . ' `< N 7 •' C fD d ~ ' p ~ S a O. O U N O fD -O O ~ 3 . e. (D fD ~ j O O_ ` S - O S M ~ ~ y U ~ e N Q y ~< y N fD O = ~ 7 N O O fl C 7 ~ ~ ~ fN fD .. 3 . O v O (D ~ tp 7 ( 'D 7 ~ ~ 01 ~ G . tp ,6 d N ti. 7 ~ `G ~ ? (p N ~ ?. S .< (/1 fn N O O ~p O _ O ~~ F Q O ~ G7 S U m p> N j Q (n y Q S N Cn Ul X S y "O ~. 7. N N-~ ° 7 Q (D O N ,y„ ~ 7 O (D W y O .+ ('D (D O N Q n ty. d ~ U N~ O f0 7 7 7 p" 1 ~. fD C N ~ 61 N ~ U ~. ~ O ~. N y' 7 y n N (/1 y ^'. (O 7 -O N~ ~ d N S D y N O y N O N A ~ -O 7' ~ y 7 ~ (D (D O S O ~ S n N =~ ~ ( N ~ ~ f~ fD (D ~ ~ v C m m n 7-O a<' '3 7 y ° m '" ° 7. _ 7 p a 3~ (D m <o X 7 (D ~ (D S7 O O N c y y y ~ ao O-f0 y `C ~ ~ 3 fD fD O y fA y -• N O' C C (D O' O N p -n (1 7 j' ~ C. •G j < y 0~ 7 0 y y X Q r: S N j O 0 y . ~. (D O O N N S p N S O y p Q f0 (p y Q 7 7 (p (D d fD y N 'y'am N O n Q ~ 61 7 N ^~ O m 3 o v° ~' ~ <oco mo ons ~ ,' -~ ~ ~ ° y o m o °1 ~ -~ ~ ~ m m ~ 3 ~D m ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ -" o m . y ~ m m m °~ o d ~ m s ~ a n ~ 3 ~ o o 7 ' ~' ~ y p O "O ~ S O N O 7 , .,, 3 D O F . i` p ~ O (D - ' j 11 O 3 . ( - S ~ ~ ~ » - C '" -w O (D 6 61 O t ~, ' ' (D ~~ mv mo .~ o n ° f7 ~w N ~. o~ N ~ ~~ N 3 e i y y C ~ O (D •' S S f/1 ~ ~ .+ O ~ N (~ ~ y O f/1 ,~ (D U y y ~ Q (p v 61 O N "O SU ' •-^ y •G ~ 7 O C S O S y 0 0 N O O~ < fD O Q N O n ` O 01 S S fD Q p~ v fD ' 0 f ~ e ~ ~p O ~. 91 y 01 7 7 F ~~ " /D b y (D O 2 O O ~ Q , $ (D n N y' S N Q O ~ ~ ~ < 7 Q ~ y ~< Q y y N D N > N ~< (D .O N j N N y ( U (O ~(O =~ ~ 7~ d O N ~ ~O O d ~ 3O < (D `~ - ~ 1 D y ~ O (D ~ O ? N 7 ~ C S (D (D ~~ fD ~' fD O y ry 9 ( ~'` 7 N f0 S d C O N Q y (D U - ~ N ~ < Q ~ SO U r:~p ~ Q~ N df0 S~ ~ ~ 41 S ~ fD ~ `G < N ~ ~ O fD ~ fD O (D ~ ^~ 4 -v O7 _.m ~- ~ v 7- n m v . m ~c N N 7 O N fD N 7 .. (D ~ ° S d O~ < (D 91 p pl ~. o m~ . Q~ 3 C ) ~~^ `°fD y m wN ~o t fD ~3 (D N fD O m ~ S ~ (fl fD S N N y y ~ 7 y .fl.1 ~ N "O fD 7 y. fD o ~ v ~ ~ v -, ~ m ~ ~~ a ~oN xoN c x oN ~ ~ . N ?. ~~ n•3 mco 3 o m~ 3 o m ° o ~ mco ~ w•3 c ~ ~ fD N S N N ~ O Q D S (D 3 N 7 y Q 7 7 y Q 7 7 .~. ~ O ~ O C y 7 Q y_ O O y ~ Q (D Oli N N i (T N A i (J1 ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ Q1 ~ .Z] ~ tS < fU ~ ~< O 7 Cn fD (D '0 ~ <71 <n fe <~ ~a ~ °-w I,D Z 0o m O m o ~°vfD~ O <D y ~ S ~ ~ a y c 7 f fA p .~' Od d ~ I y. ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ :? fD 7 d fl. S ~ C aC ~ ~ ~ ~ ry ~ N D ~ 6 ~ N (77 ~ N N d ~' O Q ~ O d (D O- fD 1 ' fD S ~ O ... 7 ~ C~ 7 N 7 y ~ Q. 0 ~' et ~ y p O m C m 3 0 0 0 3 ~~ c ~? 3 C7 ~ 7 y. ~ ~ o co rtl ~ k ~ ' . O - N ~ _~ ~ ~' O y y (D U n S N t7 ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ O ~ o w w y ~ tD „ a ,» an d m ~ N ~ ~ ~ o w s? fD =~ N ^ ~ `G (D 7 p o N d ~ y ° y O ~ Q p j ~ ~.D m e m o N -oo~ n Z O O O- O O. 7 y~ M C O y' Q Q Q' < /D y (D ~ N ~ = K "O fD fll ~ 7 70• ~ O ~fD(D y 7 ~ ~ a ~ ~ Cn ~ ~ ~ 2 SU (~ N ~ ~ ~// n O O O ~ 6 p1 N N tl1 fU N ~ p a N (D ~ (D (D 7 ~ ~+ ~ ~v s 3 m v 7'O o °1 ~ ~ A _ o.<y N ~ < m tD ~ y 0 y ~ 3 ~~ fU m~~y °-n~ma 01 C d "~ ~ f/1 y N t R 'y, -~ 3 7 7 7 0 S O fD ~ 7~ y ~5 ~ n . + C D. 0~ '- 7 N . .. N ~ ~O O O .~ ~ y M ..~.. .~. N D N N ?O ~ ( ~ QN~fD dy,d . sN ° o ~ ° ~ ~ ° ~~'°' _ ~~ 7 3 m~ m 3~ m mmm~v~yui~ ~ ~ m t0 3 ~ o ~ o m 3 001 °:~ °~ n'=i sa ~ F r c m x. v; _o -.. ao-- i ~~ 7 7 ~ O N 7 0 N 7- p '~ ~ ~ SU ~ d 0 ~ a y ~ ?. ~ j fU ~ O C fD 3 61 N 7 y Q 7 0 ~ 7 , f1 7 -O 7 .y. C) O U fD N :: d y e O, N N 0 S 7 ~ ~ fU N d y y y ~ - y O (D ~ Y 1~5 a~1r:' . N ~ ~ s ~~ ~• x m m n ~ ae y 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ m t ~ 3 a . ~ ~ ~ ~m7 ~ 3 a ° v tn'c':3 m ~ p ~ »1 y ~ ~ no p'~mt° ~ ° i ~N 3 . c m " y d 7 7 _ 7 C d 7 p~ Q .. 3 a p ~ w 7 Q N y y -~ N Q1 Via., ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 1 si .. w ~~ j cn '~0~ V <a aw ~I f/1 D '° N N ' 7 ~ o ° ~ . ~ ~ a a 0 ~y D n 7 61 ~ O d N N fD UJ 7 (D ~ n O (p ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 3 ~ ° ~ ~,~ ~ y .e- ~ M _..e.....' ~ m 5'~ ~ s~,7m n~ o ~ -° c so o m ° k' W 7 go w m~° o.~ m o° 7 c~c ° , t N ~ ' C N 7 ~° m m 7' O a o (D . ~ ~ :s a C a ~ ~ 0 .. 7 o. o `G d~ 7 3 m ,< =.,2 d a m 7 ~ t o < N N~ N d~ :: m N w 0 7 f m Q •N ^. N ,... ~p p 7 C 3 3 0 p M O N `G ~ N 3 6 7. C (D gy ~< 7. (D fD n N N 3 Q D_ 7. N ~ ° .~ ~, ~ O O .N.. ( p ~ M O N ~ N N (D ' ~ ~ o'a C - . O ~ _ fD co 'N n ~ .; N 7 7 7 ~i ~ 7 7 N ~ 6 N (D O 7 C N ~ O d ~ N (D ~ ° ~ ~< ~ N ~ ~ N 91 ° 7 O 7 (D d .z 7 a = 7 ~ .z . ~. X N (O N N C N O O' ~ (A Q O N N N f~ l 01 ' ~i ~ N o~m,<~~ A N N N ~ ~, ~ U ~ ~ N ~ m m~ a m O ~~mv; ~ ~ ° ~° n ~~v~ ~ '3 Qm o O .. ~ . _._ ' m 7 O O C (O 7 y <D p{.:j. ~ "6 N N rN ~~~~ O N N 7 N a .~~ a .0~. N 7 (D . :, ~ N O ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ' -~ N N fU O 7 N 7 < "" C a~n ~ ~ ~ m Q ~ 7 ~: 7 m ~ v v 7 7 ?~v Can'.., ~ ° N C7 n ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~-~ O N 3 ~..I rr' : n7 p N.~r ~ ~ 3 s Vl N 00 ~ (j~ N r ~ CA ~ '~ W pn0~ O ~ , ~ p~ y -w 7-~~D m m 60~ ~ 2~ ~ m ~ N mc m~ m' O ' O m~mc y ' O ~ ~ o o_~ m n a y f7 ° -o y m fp -o y ~.c v ~ O C ; ~ N O . y a~ M (D (D N ~s»~ m . ~ ,-„~ n (~ _; C ~ ~ y O. •'~m oo'=a my m o v o 3'. ~ n d m.°~ o a 3 ~ a m W ~ d o o c 7 ~' ~ t~ Q' e 7 7 7 rt y 7 n m m~~ v 7 a ~ ~_ U, _. ~• 3 p ~_ nm n7 ~s ~ A 3 w ~ , t A 3 N O ~ ~D m ~ n~ " ~ W C X ~D y ~ ~ o m ~ °'-o sm ~ gccn m' N i m m n~ o ~ a~ov ~"m'°~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~°~~~a~s n~ j y D ~' N y ~ ~ ( n C O O ~. O d~~ 61 O O ~,~ 7 fD ~G y n 0 7 0 ~ 0 O I O_ n S C S ~ Z O~~ C O O~ N •y y 3 c"f° m i p 0 0 7 nco n ~ ~ ~ 0 y ~ ID N 7 O ~ . o f ~ ~~ O _n N ~ _ ~ m o a ~ m' °'7 ° -~ nv y, - ~` y ~oy~s C (D fD 7 ~ ~ O O S ~ »~~ ty.~ .. ~ W 4 S 01 N d 7 O- ~O_ O ~ .~ < ~ ~ ~'. N y S ~ n ~ cmy0 . ~ , ~ ~ ~ O < ~ ~`< oco A A y~ m N a ~ , O~ -O O 7~ fD O N -~ t0 ~ y (D C ~ ~v_~.° m co Oco ~x~~ m ~ c m Y.w ' O 7 ° y 0 ~(O d (D 0 0 C' S ~ O ~:,, m ~ ~ ~ ' ' m a n~ ~~<.' ~0 ~ ~o ~ nu, 9 0 3 7 ~~ `s C1 ~-' m y °' ~o v~ o n - mm s nj o so,m-+f•v ~ x-07 m ~ - ' G 3 7 ~ 3 ~~ y~ 7 N . voo~' v m w m-° 7 m N ~~ c ~ 3 n1° ~ ~~ m 7c 7 O !1 W . c = ~ ~ N fD ~ ~ ~ N N .y.. ~ O O ~ O O S 7 7~ '• O '1 j t A y m C O N^ ' -' .O. ~ y N 7 ~ O j 0 ~ (7/i n~ N fD c 91 O N I 7 7 ~~ y ~ <,y Q ~~_ _ y y~ -~ 7 ~ G~ :I P ~ 7 .~ n o n Q O y 0 7 f7 ~ M ; ~ ~G N~~ y ~ S 7 7 m v+ m~ 'O ~ O N 7 D ~ m `G y y ~ p j j .~ ~ y ~ m ~ O. -, ~ 3 a a 7 G1 "O N~ n -+ v - v a s cl n i cmi ~ o o e m nv o~ m d ° sp ID w O ' ~ ,~ 3 m p, ~~ ra~~,a, n 7 w o . y m N n y ' a ,f ~O o ~O ~ ~ ~ ~~f Glli~t'"ILp~,!.. N ~ ~ ~ W cn - ~ m ~ ca , O A m ~ _ o y A O O . o ~ (~ ~ ~ m '`" g' m as m '" ~ (7 ~_ a fl; C y n . ~ ^: y N W r- N `~ M 7 C C O Q N~ O7 N CI~ F N N S N N 7 N N ~ C> N G ~ ' ~ n = . . 7 ? ` N O . 7 fD O 7 N fD tn U N N C~ ,~ fD ~° ° n W N O Q N N N ~° N ^~ F ~ -i O (D ~ ~ eT ~O O S N O fD fD ~ -O O n z ° O . 0 0 0 0 ' ~ ~ 6 1 O O 7 . d N 2< -' ~ N Q N . 0 .. ' ~ N~ .0.. ~' ~ ' ° ~ ~o j.~N ~ ~~v v ~°~ ~~ ~= ~ o~~ ~' 3 ~ 1 N ~ s ~ ~ ~°" ~ ~ ~ ww _ ° ~~ :O ~ ~ 7 a~ N C 0 ~ (D O O O N ~ O ~ < 6 N N 6 (O 7c N N O C 7~ " ' Q A O .N. o N 7 p ( >>~ (D ~. ~ _~ m N °"m ~~ sam ~~ ~ p c' o m d ~ ss (D m~ m~ ~ ' ° . ~ . C C (D O N (7 (D N 91 ~ S Q ? 0 0 O Q ~ p j . D ~ 01 (") ~ N ~ N d ~ ( X fD < O C ~ (D fD ~; N y n C ~ N ~ .~. N p ~ v 01 ~ fD N ~ fD < N . '~ (p X ~ ~p 7 O_ ,~ O O. O _ ~p ~' fD O ~ °' ° ~ N °' S . ~ ~ S 7 O O N (D Q 7 `< _ fD N N O C O C (D Q 0 7 fD N O ~, ~p ~~ ~ C (D n.~~'°O .O. . ~~ Qr n.~ 7 ~ j ~ o Q v n~ ~ o m n M _ 1 ~ ~p 0 7 Q _ O ~ C y ~ 1 D_ N ~ O .~ N d 7 ~ < 3 O ~ ~ S (D (D (D . N ~ o N ' n ~ ~ :n+'3 ~ ~ ~ a . w c ~~~ cw3 ~ N ° " o ? O 3 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 E, Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 April 3, 2008 Re: Draft Subdivision Ordinance Dear Honorable members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission My name is Stephanie Weisenbach and I am writing you on behalf of 1000 Friends of Iowa. We are a statewide non-profit organization with members in Iowa City and across the state. Our mission is to promote responsible development that conserves and protects our agricultural and natural resources; revitalizes our neighborhoods, towns, and cities; and improves the quality of life for future generations. I am writing in regards to the draft subdivision ordinance under consideration for passage. 1000 Friends' position is that these changes in the subdivision code reflect a significant step forward to improve community design. Our organization has a commitment to advocating for the protection of farmland on the urban fringe and to avoid that location for development. However, we recognize that some growth will continue to occur on farmland. When new development occurs, we want it to reflect an efficient use of land, infrastructure, and resources. We also support reaching other goals such as improving storm water management and expanding transportation choices. We tmst that local citizens and city leaders are more informed about the unique land use issues and goals in Iowa City, and our comments are best aimed at comparing the draft changes with model smart growth practices. In Iowa and across the United States, local codes can often be outdated and out of step with current community needs, promising market trends, and the best interests of future generations. Some code revisions have to be aimed at legalizing the kind of development we want so that developers can build it, such as changing parking requirements so it's not illegal to build smaller parking lots, do shared parking or on street parking for certain projects. The purposes of other revisions has to ensure that certain measurable land use practices will take place in order to achieve local goals for the betterment of the community. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for every community. However, we can recognize when changes in policy will lead to cumulative environmental, social, and economic benefits for years to come. A few of the important changes to the subdivision code: • Block length standards: Setting neighborhood block length standazds of 300-600 feet, as described in the draft ordinance, is like ensuring that the "building blocks" are in place to make all of the other street connectivity provisions as effective as possible. Being able to get around a neighborhood on foot or bike, as well as serving it with transit, depends on having 1000 Friends of Iowa 3850 Merle Hay Rd. Suite 605 Des Moines, IA 50310 (515)-288-5364 www. l OOOfriendsofiowa. org kfoi @ 1 OOOfriendso fiowa. org an efficient block system. Oversized blocks are like a bamcade to street connectivity. This provision will put a measurable standard in place to start weaving a sustainable neighborhood fabric within new blocks and better connect people with commercial services and other neighborhoods. Avoiding cul-de-sacs: Similaz to oversized blocks, cul-de-sacs impede street connectivity. In order to minimize the damage to street connectivity, the restrictions in the draft zoning code address the unique situations that cul-de-sacs could still be allowed. Some will argue that the market demands cul-de-sacs and 1000 Friends hears that all of the time. We're convinced that broken record is on the verge of breaking for good. As the price of gas increases and the market continues to support choices of more walkable neighborhoods, neighborhoods dominated by cul-de-sacs could become the underutilized slums of the future. In some parts of the U.S, they already are. There is not the same long-term risk for the community in building walkable neighborhoods, and they even make more efficient use of infrastructure and services. Narrow pavement widths and adequate right-of-way: The increases to the minimum right-of--way along streets, combined with the wider sidewalks and narrow pavement widths, are sealing the deal for walkable neighborhoods. Just as the block length standards and avoidance of cul-de-sacs provide the building blocks for walkable neighborhoods, these provisions about the streets themselves will put the goals of the plan in motion. Once neighborhoods are built to these standards, benefits will accumulate over time. Making space for a canopy of large street trees will provide a better atmosphere for walking, absorb C02 from the atmosphere and enhance biological diversity. These changes to the zoning code may be new concepts to some, and may already be in practice within Iowa City but lacking the reflection in the code. One of the ten principles of smart growth is "Fair and Predictable Development Decisions." Putting these changes into the code and taking them out of an unpredictable negotiations process helps development decisions become fair and predictable for the private sector as well as the general public. As Iowa begins to respond to the challenges of peak oil, climate change, increased gas prices, and economic hardships, land use practices have to consistently adapt through updating policies and practices. This means that many stakeholders will be on a learning curve. The public and private sector will have to try new things, take risks, use leadership skills, and monitor and test results over time. 1000 Friends of Iowa encourages the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission to hear public input about achieving goals in the comprehensive plan through this subdivision ordinance and allow new ideas to be considered in the process. Once that process is complete, we encourage the Commission to pass the draft subdivision code. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Stephanie Weisenbach Program Coordinator 1000 Friends of Iowa 1000 Friends of Iowa 3850 Merle Hay Rd. Suite 605 Des Moines, IA 50310 (515)-288-5364 www. l OOOfriendsofiowa. org kfoi@ 1 OOOfriendsofiowa.org The Greater Iowa City Area HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by proi/toting standards for quality and affordability. Proposed City of Iowa City Subdivision Ordinance Analysis Prepared by: The Land Development Council Originally Submitted: 5/31/07 Revised: 4/3/08 i Subdivision Ordinance Recommendation Goals Streamline the plat review and approval process and ensure government accountability and responsiveness. 2. Eliminate unnecessary requirements and vague language that fails to provide guidance and exposes applicants to arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement. 3. Require good governing practices by requiring the City to be financially accountable for public improvements. 4. Ensure that the new Subdivision Code affords property owners the greatest amount of flexibility and creativity by eliminating unnecessary or arbitrary limits. 5. Honor the community's commitment to workforce housing by eliminating excessive and unnecessary costs increases. Subdivision Analysis General Subdivision Provisions Definitions 15-1-3 Alley: Delete the word "abutting". Street, Private: Delete the last sentence. The Iowa City Community School District or similar governmental entity may own a private street. 15-1-7(B)(2)(d) City's Right to Install Improvements Recommendation: Clarify when a full release will be granted by the City for stormwater facilities. Analysis: As drafted, this section states that a full release will be granted by the City Engineer when "all [emphasis added] land within the tributary area" or a lesser amount has been developed. Requiring all land to be developed prior to a full release may not be feasible as subdivisions may not be fully developed for a decade or more. A lesser amount of developed land is likely the better method. If possible, guidelines should be developed providing guidance to applicants as to what will be expected. CHAPTER 2 Plats and Platting Procedures Preliminary Plat 15-2-2 (A) (3) Recommendations: Include language providing for one mandatory staff review. Any further review is at the discretion of the applicant who may choose in the alternative to petition the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Secondly, all departments reviewing the plan must provide their written comments to the applicant within 20 business days. Lastly, any code deficiencies shall be clearly cited to the corresponding existing City code or ordinance provision. Analysis: The plat review and approval process has become one of the most frustrating and expensive variables in land development. It is not unusual for delays to run as long as 6 months to a year or more in some circumstances. This of course can have a dramatic impact on the cost of a subdivision plan as applicants face the devastating possibility of missing entire construction seasons. Though subdivision code requirements are very stringent in some circumstances, the greatest source of frustration often is not with the underlying code but rather when the City makes demands that have no foundation in the applicable codes or possess a dubious relation at best. A common perception within the industry is that City officials often make exactions that are based more in personal preference rather than legal requirements. Additionally, it is not uncommon to receive comments from multiple City departments about a variety of matters at different times well beyond the 20 day requirement. To further complicate 4 matters, applicants often are presented with new and/or additional issues from multiple City departments after having already conducted multiple meetings. As one would expect, this makes it very difficult and frustrating when an applicant is working to make the necessary changes and prepare all appropriate paperwork and documentation. It is in the best interest of both the City and the applicant to have these matters addressed and resolved as early in the process as possible. For these reasons, we believe it advantageous to have one regnired staff review for concept plans, preliminary and final plats. After this review, all departments should be required to have their comments, be it regarding the concept plan, preliminary plat, construction plans and so forth, submitted to the applicant within 20 business days. This is recommended because it will make all parties focus to address the truly outstanding matters and require full disclosure upfront which is to everyone's benefit. After this initial mandatory staff review, the applicant should have the right to either petition the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council depending on the appropriate plat, or alternatively, they can opt to continue with the staff review. The key is that after the initial required meeting, it is at the property owner's discretion as to the need and benefit of continuing with the staff review. The second matter to address is the notion of "deficiencies" or "complete"ness of applications as set forth in the amended code. The City is right to set forth a standard of completeness. This provides guidance and direction to what applicants need to do in order to meet code requirements. However, as mentioned previously, there is a risk that City officials may demand things that are beyond the requirements of the underlying Code. Regardless if exactions are being made outside the scope of the Code, we believe it advisable to require that any deficiencies in an application be directly cited to applicable code or legal requirement. This change would draw a clear distinction between those things an applicant is legally bound to do in order for approval and those matters that are perhaps preferences rather than prerequisites. In the event a matter cannot be resolved at the staff level, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are the appropriate bodies to resolve such disputes. This presumes of course that an applicant has made the decision to forego further staff review in favor for a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council respectively. Ultimately, the City should embrace a review procedure that places emphasis on earlier identification and resolution of issues. The review and approval procedure should make it clear what is legally required of applicants and empower them with the option of taking their unresolved disputes to the appropriate citizen's review body and their elected officials. 15-2-2 (D) (3) Recommendations: Delete language prohibiting plats proceeding to Planning and Zoning with more than 6 deficiencies. Add language clearly indicating the relevant City code provisions any such code deficiencies cited in the staff report are based upon. 5 Specifications 15-2-3(A)(5) Recommendations: Either delete this provision or provide additional guidance as to the purpose and scope. Analysis: First, it should be stated that requiring final plats to have administrative review is a positive step in our opinion. This should allow for easier and quicker review and approval of what should be a fairly routine process. However, as drafted, the proposed language leaves it ambiguous as to what is meant by "requested" vaziations. Final plats often have deviations from the preliminary plat. It is not uncommon for roads, sidewalks, lot layouts and such to deviate from the approved final plat. This is due to the fact that the requisite engineering necessary for final plats has not been conducted when the preliminary plat is approved. It is difficult to determine what a requested variation is as opposed to what are inevitable adjustments as a result of the final engineering work. The concern is that vaziations, even though insubstantial or inconsequential, may be used as an excuse to delay or stop a proposed project. We recommend amending this provision to clazify what a requested variation means and further, make it absolutely cleaz that final plats will not be denied so long as there are no substantial deviations from the preliminazy plat. CHAPTER 3. Design Standards and Required Improvements Connectivity of Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails 15-3-2(A) Recommendations: Retain subparagraph (1) but delete subpazagraphs (2), (3), and (4). Analysis: The Land Development Council recommends deleting subpazagraphs (2), (3) and (4). It is not that we disagree with the intent, but rather because these sections offer no objective guidance as to what is legally required. To illustrate, subpazagraph (3) is more of a statement of what a proper functioning road system is than a proscriptive regulation. The danger is that satisfaction of such provisions is entirely subjective. So while we may agree that road systems should "have a simple and logical pattern" or "permit the safe, efficient, and orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic", there is no regulation that sets forth when that condition is met. While the intent may have been to increase the inherent flexibility of the amended Subdivision code, the language of subparagraphs (2), (3) and (4) simply do not provide adequate notice of what an applicant will be legally obligated to do. The best way to provide flexibility in the Subdivision code is to retain minimal restrictions on street layouts and allow land development professionals to design attractive street patterns in accordance with City engineering standards, the natural topography of the area and the functionality and character of the project. Minimum Access Standards 15-3-2(B)(2) Recommendations: Clarify what the additional "projected traffic generation" calculations or methodology the City will utilize and rely upon. Analysis: Clazification of what methodology or calculations will be used in determining the projected traffic would be beneficial to applicants. It will allow them to anticipate and plan appropriate traffic management techniques. Right-of-Way Standards 15-3-2(C) Street Types Table 15-1: Retain current right-of-way standards as sufficient minimums. Clarify when and who has the discretion to choose between a 26 and 28 foot pavement width for cul de sac and collector streets. Analysis: The amended Subdivision code increases right-of-way requirements by 10 feet for arterial streets, 6 feet for collector streets, and 10 feet for local streets. Without commenting on the subjective value of increased right-of-way space, it must be noted the the increased standards will impact the total amount of developable land. Measurements for lot widths and depths begin after adjusting and accounting for necessary right-of-way space. The increased amount of right-of-way in conjunction with the increased sidewalk widths in section IS-3-3 will add costs to housing. Unfortunately, this cost will not be offset through the proposed reduced street widths. To illustrate, if a local street is 1,500 feet in length with a width of 26 feet (as opposed to the current 28 feeQ, the reduced amount of necessazy paving would be approximately 334 square yards. At a cost of $25 per yard, this would result in a cost savings of roughly $8,350. However, when the additional 1 foot of sidewalk on each side is factored in (1 x 1,500 x 2 = 3,000 sq. ft) at a cost of approximately $2.50 per foot, the added expense is $7,500. The increased sidewalk widths by themselves almost entirely negate any cost savings and the loss of developable land from the increased right-of-ways has not even been factored in. In sum, the increased right-of-way standards will add costs via increased pavement and potentially reduce the total number of developable lots. Layout of Blocks and Lots 15-3-2 (F) (3) Measurements and Construction Standards Recommendations: Delete language requiring adjacent property owners to maintain landscaped areas within medians. Insert language making it the responsibility of the City. Analysis: The Land Development Council is concerned with the City requiring a homeowner's association to be financially responsible for the maintenance of what is in the public right-of-way. If the City wishes to require landscaped areas within medians, then as a matter of good governance and accountability, it should not require a private entity to bear the cost of a public good. Street Intersections 15-3-2(I-1) (5) Recommendations: Develop specifications for the construction of emergency services turn-arounds. Analysis: Currently, there are no codified specifications for the construction of emergency services turn-azounds. The Fire Department simply informs the applicant what it is they require. These requirements vary from project to project. We recommend the City establish an objective standard for these turn-azounds. We would also recommend that these standards be reasonable and adequate only to accommodate emergency services. These turnarounds are temporary and it makes little sense to impose costly design and construction standards for something that will eventually be torn up and removed. 15-3-3(G) Sidewalks, Trails, and Pedestrian Connections Recommendations: Remove this section in its entirety. Alternatively, consider extending the block length before requiring a crosswalk. Analysis: This section requires a connecting sidewalk be constructed between adjacent streets for any block longer than 600 feet. We support the goal of promoting pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. However, this provision is unnecessary to that goal and implicates a host of problematic issues when developing land. The first concern is of course the literal cost of constructing a minimum 5 foot sidewalk between adjacent streets. However, there are other issues at stake. It is not cleaz where the property line for determining the beginning of required setbacks begins. Unfortunately, determining where the setback begins (i.e. at the midpoint of the sidewalk or at the easement line) is a no win proposition for a property owner. A developer will be faced with the undesirable choice of either losing developable land to accommodate said easements or building homes that abut uncomfortably close to the sidewalk. Alternatively, a developer could seek a rezoning to provide for greater density but that carries its own separate and distinct risks. Midblock pedestrian crosswalks may work in some circumstances. For example, if one is working with a flat piece of property with little or no sensitive features. However, that is not common in Iowa City or in Johnson County. Midblock pedestrian crosswalks can provide value to subdivisions. However, they carry a host of implications for the design and layout of a development that must be carefully considered. Requiring them for any block greater than 600 feet in length is simply not warranted or necessary and we recommend this new requirement be removed. A waiver provision is included. However, there is no stated criteria or guidelines indicating when a waiver may be granted and under what circumstances. This presents the danger of inconsistent administration and enforcement. Layout of Block and Lots 15-3-4(A) Blocks Recommendations: Delete subparagraph (1) in its entirety. Amend subparagraph (2) to allow for current maximum block lengths of 2000 feet. Amend subparagraph (3) to allow for current minimum block lengths along arterial streets. In subparagraph (4), delete "900 feet" length standard and insert "1000 feet". Analysis: This new section sets forth recommended block lengths for residential and commercial construction. In general, all block lengths have been shortened. More specifically, subparagraph (2) states that block faces along local and collector streets should (emphasis added) range between 300 and 600 feet in length". There aze a number of concerns with how this provision is drafted. First, as drafted this is not a requirement but a recommendation. As such, it is at the discretion of the City of when blocks will have to adhere to this standard. Secondly, a 600 foot maximum is generally not feasible for commercial and industrial development. Likewise, under subparagraph (4), a 900 foot maximum is insufficient for housing on a cul-de-sac. The City may not desire cul-de-sac development but they remain a popular and attractive option of housing choice. Further, it is out belief that a 600 foot maximum block length will require an increased number of streets; a potentially dramatic increase in the cost of a project. The issue is not whether shorter block lengths are attractive or wanted, the issue is whether such a decreased limit is appropriate or warranted. We believe the better solution is to afford the greatest flexibility in the Code. Thus, we endorse the 300 foot block length as a minimum but believe the current maximum of 2000 feet should be retained. This will allow for the purpose, the character, the goals and the topography of the land and development design to determine the most suitable block length. We would also encourage the City to consider what impact and affect shorter block lengths will have in conjunction with increased right-of-way standards, setback requirements and other residential development standards of Title 14 the Zoning Code. 15-3-4(B)(4) Recommendations: Expressly exempt corner lots from this section. Analysis: This provision requires that lots with multiple frontages in residential areas be 125% of the required lot area. We agree that double or triple frontage lots may require some additional buffer area when loaded on both the front and back. However, by definition, corner lots have double frontage. It isn't clear if this was intended, but requiring all corner lots in all residential zones to be 125% of the required lot size would 9 place a unique burden upon those lots and make them more difficult to build an attractive and moderately priced housing unit. 15-3-4 (B) (7) Recommendations: Clarify that only "public open spaces" as defined by Code are subject to subparagraph (7). Analysis: Under the Neighborhood Open Space ordinance section 14-SK-3 (5), public access easements are already required. ~ The HBA would clarification that this section applies only to public open spaces as defined by City Code and not private open space. Often, a developer will create open space that is for the enjoyment and benefit of the particular subdivision which also bears the responsibility and costs for maintaining that space. These private open spaces should not be regulated in the same manner and fashion as City owned public space. Provisions to Minimize the Effect of Highway Noise 15-3-4(C) Recommendations: Delete this section in its entirety. Analysis: This new section prohibits any residential structures within 300 feet of Interstate 80 and Highway 218. This does not include accessory structures and yard space. It further requires a mixture of vegetation be planted in the 300 foot buffer area per the City Forester's guidelines. Subparagraph (2) allows a reduction of the 300 foot buffer (subject to the City's approval) if a subdivider "constructs an earthen berm, decorative wall, or other similar structure" achieves a noise reduction level of no more than 60 dBA. The LDC understands the need for an adequate buffer area and noise reduction measures when building residential structures along traffic intensive roadways such as I-80 and Highway 218. It must be noted, however, that the 300 foot buffer will remove an appreciable portion of developable land out of the City's remaining land stock and contribute to the growing challenge of providing an adequate supply of quality workforce housing. Initially, the HBA had recommended that the buffer requirement simply be shortened from 300 feet to 100 feet. However, upon further consideration, we believe that this is really a matter that requires no regulation beyond the already established setback requirements. While locating residential structures close to Interstate 80 and/or Highway 218 may be an unwise decision and resulting highway noise may prove to be a nuisance for homeowners, this is a private concern and does not present a risk to the public at large. The lack of housing located within close proximity to these major thoroughfares is evidence that the marketplace is more than capable of addressing this matter. ~ Under Article 14-SK, Greenways and Trails require a 20 foot easement and a 50 foot easement for Parks. 10 Neighborhood Open Space 15-3-4 Recommendations: Incentivize and rewazd subdividers who voluntazily create open space by providing credits towards the required fee-in-lieu. Analysis: Under the current system, developers can voluntarily create open space for subdivisions. However, because of maintenance and budgets concerns, the City often does not want to accept these open spaces. This is understandable. However, this scenario can acts as a disincentive to the voluntary creation of open space as a developer is still required to pay the necessary fee-in-lieu under Article 14-SK. We recommend that developers and subdividers that voluntarily create open space have the value of that land credited towazds satisfying their fee-in-lieu amount. This would reward developers for creating a valuable neighborhood benefit and lead to more open space. Energy and Communications Distribution Systems 15-3-6 Recommendations: This entire section should be removed. Analysis: While this section may have been included for ease of reference, it is unnecessary and risks leading to unnecessary confusion or conflict with Chapter 16-2, Public Utilities and Use of Right of Way. The development community takes its direction from the utility companies as to the location and size of necessary easements. Sanitary Sewers 15-3-7(A) Recommendations: Delete the words "and beyond, as necessary". Analysis: These words should be deleted for the simple reason that the applicant often does not own the property beyond their proposed subdivision and therefore cannot grant the necessazy easement. A possible alternative to consider is the granting of the easement(s) in combination with a reasonable escrow to complete the required extensions. Sanitary Sewers and Water Systems 15-3-7(C) and 15-3-9(B) Recommendations: Delete "at its discretion" and insert "shall". Analysis: (see analysis under "Off-site Costs for Public Improvements"). Clustered Mailboxes 15-3-10 Recommendations: Amend subpazagraph (A) to include only projects that have not received final plat approval as opposed to "constructed". Delete subparagraphs (B) and (C). I1 Analysis: The U.S. Postal Service has begun to require subdivisions construct a cluster of mailboxes. Currently, developers and subdividers work with the Post Office in locating and constructing these clusters taking into consideration the street layout, density and other pertinent features. As such, subparagraphs (B) and (C) are unnecessary and may in fact conflict with what the Post Office requires. This matter is best addressed between the developer and the Postal Service. Should this provision go into effect, it should apply to projects that have no already received final plat approval. The requirements of this section will without question alter the design and layout of a subdivision. It is problematic and impractical to have to amend a project that has received final plat approval much less it being constructed. Specifications 15-3-12(B) Recommendations: Delete subparagraph (B); or alternatively establish a clear deadline for the City to respond. Analysis: This section is unnecessary as construction plans and specifications as well as erosion control plans are already a required component of final plat review and approvals. In the alternative, the City should be held to a deadline of when they must respond to an applicant. Off-site Costs for Public Improvements 15-3-14(C) Recommendations: Delete "at its discretion, may" and insert "shall". Analysis: The issue for off-site public improvement costs is identical to sanitary sewers and water systems; where the City requires an applicant to build a public good that is greater than what is necessary to service what is necessary for their project, the City bears the responsibility to pay for that good. This is a matter of good governance and accountability. Further, we believe requiring applicants to build public infrastructure unrelated to their project without compensation is essentially a tax and therefore, an impermissible impact fee under Iowa law. z 2 In Home Builders Association of Greater Des Moines vs. Ci[y of Wes[ Des Moines, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the City of West Des Moines could not charge builders a fee in connection with subdivision approval and building permit issuance, when the fees were deposited into asub-fund of the general fund and used by the City for park site acquisition and physical improvements. Home Builders Association of Greater Des Moines vs. Cit of West Des Moines, 644 N.W. 2d 339 (Iowa 2002). The Court found such a charge was an impact fee and that Iowa law does not authorize cities to charge impact fees or excise taxes. Moreover, the Court found that [he fee could no[ be justified under the City's police power because it was not a fee charged to recover the administrative expenses incurred by the City, nor was it a fee charged in connection with a special benefit conferred by [he City. 12 Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: Glenn Siders [gsiders@sgdev.net] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:13 PM To: Karen Howard Subject: General Subdivision Provision Comments Attachments: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE DRAFT.doc Karen Here is an outline of my oral comments last Thursday. Some of these I did not touch on at the public hearing. Let me know if you need something clarified. I assume you will forward these to the Commission as they asked. Glenn R. Siders SourthGate Development Services PO Box 1907 Iowa City, IA 52244-1907 Phone: 319-337-4195 Fax: 319-337-9823 4/25/2008 GENERAL SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS 15-1-3 (Alley) Public Way is not a defined term. Public Right of Way is a defined term. The word "abutting" should be omitted. (Boundary Line Adjustment) 1,000 square feet is not much area for larger parcels. A ~,~ boundary line adjustment should be a percentage, not a defined square foot. (Public Improvements. Bullet point 7) what is a "Public Open Space Improvement"? The.i term Public Open Space is not a defined term. PLATS & PLATING PROCEEDURES FINAL PLAT 15-2-3 B.3. If you submit several copies of the plat when applying I do not think a digital version is necessary. Will it be expected to submit a digital copy every time a change is made? A digital copy should be given to the City when everything has been finalized. C.9.e. There are a lot of possibilities for things to become "peculiar", a term which is not '°~ defined. This subsection is not necessary and should be omitted. D.8. This is inconsistent with B.3 above. My comment is the same as B.3. ~- DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 15-3-2 A.2. The second sentence does not indicate when these streets should be connected to adjoining properties. I have experienced a time when the City wanted it done immediately when the project was expected to develop over a 10 year period. They should state when the extensions will be required. How will the applicant know what the "larger interconnected street pattern of the city" is? A.3. At the end of the last sentence it mentions respecting natural features and topography. First of all, natural features to my knowledge, is not a defined term. Secondly, by using this language, the staff will be designing all of the street patterns. A.4. I realize the City does not care for these because of street maintenance, but it is what the public wants and it is what the market demands. It is also allowed in other sections of the ordinance. If this becomes part of the design standards, your efficiency of land use will decrease and most likely will result in a density reduction. I am also puzzled by what is meant by "single point of access". This part should be removed. B.4. I am not sure I understand the actual three year time frame. They could clarify that language. I have no comment on this until I understand the city's intention. C. I do not want Table 15-1 to provide "guidance" and do not care to know what "should" be. I want something that is clear and not arguable. This section could be reduced to the first and last sentence, or eliminated entirely. It does not add any sustenance to the ordinance. D. What happens if you do not own/regulate the abutting property? E. Why has this been removed? I thought the City wanted new ideas and alternatives. Table 15-1 Loop Streets Why limit to only 12 dwellings. The definition of a dwelling would not allow anything larger than 12 single family lots up to a 12 unit condo. Affordable housing might lend itself towards placing higher density off of a loop street. I thought cul-de-sacs were discouraged. Why are we going to 5' sidewalks. Am I correct in reading that a sidewalk will be required on the inside of a cul-de-sac. It appears that there will not be any consideration to pull off areas anymore. What about a mailbox area? I do not see where an eyebrow street will be allowed anymore. F.3. It would be better to generate a Home Owners Association than to have just the adjacent property owners. It also needs to be made quite clear when these buffering improvement need installed. Past experience has taught me to landscape cul-de-sacs at the very end of the project to prevent "all people" from driving through the middle of them. Cardinal Ridge, which has a very large turn about is a prime example. G.S. I am not sure how you accommodate a turn around area if the dead end street abuts property not owned by you. I understand the purpose of wanting to extend infrastructure but placing a turn around on a developed lot is not desirable. The last sentence also refers to a specification that needs to be met. Is that specification part of the engineering standards? If it is, you should identify the exact source/s. H.2. I am not a big fan of traffic calming devices. I believe they can become a liability and know several engineers that have a concern that liability could impact their firm. If these devices are to become law, I believe it should be mandatory to standardize them and put in writing where and when they might be imposed. If you do not, you are shooting in the dark. The language "where it is warranted" is disturbing and subjective on the part of the City. Shannon Drive has extended curbs and they actually cause a more difficult turning movement for busses and larger vehicles. J. Private Streets is not identified in Table 15-1. Are there any standards for private streets? J.3. In the first sentence it talks about a legally binding instrument that sets procedures for "financing". There is similar language in the OPDH requirements and when confronted with what this means or what the City wants in our last approval, it was found that know one knows. It is not unreasonable to just say that an HOA will be responsible and not where they bank or how they structure their revenue. Most of the time, the HOA structure is not set up at plat approval stage. L.l.a-c. I understand what the City is trying to achieve and do not have a problem with it. In fact, it is better than the way the City currently assesses improvement costs. I do think that the way it is written is clumsy and could lead to a mis-interpretation. For example, where it states that the subdivider "controls land on one side". If you controlled land on both sides but were not subdividing the other side would you be expected to pay 100% now or when it was developed? 15-3-3 Many, if not most, of the trails are not found in public right-of--way. A pedestrian connection is not a defined term. B. Low volume cul-de-sacs and loop streets require a 4' walk according to table 15-1 so there would be no reduction. C. The City should have NO discretion in placing an 8' sidewalk. Most often, the developer would prefer to place it themselves as let the City do it at a higher cost. If this is for instances where a walk may not be needed at the time, it should be negotiated and placed in the subdividers agreement. What does payment of "excess pavement costs" mean? D. I have never seen where a taper works well. G. This is a large added cost. Is this a public walk (liability)? I defer to the Home Builders comments. H. I am not sure what this is telling me. 15-3-4A.2. Many times when you have lots fronting on Collector Streets, the City will impose an access restriction making a "two tier" lot scenario impossible. B.3. I am not familiar with section 14-SC-7 but the way I read this, if you develop any commercial lot on an arterial street, you must provide across-easement to any other commercial lot. I hope they mean if you were to re-subdived a lot along an arterial street. B.4.a. Requiring the 25% additional area to be used in the length of the lot may produce waste of land. It could well result in a remnant parcel. B.4.b. What are the "other public improvements" mentioned in the third sentence? C.1. WOW! There are many times a 2,000 foot buffer will not help. In cases where the adjacent property is lower that the highway, there is no buffer that will work. This is a costly requirement that only applies to certain individuals. The required buffer in non- descript. C.2. & 3. Impossible to prove/demonstrate. 15-3-SB. The City should not make you pay a fee in lieu of when they only accept desired park ground. I have never been given credit for "greenways, trails or private open space 15-3-6A. I hope this is no different than what is being practiced today. There should be an exemption to three-phase electrical and main feeder lines. 15-3-7A. How is it possible to extend a sewer "beyond" your property? What is "as necessary"? C. The word "may" should be substituted by "shall". If the City requires to oversize for future use, they should be responsible for the cost. 15-3-8 I see no provisions for regional storm water basins, why? 15-3-9A. The same "beyond" comment as in sanitary sewer. Is the last sentence requiring that we now install water services when subdividing? B. The same "may" comment as in sanitary sewers. 15-3-1OB. It may be very difficult to regulate whether or not a mail box cluster is 12' from any driveway. The subdivider can regulate the placement but cannot regulate the builder once the lot is sold. The last sentence mentions pull-over lane specs. Where are these specs and as mentioned before, they are not provide for in table 15-1. 15-3-12B. There should be a maximum time frame for engineering approval. The last development we got approved it took the City over three months to get approved. That was three months after plat approval. 15-3-14C. I would assume this is where the regional storm water provisions may apply. If it is, it should be referred to in 15-3-8. Once again, if the City wants to oversize something they should pay the additional cost, not use their discretion. GENERAL COMMENTS Whenever there are references to other city standards/ordinances/specifications) they should be identified and not a general statement as proposed in 15-3-10 B. How will this ordinance when passed, effect Preliminary Plats that have already been approved. These regulations should be exempted from approved plats. My particular concern is with the additional R-O-W widths and street/sidewalk size. Global Credit Research IP5 ^-~1 ^ New Issue ~~~ l~f0~ 2 JUN 2008 New Issue: Iowa City (City of) IA MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aaa RATING TO CITY OF IOWA CITY'S (IA) $9.1 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2008A AFFIRMATION OF Aaa RATING AFFECTS $77.9 MILLION IN OUTSTANDING GOULT DEBT Municipality `~ IA ~~ Moody's Rating G~ \~ ~~ ISSUE RATING •~p " ~ t.1 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2008A Aaa ~ ~- ~^ „~Q~ Sale Amount $9,150,000 1„ U^' Expected Sale Date 06/03/08 r7lFn' ~,~ Rating Description General Obligation Unlimited Tax Opinion NEW YORK, Jun 2, 2008 -- Moody's Investors Service has assigned a Aaa rating to the City of Iowa City's (IA) $9.1 million General Obligation Bonds, Series 2008A. The bonds, which are secured by the city's general obligation unlimited tax pledge, will finance various city-wide capital projects. Concurrently, Moody's has affirmed the city's Aaa rating, affecting $77.9 million of outstanding general obligation debt. Moody's highest quality Aaa rating is based on the city's strong and diverse local economy, benefiting from the presence of the state's flagship university; sound financial operations characterized by healthy reserve levels; and favorable debt profile. STRONG AND DIVERSE LOCAL ECONOMY BENEFITS FROM PRESENCE OF UNIVERSITY Moody's expects the city's local economy to remain strong due to the stability afforded by the University of Iowa (revenue bonds rated Aa2/stable outlook) and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (revenue bonds rated Aa2/stable outlook). Significant employment opportunities for more than 20,000 people at the University and its medical center, complemented by a mix of service and light manufacturing entities, result in economic stability and continued moderate economic growth. The University of Iowa is the flagship public institution in the state, with FTE enrollment of 27,000. These positive economic factors continue to drive tax base growth, with assessed valuation increasing at a steady 7.6% annually over the last fve years and full value estimated to be a sizable $4.3 billion in 2007. The city retains considerable amounts of land for development, and continues to see signifcant residential and commercial construction. Recent developments include ongoing redevelopment of the city's downtown district, and expansion of its Aviation Commerce Park North. Employment opportunities within the area continue to remain ample, evidenced by a low unemployment rate of 2% as of March 2008, compared with the state rate of 3.9% for the same time period. Despite the significant student population, the city's wealth levels are healthy, exceeding state averages. Full value per capita is solid at $68,056. SOUND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS CHARACTERIZED BY HEALTHY RESERVE LEVELS Moody's expects the city's financial operations to remain sound given a demonstrated record of prudent management, conservative budgeting practices, and healthy reserves. The city ended fscal 2007 with a General Fund operating surplus of $1.9 million, resulting in a General Fund balance of $19.1 million, or an ample 37.8% of General Fund revenues. City officials budgeted a General Fund drawdown of $3 million for fiscal 2008 to 30% of General Fund expenditures to address one-time capital expenditures based on a recent council request to maintain reserves at a minimum of 20% of expenditures and a ceiling of 30%. At this time, Moody's does not expect the policy to have a significant effect on the city's credit profile, as the city expects to maintain fund balance levels sufficient to avoid cash-flow borrowing concerns. Although the city is taxing at its General Fund levy limit of $8.10, it retains has the Flexibility to utilize a $.27 Emergency Levy to support General Fund operations. The city derives the bulk of its revenues from property taxes, comprising 54.1% of core revenues during fiscal 2007. Expenditures related to debt service were slightly above average at 18.4% of total operating funds expenditures. FAVORABLE DEBT PROFILE; AGGRESSIVE PRINCIPAL AMORTIZATION Moody's expects the city's debt profile to remain favorable given continued tax base expansion, limited capital needs, and rapid principal amortization. The city's overall debt burden is average at 2.6%, with the majority (2%) directly attributable to the city. Principal amortization is rapid, with 93.4% of general obligation debt repaid in ten years. In keeping with its policy of not issuing more than it retires in a given year, the city plans to issue approximately $10 million per year for the next three years for continued city-wide capital improvements. KEY STATISTICS: 2002 Special census population: 63,380 2007 (estimated) full valuation: $4.3 billion Full valuation per capita: $68,056 1999 Median family income as % of state: 120% 1999 Per capita income as % of state: 103% Iowa City metropolitan area unemployment (March 2008): 2% Overall debt burden: 2.6°/ (2% direct) Principal amortization (10 years): 93.4% Fiscal 2007 General Fund balance: $19.1 million (37.9% of General Fund revenues) Post-sale general obligation debt outstanding: $87.1 million, including current offering Analysts Jeannie C. Iseman Analyst Public Finance Group Moody's Investors Service Edward Damutz Backup Analyst Public Finance Group Moody's Investors Service Contacts Journalists: (212) 553-0376 Research Clients: (212) 553-1653 © Copyright 2008, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and/or its licensors including Moody's Assurance Company, Inc. (together, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved. ,i as ~ .. F~ ,.. a nr,i~ ~.,,, c i i ~ ~ i~ ~... rr r;.~,v a ~,,Y or ~. i i ~ n ~, ~ U~~. i i ,.u~ i i,ic ~, rn i ~[~,. ~nN,iruru i ~_J,;ii i=. i~l ^.o i .i'..~ W ~. "'i1~~,4 I til l~',L I ;fin °,ini 14k1 :' .II. Fl Ir oc f ~'R _~ ~ `t .. ro i l A ~ i c. ; A. i i i ,. ~' I PI P .. , J r 1 `r I ~ r i i r I[ H. 1 i~ , ..~ ~ r1 _. i. li X~, ~.~ ,, ,~ r~,f ih. ~ i b _i_ ~ ~.,I . ~, . ~ v i i ~. ~ ~..r i 1 ". - - i 1 L .va .. i w ... a ~~ , iq~, i.~, , ~~ .,. ~ , ~ I . ,. ti n ~ _. v_. iiiu it . , , .. ~ .~ ,.I. ~, _,, .. i ~ Ih, i h ~.1f "7` i i l i _. _.i..~ .. u. ~. ., . i i, I ~ ~. II i I ~ I I i ~..r ii e1 A~ I ~ ~ -I a ~i. .. niT lei.. lu! ~ ~ ~ I +! II 1, r f I l I ; ',~ .l[11'i! r I n '.( ! >1! I ~. I i i f i V' I a-, ,i~ rL~i ~ .o- Nl~l{f rtJ I'.~ H'lllllC ~ IP J' I. ~iJ~.l..l ~ ~i.t ,J.,i ?.~ ~q ~l ...~.~I .. JV - i rv .. . , , rv ~ „I~ .. ~ i Iii /4 II ~..r UV'^..f ~' I i ,I'e.. oP , , i . ~. ~,i„ ,l il ~ ~i h, , ~ , each security that d may consider purcha,inq, holding or selling. MOObV'S hereby disdnses That most issuers of debt srtunt rs (in Juding carpal ate and munlr_ipal bonds, drhentu res, notes and commenlal paper) and prefe r~.d shock toted by MGODY ' f a~n~_ pilot m assignment of any ratlny, aureed to pay to MOODY'S for appraisal and rainy services rrnAered by It fees ranging from $I,i00 to apProxlmately $2p00,n00. Mondy's [,orpo~a[ion (MCU) and its wholly owned a'edd retinq agency subsidiary, f1oody's lnvestnis Serv lee (MI5), also mainlaln Rohoes and Prpcedures to address the in dependenw pf MI5's ratinnc and raring ryoc asses. In~onnatlon regardlnq certain a(filidtlbns that may exist bel wean dlrerfois of tdl0 and mfed entities, and between rntihes who hold ratings from Mi5 and have also pubbcly reported to the s5C an owner,hip interst in MCO of n re Than i i ~ posted annually on Muodys mrbsiYe at www_inoodi ~.som render the herding "Shareholder RelBhon, - Corporztr C,overnm~u~ - Diiecter and shareholder AfFilia[ioi'i Policy." CV N ~ v5. ~ d ~ ~ ~_ r`"t J F- ~~ ._. t ~ >- C: E_ •` U~ ~^ ~ N ~- NOI.2THSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 2 June 2008 Rick Fosse, Public Works Director City Hall 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 os-os-oa IP6 Dear Mr. Fosse: I am writing on behalf of the Nor[hside Neighborhood Association to express our concern about the above-ground regulatdrs that MidAmerican has installed at 603 Church Street and at 328 N. Linn Street. We do not think such lazge ugly objects should be situated prominently in individual homeowners' yards, and we believe that having the devices above ground poses an added safety risk to the neighborhood. (The objects are protected by bollazds, which increase their visual prominence, but which don't allay homeowners' concems about errant cars running into them or children playing around them.) These contraptions present a particular problem in older neighborhoods, where yards aze small and regulators are close to both houses and sidewalks. Linn Street serves as a gateway to much of the Northside neighborhood, and now most people who enter the neighborhood from the University campus or the downtown business dishict will be confronted with a new piece of MidAmerican machinery. We have been in communication with Ed Young at MidAmerican and he has explained the company's perspective: having the devices above ground makes things easier and safer for workers. But the safety and happiness of homeowners who must live with these devices every day should also be taken into account. The City's franchise agreement with MidAmerica is not working in everyone's best interest. Given that MidAmerican had already erected a lazge pole at the comer of Fairchild and Van Buren Streets, we must conclude that the company is increasingly degrading the City's streetscapes. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like more information about the neighbors' concems. Cathy Cole and Mike Feiss, who live at 603 Brown St., would also be able to give you fust-hand information about what it's like to have one of these behemoths on their property. I will be sending a paper copy of this message. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. ors smcerely, dith Pasc e /" "~~~'~ orthsrde Neighborhood Association Coordinator cc: City Council Members Ron Knoche, City Engineer Christine Kuecker, Preservation Planner Ed Young, Operations Supervisor, MidAmetican Energy Maroia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Date: May 29, 2008 Re: Proposed traffic calming on N. Dubuque Road Dear Resident: CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Slrec( Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3191356-5000 (3191356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org The City has been working with your neighborhood to develop a traffic calming project in response to a neighborhood petition expressing concerns about traffic speeds on N. Dubuque Road between N. Dodge Street and Oakes Drive. A mail-back survey of households in this area was conducted. The response rate to this survey was 50% in favor (5 in favor, 5 opposed) of the proposed traffic calming project. This is below the 60% majority required by the City's adopted Traffic Calming Program. Three postcards were not returned. Since there is not a clear majority of respondents in favor of the proposed project, the proposed speed humps will not be installed. I have requested spot enforcement from the Iowa City Police Department in order to deter motorists from speeding on N. Dubuque Road. If you observe specific vehicles routinely violating the speed limit, you may contact the Police routine business line at 319-356-5275 with a vehicle description and specific times the violation occurs. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 356-5253 or kent-ralstonl_a7iowa- city or Sincere Kent Ralston JCCOG Acting Traffic Engineering Planner cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager Dale Helling, Asst. City Manager City Council Jeff Davidson, Director, Planning and Community Development John Yapp, JCCOG Executive Director Rick Fosse, Director, Public Works Ron Knoche, City Engineer Bud Stockman, Streets Superintendent Matt Johnson, Iowa City Police Dept. jccogip/Itrs/kr-resultsltr200B. tloc IP8 MINUTES APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 22, 2008 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Regenia Bailey, Connie Champion, Matt Hayek Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Jeff Davidson, Tracy Hightshoe Others Present: Mark Nolte, ICAD; Miles Schulz, ED Intern; Kate Fiegen, Press Citizen; Gig Wood, Corridor Business Journal; Bob Thompson; Mike Mullenbrook RECOMMENDATIONS Champion moved to approve the CDBG application for Textures Salon as recommended by staff; seconded by Hayek. Carried 3-0. Champion moved to approve the CDBG application for Alfie's Beauty Supply as recommended by staff; seconded by Hayek. Carried 3-0. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairperson Regenia Bailey called the meeting to order at 8:07 A.M. She asked those in attendance to introduce themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26 AND MARCH 27. 2008 MEETINGS Hayek moved to accept the minutes of both the March 26 and March 27, 2008 meetings as submitted; seconded by Champion. Carried 3-0. DISCUSSION OF CDBG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS APPLICATIONS: TEXTURES SALON -Tracy Hightshoe provided a review of the application and stated that this is a business that is currently in operation in Coralville. The owner would like to expand operations and is looking for a site in Iowa City. Hightshoe noted that the owner started the salon in 2002, and gave the history of the business since then. She stated that this owner does qualify as a microenterprise under the CDBG program. In her recommendation, Hightshoe noted that the owner stated she would hire one part-time position. Hightshoe stated that required employment would focus on the owner as she qualifes as low-to-moderate income and if the cash flow is not there, she wouldn't be forced into hiring apart-time position based on the agreement. (If a position is created, the position must be made available to aloes-to-moderate income person.) In the new facility, the owner will rent out studios for other stylists to operate their own business. Hightshoe spoke with the commercial lender at Hills. By securing CDBG funds, this will enable the owner to enter a private loan with a SBA guaranty through Hills. Hightshoe recommends approval of this loan application at the full request of $35,000. The City will place a UCC lien on all business assets as partial collateral. Champion and Hayek both stated that they like the application, and that the expansion is warranted. Hayek stated that it is ambitious, but not over-reaching, and he feels it is a cautious move forward for the owner. Hayek noted, in the interest of full disclosure, that the applicant's landlord is a client of his in his law practice, and that he will check with the Legal department at the City about whether it would be a conflict of interest for him to vote on this at the City Council level. Hayek added that at the Committee level, there should be no such conflict. Champion moved to approve the CDBG application for Textures Salon as recommended by staff; seconded by Hayek. Carried 3-0. Economic Development Committee Meeting April 22, 2008 ALFIE'S BEAUTY SUPPLY -Hightshoe stated that Alfie's Beauty Supply has been in operation since March 2007 at 400 Kirkwood Avenue. She gave the members a brief history of Alfie's, stating that last year the applicant had sales of $17,535. Hightshoe noted that the owner started this business with her income tax refund, and was also awarded funds through the ROSS Program, through the Iowa City Housing Authority, which she further explained to Members. Hightshoe continued, stating that the owner is working with the Housing Authority to remedy some of her past credit history, but upon speaking with the Housing Authority and her current landlord for the business that she pays rent on a timely basis and has been a good tenant. References from the Housing Authority, business landlord and her past employment specialist at Goodwill have all been extremely positive. To limit risk, Hightshoe stated that she would recommend no more than $5,000 for this application. Hightshoe continued, stating that the owner desires to expand her inventory. In order to do this, the supplier requires an initial minimum purchase of $5,000. Hightshoe stated a concern, as there are no other employees, she questioned who would run the business in the owner's absence. The owner responded that her brother and other family members help out a lot and would continue to do so. The owner explained some of the inventory problems she has run into, stating that it can be diffcult to meet the minimum requirements. Champion stated that she is somewhat concerned about the sales, and she asked if this increased inventory would help that. The owner responded, stating that she believes it will. She stated that when she f rst opened she had a suggestion box where a lot of people were asking for this particular product. The owner continued to explain her business, noting that on an average day she will sell three wigs, and that she can make two to three times her investment on these products. She also gave the Committee some figures on her clothing sales. Champion asked for some clarification on this loan, and Hightshoe responded to questions. Hayek briefly reviewed the recommendation of $5,000, stating that he is a little uneasy about the amount, but that he is open to it. He added that this fund is intended for this type of assistance. Bailey added that coverage would be a concern for her too, but that it sounds like the family helps a lot. Hightshoe stated a UCC lien would be filed on all business assets for partial collateral. Champion moved to approve the CDBG application for Alfie's Beauty Supply as recommended by staff; seconded by Hayek. Carried 3-0. CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM SHERATON HOTEL: Wendy Ford introduced Tom Geshay and Ron Kim with Davidson Hotel Company to those present. Jeff Davidson noted that the City has received a request from the new owners of the Sheraton Hotel for several items, and he asked them to address these requests. The new owners addressed the Committee, giving them some background on the Davidson Hotel Company. They currently have 31 hotels in their portfolio. Geshay noted that they have done similar projects in other college communities, and they look forward to working with Iowa City on their proposals. He added that the Sheraton is in a fantastic location, right in the center of town, and that the property needs some rehabilitation. He noted that many groups that used to come to the Sheraton for functions are now staying at the Marriott in Coralville, and that they hope to change this with their proposed rehabilitation. Geshay stated that there are two avenues they could take -cut costs, slim things down, and cut services; or they can try to increase revenues, which improves the bottom line. He stated that they would like to increase revenues and do a more significant rehab. Geshay continued to explain that the hotel is currently in danger of losing its Sheraton franchise here. They hope to turn this around with their plans. PARKING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT -First addressed was the parking agreement. With the changes over the years, Geshay stated that this needs to be looked at and revised. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE -Geshay noted that they would like to look at the financial assistance that the City offers, such as the TIF. VACATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENT -The final item is the easement that runs along the hotel. Geshay briefly touched on this area, discussing upkeep and maintenance issues. Economic Development Committee Meeting April 22, 2008 Staff then addressed the Committee, stating that it is clear that the property is in need of investment, and that this can be measured by several factors. Davidson noted that the assessed value has declined and that there has been a decline in occupancy and a decline in perception of the hotel. In talking to University officials, Davidson noted that they have completely stopped using the Sheraton, stating that it no longer meets their standards. Davidson noted that that the hotel's proposal be considered and evaluated as a "package." He added that the parking agreement is probably the lesser of the two items. Davidson stated that he went through the current parking agreement with the Parking Superintendent in order to clarify this, and he briefly explained the concept of the agreement. He stated that the parking agreement covers both employees of the hotel and registered guests. Davidson explained the two principal tools that the City has in terms of financial assistance to businesses. He said any TIF agreement can be structured to protect the City. He stated that staff could show some revenue-positive scenarios to the Members for their review. Davidson also noted two options on tax abatement -one being a 10-year declining schedule and the other a 3- year 100% schedule that would each net different amounts. Ford noted the main difference between the two abatement options is the time value of money. She also noted a difference between tax increment financing and partial commercial property tax abatement is that with tax increment financing, the City, County and School District debt is protected; and that this is not the case with the commercial property tax abatement program. Ford continued, stating that they did some preliminary calculations based on the increment, which she noted is the difference between the base value of the property and the valuation of the property after renovations. She stated that it is difficult to project what this will be in the future, after the hotel renovations, but she offered a couple of ways to view this. One would be to look at apost-renovation evaluation that is equal to the highest valuation the hotel has had in the past. This number was $12.1 million, according to Ford. The current valuation is $8.7 million, which means a significant decrease in the value of this property, and thus the property tax revenues for the city, county and school district. Ford stated that with $8.7 million as the base value, if the hotel were to increase in valuation to what it had been previously, the City would see a signifcant increment. In talking with the City Assessor, Ford noted that if he took the current valuation and added back in the obsolescence that has caused the building to decrease in valuation, there is the potential that with renovation the hotel valuation could go as high as $14.7 million. In regards to tax increment financing, Ford noted that the property owners would pay all property taxes due, and then receive a rebate on the portion of taxes related to the improvements (also known as the increment). She stated that if they structured a 7-year tax increment f nancing package for the hotel, based on a post renovation valuation of $12.1 million, tax increment financing would amount to about $1.2 million, and with the increased valuation in the end, the taxing authorities would be ahead $2.97 million over a 20-year period. She continued, giving Members further examples of the tax revenue that the City would realize in the long run. Davidson stated that before the Committee began their discussion, he wanted to mention the easement issue again. He stated that he was present 25 years ago when this was put into place, and that it was a controversial issue then. He further explained that the easement is hotel property with a designation over it that allows the public to use it. This is a concern to the hotel owners, as they feel they do not have control over this area. He explained how this change would be a fairly significant one, and that public input sessions would need necessary. Davidson stated that there is a monetary value to this easement, and that they would need to look at this, as well. He also stated that if the Members have any specific requests for information on these issues or has a particular direction they would like to go, he asks that they let him and Ford know so they can prepare whatever might be needed. Champion asked about the per room cost of renovations. Geshay stated that it depends on the specifc requirements or needs, and that it can run between $7,000 and $40,000 per room. He gave Members some background of the various hotels they have purchased and renovated, Economic Development Committee Meeting April 22, 2008 stating that the average is probably around $20,000 per room. Champion stated that she applauds their desire to improve the hotel. She stated that she does not believe in employee parking being offered free or discounted, and she believes this should not be a factor in such an agreement. The discussion continued, with the owners stating that they are not asking for free parking, that they want to come up with a good agreement for all involved. He noted that they have a large number of employees that this would encompass. Bailey stated that she is interested in seeing this hotel get back into the conference market, and that perhaps having parking for conference attendees would be more important. Hayek stated that his feeling is he is glad the new owners are here and are talking about their plans to upgrade the hotel. He added that in terms of City assistance to help this project along, the question that he feels they have to answer for the community is why this project needs public assistance to become a reality. Hayek stated that in TIF situations, the question is always asked: would this project happen anyway, without the City's assistance. Geshay responded, giving Members some background on the financial makeup of Davidson Hotel Company. He briefly explained why the investment group would need assistance in a project of this magnitude. He added that it also would give the City something to be proud of, and that University and other business would hopefully return with their business to the downtown Iowa City hotel. He noted the City's significant investment already in this area, and that it would be to the City's advantage to have this property rehabilitated to the fullest. Hayek asked if they have a figure in mind that they would spend, if the City did not assist them. Geshay noted that he does not, but that to make this afirst-class facility, they would need to seek assistance. Hayek continued, stating that the redevelopment is not one of a blighted neighborhood, but rather the hotel is blighted. He noted the controversial nature of TIFs and the perception of them, as well. Ford stated that another benefit of a healthy hotel is the 7% hotel/motel tax that the visitors pay. The returns that come back to the City are affected by both the occupancy levels and room rates, and that if either or both are low, the tax revenues reflect that. Bailey asked for some discussion on current room rates and occupancy levels, versus what it was at a high point in the past. She stated that she would be interested in some of these accountability measures, as well. Bailey added that she strongly believes this hotel should remain a quality facility within the downtown. She asked the new owners to address some of these concerns. Geshay addressed these concerns, stating that the occupancy has been in the 60% range, but that they would like to bring it back up to its highest levels. Geshay also addressed what national averages have been and what some of the trends are currently. He spoke about properties in Florida and Texas, and that they would expect to see the occupancy levels here increase in the same manner, once the renovations have been completed. Bailey asked what the average room rate is currently, and what they expect it to be. Geshay answered saying that it is currently around $109 and that it would command $149 when rooms are re-done. He noted they would have to honor some contracts that are below that rate and that they would have to ease into those new rates to regain lost business. Geshay continued to address the Members' concerns. He noted the importance of University business. Champion asked how long a renovated room lasts before it needs renovation again. Geshay and Kim responded to questions, noting that each component has a different life span, and that trends also play into when a hotel renovates. He stated that for "soft goods," such as carpeting, drapes and bedspreads, it is typical to get five years of use. Hard surfaces, such as bathrooms, can be expected to last ten to fifteen years. Hayek brought the conversation back to the easement issue, asking if there is anything from the past agreement that they should know about when reviewing the current request. Davidson stated that he is not aware of anything unusual, that it was a pretty standard easement agreement. Champion then stated that she believes it would not be a good idea to get rid of the easement, but that she is willing to discuss other ways of dealing with this. Discussion continued, with Geshay noting what they are proposing for this area and how they believe this will enhance the area. Economic Development Committee Meeting April 22, 2008 Bailey noted that they will need to further discuss this, and she asked Davidson what direction he needs from them. He stated that some direction in terms of formalizing anything or preparing any specific proposals on this would be appreciated, or if there is anything that has not been suggested that the Members would like to pursue. Davidson continued, touching briefly on a couple of the issues discussed. Ford added that the concept drawings shown are just that, and Members could make recommendations if they so chose. Bailey noted that she is not against the easement issue, but noted that Champion is not interested in doing this. Hayek noted that he is not sure if this is the right solution, but that he would not be against it. Hayek also stated that he would like to get more information on the Sheraton being in the "conference market" and what the owners hope to achieve in this area. Kim addressed some of the concerns in possibly refguring the first floor of the hotel, noting that with some changes here they could expand their conference capabilities. Champion stated that she is open to discussion on all of this, but that she is not ready to make a decision today. Davidson stated that Members should mull this information over, and he asked if they have anything that they would like him and Ford to take care of in the meantime. Hayek stated that he is not ready for any agreements to be reviewed yet, but that he would like to see some numbers, such as proposed investment with assistance and without, and some of the numbers for hotel/motel tax and room rates. Bailey added that she also has an expectation of the occupancy rates, and would like this addressed as well. Champion stated that if they were going to consider a TIF, she would want to have it limited to the life of the improvements. Davidson asked if a majority of the Members would like for them to prepare a preliminary TIF agreement, something to protect themselves, and see if this is something the owners would be interested in. Champion stated that she would also like something more than a concept drawing before she makes any final decisions. Bailey stated that she would like to see something for the City Council to review in May. Champion stated that she does not see the need to rush on this matter, but that she would be willing to have an extra meeting if one is needed in order to expedite this. Davidson noted a meeting on May 20'" would give them time to make a recommendation for Council approval at their June meeting. The Committee held a brief discussion about their major concerns are with regard to parking and financial assistance. Bailey noted that she is willing to look at all three requests, and to go from there with discussions. Geshay noted that parking is an issue that can have an immediate impact, and he asked that the Members consider this. He then asked for clarifcation on the timeline. they might expect in reaching an agreement. Davidson reviewed the process of a public hearing and Council readings, and stated that it would most likely take two meetings to pass this. Bailey stated that Council would need some very specific proposals to respond to, in order for this to move along. Davidson stated that they would try to have something more specific for the May 20`" meeting, so that when they make a recommendation to Council, it will be more specific. TOWNCREST AREA UPDATE: Ford referred to a memo and map regarding the Towncrest area, which provided as a response to their request at the last meeting. She stated that the map shows the exact area in question. She noted that there is a good distribution of CC-2 and CI-1 zones in the area. Ford noted that outside of the black lines on the map are residential properties. She further explained the Towncrest area, noting that the next step they need to take is to consider the area of study that is desired, and whether or not the entire area would be considered an "urban renewal area." They could widen the scope and include the residential area. Ford noted that they need to know what the Committee wants to see for the redevelopment of this neighborhood - to have it continue as a medical campus, for example, and to know what types of businesses the Members are interested in drawing to this area. Ford stated that public input through neighborhood meetings would be the next step, beginning this summer. Champion stated that she would like to hear what the residents and businesses of Economic Development Committee Meeting April 22, 2008 the area has to say, and Davidson stated that it would make sense to gain this input. These people are definitely impacted by the redevelopment area. Hayek questioned the ability to continue this discussion today, as the meeting has gone on so long. He stated that he believes it has promise, but that he does not know what the best mix would be. Hayek also stated that there is a lot more to this area than medical facilities. Bailey stated that she is comfortable with the area designated on the map, and that in thinking of goals, she is looking at increased tax base. She believes talking with those in the neighborhood is a good step to get the information on what is desired. Members agreed that they would like to see a continued mix of commercial, and also see the residential areas improved, with the goal of an increased tax base. Hayek asked for some clarifcation on why there is some residential included, but the majority is not. He stated that perhaps they need to view this as a commercial redevelopment. Davidson and Ford noted that some of the multi-family dwellings are in blighted condition and could be considered for redevelopment. Davidson stated that if Members are comfortable with the area identified, they could start a mailing list for a neighborhood meeting, and work towards that process. Members directed staff to move ahead as Davidson has proposed. STAFF TIME: Ford noted that she brought copies of the Small Business Magazine, and she shared an article mentioning Iowa City. Hightshoe noted that FY08 applications (unable to hear). COMMITTEE TIME: None. ADJOURNMENT: Hayek moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Champion. The meeting adjourned at 10:07 A.M. m c a> a> E 0 U C N E O N > ~ ~ O ~ p U_ N EN O N C - W Q d d z ~E E 0 U c ~o m 0 ay o~ a a~i ~ °o p ~ N V 9 d ~E ~ cQ O V W u C O U N N X X X N X X X M tG N X X X Ih m X X X N N ~ X X X r a W o 0 0 ~ N O N O N O W F- 0 0 0 C O N _ a ~ I Y W Q Z m ~ N ~ t U ~ O U m 2 N ~ O U) N 3 U X W ~ ~ C O O OJ N N N N ~ ~ a¢¢ T II II W_ YXOO IP9 MINUTES PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL VARIOUS TRAIL LOVATIONS -IOWA CITY Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Public Present: CALL TO ORDER PRELIMINARY Mark Seabold, Patrick Carney, Rick Fosse, DaLayne Williamson, Annadora Khan, Jan Finlayson Terry Trueblood Marcia Klingaman, Jeff Davidson, Nate Kabat, Tracy Hightshoe, Terry Robinson Shirley Wyrick, Washington Hills Neighborhood Representative; Jill Harper, Pheasant Hill Park Project Designer Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6 2008 MEETING MOTION: Finlayson moved to approve the minutes; Fosse seconded. The motion passed 7:0. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Marcia informed the committee the "Tunnel Vision" art piece will be installed next Thursday, May 22, 2008 as the Iowa Sculptor's Showcase piece. A brochure announcing the piece to the public will be distributed in lieu of a dedication ceremony. Marcia announced acquisition of the art piece titled "Impermanence Is Inevitable" located on the pedestrian spiral bridge at the corner of Hwy 6 and Iowa Avenue was approved by the City Council. Marcia also told the committee installation of the new B.J. Katz pool wall piece has become a challenge. City engineers were hoping to use stainless steel cables to hang the piece from the ceiling, but learned chlorine can cause stainless steel to fail. Marcia said she is working with city engineers to find a solution; they are looking into using a highergauged cable or other materials. As of now the dedication ceremony is still set for June 6' at noon. Marcia asked Jan to speak at the dedication ceremony. Jan accepted. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes May 15, 2008 Page 2 Shirley Wyrick, Washington Hills Neighborhood Representative, and Jill Harper, Pheasant Hill Park Project Designer, presented the proposal for a neighborhood art project for Pheasant Hill Park. Jill would like to use "characters of imagination" designs from K-12 kids from Hoover and Lemme Elementary schools to create 3-D characters to display in the park. The characters would be used to create a path beginning at Green Mountain Dr. and ending at the playground. She hopes to create 30-35 sculptures with metal interiors and mosaic coverings that would be about 2.5' tall and 2.5' at the base. City High students would be responsible for creating the sculptures. Jill said 2-D mosaic path markers could be used as an alternative, but she was worried about upkeep issues created by grass growth. Jill also showed concepts for an archway that could be used as signage for the park entrance. She said she still needs to refine plans for an arch and get cost estimates as well. She proposed a timeline that would begin in June 2008 with completion in June 2009. Shirley commented Pheasant Hills Park is not well known because it lacks proper signage. She believes this project would help create a needed identity for the park and for Washington Hills neighborhood. She wondered how the kids would be given credit for their work. Shirley also brought up the issue of vandalism and wondered how the project might be affected by a snow fence that is placed in the proposed project area every winter. Jill noted the kids' artwork would include their name and age on the piece. Terry Robinson explained the snow fence is needed to control drifting due to the direction of winds in that part of the park. He said the fence could be made to work if the project was placed in that spot. Jill asked Terry about accessibility requirements that might arise from the project and how the bases should be configured. Terry said grass or woodchips would not be considered fully accessible, so if the project creates a path it would need to be concrete. Terry explained a concrete walkway would add extra expense in both materials and maintenance since it would have to be cleared in the winter. He suggested the figures be placed in an alternating pattern to avoid creating the need for a concrete path. He said the bases should go below the frost line to avoid winter damage and suggested circular shaped bases to make mowing around them easier. Marcia asked how much a base would cost. Terry estimated about $80/base, but noted a round base might cut costs. The committee wondered how much the total cost of this project could be. Marcia stated $15,000 is the amount the City can dedicate to the project. She also said there was a PIN grant given for a bench in the park, which could be integrated into this project as well. Jill asked if the project could be phased to leverage more funds and if funding might be available for a cement walkway. Marcia said the city funding is typically a one time thing, so phasing would not be an option. She also said any costs for the walkway would need to come from the total project budget. The committee agreed the project was good and should keep moving forward. Jill agreed to refine the plans and come up with more specifics for the next meeting. TOUR OF LOCAL TRAILS Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes May 15, 2008 Page 3 To get ideas for possible trail art projects, the committee took a tour of three Iowa City trails. The tour was lead by Terry. Marcia suggested the committee should think about what types of art would be most appropriate for each trail such as progressive signage that would provide an educational component along the trail, a more concentrated sculpture garden on the trail, or something else. Trail #1: South leg of the Iowa River Corridor trail Jeff explained the trail goes up into the nearby subdivision. He said upcoming trail additions will make the area into a major intersection of trails in the near future. Because of the additions, Jeff suggested the committee might want to wait on placing public art here until the area is completed. Trail #2: Court Hill Trail - Marcia told the committee once this trail is completed scheduled for this fall, it will be one of the first residentially oriented trails in Iowa City. Jeff added a crosswalk will be established at Creekside Park across Muscatine Avenue and also on 15' Ave where a refuge island will be installed as well. Trail #3: Water Treatment Plant Terry pointed out the place where a new amphitheater will be built near the trail entrance. He also explained a new dock will be built to allow a universally accessible fishing facility. Rick noted the water well and intake buildings might present a good opportunity for art installments. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm. Next meeting scheduled for June 5, 2008 Minutes submitted by Nate Kabat N N E E 0 U 0 N Q Q U ~ ~ ao Y N U~~ m ~' 3 m ~ ova ~. E ~ -a O L V O U ~~ 00 .' L„ N ~^ U O 'b CC Q ~ G L ~~i Q r X ~ X X X X >C ~ ~ M i i i i ~ 0 ~ ~ x ~ ~ N i i O ~ x x ~ O ~ ~ x .-r i i Vl am .-r ~ O --~ ~ O ~+ y , .ti ~ .--i \ .~--i .~. \ \ \ a~ k 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ W ... 0 .~ 0 r-. 0 .~ 0 .~ 0 '.. 0 C O .Li y ~N~++ C. 'O ~ 'n C° ~ b ~ °o _ '~ U ~ O ~' O L ~ ~ L z ~ ~ ~ y ~ V ~ y ~ L ~ a~ ~-! ~ O ~ c3 a fJi ~ L .~ L ~ G z Q L oa A Q = ~ ~ a+ a U u: L H b 7 U k '-' +-' ~i N ~ ~ N N y ~ ~ aQ¢ lY4 1^. O O IP10 MINUTES Preliminary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 12, 2008 - 6:30 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie Eastham STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen, Ron Knoche OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Smith CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. It was noted that Greenwood-Hektoen and Eastham would have to depart early and that Howard arrive late. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB06-00003 & SU608-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat and a final plat (respectively) of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. The 45-day limitation period is May 25, 2008 for the preliminary plat and June 8, 2008 for the final plat. Miklo began by addressing concerns brought up by Galway Hills residents at the last Commission meeting. Residents had expressed concerns about traffic volume if the road connection between Galway Hills and Walden Hills to the south were completed. Miklo said that the connection would allow Galway Hills residents to exit their subdivision to the south, just as it would allow Walden Hills residents to exit their subdivision to the north. Miklo said that it could be assumed that some additional traffic would use the neighborhood, but that traffic planners think it will be limited. Miklo pointed out that Mormon Trek only has only a few traffic signals in that area and that as a result it would remain the fastest route. An updated traffic count was done by transportation planners, given the concerns residents had brought forward that the previous count could be flawed if it was not taken while school was in session. Miklo stated that in order for a collector street to be considered overburdened it would have to have 2,500 vehicle trips per day. The new traffic counts were much in line with the previous ones, showing approximately 700 trips per day on Dublin and 700 trips per day on Shannon, for a combined total of under 1,500. He noted that only a percentage of the traffic from Shannon would travel to the north and some of that would be offset by traffic from Galway Hills being able to travel to the south once the connection is made. Regarding the concern about additional West High students using the street if it were connected, Miklo said that there were 120 enrolled students west of Highway 218. Even if every one of those students began using this road when it was completed, the traffic counts would still remain well under 2,500 vehicle trips per day. A positive aspect of the completion of the road would be that city services would be improved to the area and transit services could be established. Miklo said that the overall vehicle trips and miles traveled may actually go down if the road is connected and this was important towards minimizing greenhouse gasses. Next, Miklo addressed the issue of park design that had raised concerns among current Galway Hills residents. Miklo said that the greatest difficulty in alleviating these concerns is that the north part of Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 2 Shannon Drive is fixed, having been built by the Walden Hills developer to a certain point. Miklo believes that rebuilding the road so that it does not run through the middle of the park would not be financially feasible or justified based on traffic projections and the great cost of doing such a project. He said that if there are issues with traffic flow or speeds, the area could become eligible for traffic calming. Miklo said that taking traffic calming measures beyond those already built into the street design before knowing if there would be traffic problems and what those traffic problems would be, would not be advisable. Eastham remarked that Shannon seems to narrow as it goes north. Miklo said that that may be because of the culvert in that area. Eastham said that he did have some concerns about the park-land issues, and wondered if the City had accepted responsibility for the parks at this point. Miklo said that the City had not. Eastham wondered if the City intended to buy playground equipment for the park area, and expressed concern for the marshy- ness of the area. Koppes suggested that the community could use part or all of the space as a community gardening lot. Eastham asked what the parking policy on the through streets would be, if there would be any restrictions, and if parking policies might affect speeds. Miklo responded that in the traffic counts done the week prior, speeds seemed pretty typical of similar neighborhoods, and that as a collector street, there would be no restrictions on parking unless requested by the neighbors. Miklo added that the issue of West High students using the street for parking was not observed during the traffic counts. Miklo stated that he was recommending approval of both the preliminary and final plats for this project. Koppes asked if there were any mitigating factors that would even legally allow the Commission to deny this project. Greenwood-Hektoen remarked that legally the Commission did not really have a basis for denial. Miklo remarked that in general a pretty compelling reason was required for the Commission to deny a plat that has met all other approval criteria. Eastham asked if there were comments obtained from the Police Chief regarding connector streets. Miklo said that there had not specifically been comments on this project, but that the position of emergency services was generally that the more connector streets the better. Eastham and Koppes agreed that public transportation becoming available in the area was a positive change. Plahutnik said that the issue of street connectivity would be an important factor in his decision. SU608-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 201ot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Lamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is May 28, 20085. Miklo stated that this was a procedural matter, having been mistakenly left off of the last meeting's agenda. There was no discussion held on the matter. CONDITIONAL USE ITEM: 0008-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Agudas Achim Congregation to establish a cemetery on 4.12 acres of property located south of Linder Road, west of Prairie du Chien Road. Miklo stated that this was a conditional use application being submitted to provide for expansion of an existing cemetery. The plan includes 7off-street parking spots in addition to the parking provided along Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 3 the side of the cemetery road. Staff is recommending approval of the plan. Freerks noted the wooded area in photographs shown by Miklo and asked if this was considered a sensitive area. Miklo replied that the County, in whose jurisdiction this cemetery lay, has its own sensitive areas ordinances which would govern the County's actions for the area. The item was before the City because the cemetery was within the City/County fringe area and County regulations allow for City input in these cases. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 75, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. It was decided to go through the staff-prepared matrix entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Staff Recommended Draft of the Subdivision Code," dated April 25, 2008, discussing each of the items individually. Item #1: Amend the definition of "Alley," deleting the word "abutting." This item was withdrawn by the original requestors. Item #2: Amend definition of "Boundary Line Adjustment" defining it as a certain percentage of a lot rather than 1,000 square feet." Staff expressed reservations about changing this as Staff had experienced no instances in which the current definition had been a problem, and was concerned for the ramifications of this with a large piece of property. Item #3: Request for clarification: What is a "public open space improvement?" Staff stated that this is defined in City code and is a generally understood term. Koppes agreed that no clarification was needed. Freerks asked if the submitting developer, Glen Siders, had expressed why he felt the need for clarification. Plahutnik wondered where the quote was taken from. Howard stated that the quote was from the section of the code defining "improvement," and that the City does not want to accept open space as an improvement until the lots are built. Item #4: 15-1-7B Clarify when a full release will be granted by the City for storm water facilities. The City Engineer, Ron Knoche, stated that the new language would allow for a little more flexibility to accept improvements prior to completion of the subdivision. He said that with the adoption of the new Construction Site Run-off Permit, it will become even less of an issue. Koppes asked what the City does with the land used for stormwater detention. Knoche replied that some of these areas become city parks, some are maintained by the homeowner's association for the area, and some are maintained by the developer. Howard said that the request was for clarification on when a full release will be granted. Weitzel stated that the main concern was to avoid having a bunch of lots with soil eroding throughout the city. Plahutnik asked for clarification on whether a release was granted when the project was finished or when the City Engineer said so. Howard said that typically all infrastructures would have to be in place before that release was granted, so this provision would allow the flexibility for the City to accept the land earlier if the City Engineer determined that erosion would not be problem, for example, if all the lots surrounding the detention basin were developed f rst. Item #5: Include language providing for one mandatory staff review, with any further review at the discretion of the applicant, who may choose in the alternative to petition the Planning and Zoning Commission of review. Delete language prohibiting plats proceeding to the Commission when there are more than 6 deficiencies. Howard pointed out that a plat can already go to the Commission without Staff recommendation. Koppes asked how the number 6 deficiencies had been settled on. Miklo stated that in the past it was not uncommon to f nd plats with 20 or more deficiencies coming before the Commission, and that the Commission asked not to see anything with more than 6 deficiencies. Howard explained the nature of a technical deficiency versus a disagreement on subjective design issues. Koppes asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 4 word "technical" might be inserted prior to "deficiency" to clarify the matter. Miklo explained that design issues were a matter of policy disagreements whereas deficiencies were a matter of inaccurate or missing information required by code. Freerks asked if defciency could at least be defined to clarify matters. Howard suggested that because deficiencies covered a vast area of possible errors in a number of fields, defining it might be difficult. Howard and Miklo agreed to consult with the City Attorney's office and the Public Works Department about the possibility of defining this term. Item #6: Request that all departments reviewing the plat must provide their written comments to the applicant within 20 business days. Freerks asked if this was 20 business days from when the application comes in or 20 days from when the application is complete. Howard stated that if applications are complete when they are received comments are typically back to the applicant well before 20 days, because the application, if complete, would be put on the P&Z agenda approximately 2 weeks after received. If, however, the application is incomplete or has a lot of discrepancies, there may be a number of revisions necessary before they are ready to be sent to P&Z. If there are changes made to the documents after they are returned to the applicant, then Staff has to review them again, generating new comments. Miklo stated that an applicant usually knows within a week if their application is too incomplete to fully review. Item #7: Request that any code deficiencies be clearly cited to the corresponding existing City code or ordinance provision. Howard stated that since the vast majority of plats are prepared by the same consulting firm, the City's engineering standards are well known. The reviewing engineer will redline the plat noting any corrections that need to be made. Requiring the engineer to reference each detailed engineering specification would likely cause unnecessary delay and redundancy. Most of the codes, other than perhaps zoning which is slightly more discretionary, are very clear-cut and self-explanatory. Written comments are given to the developer explaining what deficiencies need to be resolved. Staff prefers to maintain the current flexibility to work with developers rather than codifying such an arrangement that may actually slow down the process. Weitzel said that it sounded as if developers were insinuating that there was something capricious or arbitrary governing some of these non-compliance issues. Freerks asked if this was a frequent problem. Miklo said that if Staff cannot point to a City code, then it becomes an issue of design, and design issues are not defciencies. Item # 8: 15-2363 Amend the language so that a digital copy of the plat is only required after everything has been finalized. Howard stated that only the final plat is required to be compatible with the County's GIS system. Early digital copies can be in simple pdf form and helps to reduce unnecessary paperwork as revisions are made. Staff suggested making this distinction clear in the code. Item #9: 15-2-3C-9e: Delete this paragraph because there are a lot of possibilities for things to become "peculiar," a term which is not defined. Howard stated that the term "peculiar" is used quite frequently in City code and it means unique or specific to. It is not new language. This allows subdivider's agreements to be tailored to the specific property being subdivided. Item #10:15-23A-5 Delete this provision or provide further guidance as to its purpose and scope. Howard stated that current wording is intended to benefit the applicant and allow the flexibility for minor changes between preliminary and final plats. Staff suggested changing the language to make this section more clear. Item #11: 15-236 8 C Add a new subparagraph to 15-236 and a new subparagraph to 15-23C that would require a note on the final plat and in the sub-divider's agreement to the effect that notes on plats are not intended to create any stated use- restriction or covenant or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use restriction or covenant. This change was requested by the City Attorney due to a recent court case. Item #12: Delete paragraphs A2, 3 and 4, plus various questions submitted by Glen Siders regarding this section. This section adds language establishing standards for street connectivity. There is currently no Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 5 language in the code regarding this issue to give the applicant, staff or the Commission any guidance with regard to review of proposed streets within a subdivision. Howard stated that Staff position is that it is better to have a code that provides guidelines so that reviews can be fair and consistent over time. Item #13:15-3-2B-2 Clarify what the additional "projected traffic generation" calculations or methodology the City will utilize and rely upon. Howard said that the City uses the ITE traffic generation manual and local traffic counts and studies to project traffic generation. These are industry accepted methods. Item #14: 15-3-2C Street Types -Retain current right-of-way standards as sufficient minimums. Howard stated that even with an increased right-of-way, Staff does not anticipate much loss in lots, as lot lines can be adjusted to accommodate it. Miklo stated that staff reviewed various plats to determine if increasing the ROW widths to better accommodate bicycles and street trees would affect the number of lots that could be achieved and found that since most lots were not exactly at the minimum lot size, boundaries could be adjusted so that there was no net loss in the number of lots achieved. Item #15:15-3-2C Street Types -Clarify when and who has the discretion to choose between a 26 and 28 for pavement width for cul-de-sacs and local residential streets. Howard said that the intention was to let the developer decide based on the neighborhood needs. Item # 16: Table 15-1 -The request from Bob Elliot was to not reduce the street pavement width for local residential streets from 28 feet to 26 feet. Howard stated that a narrower pavement width generally equals lower traffic speeds. Item # 17: 15-3-2F-3 Delete language requiring adjacent property owners to maintain landscaped areas within medians of cul-de-sacs and loop streets. Miklo said that generally what happened is the homeowner's association takes it over, or people in the neighborhood just informally take care of it. Plahutnik pointed out that "adjacent property owners" could be deleted as it does not matter to the City who does it so long as someone is responsible. Staff will consult with legal prior to making any modifications to the language. The Commission indicated little interest in requiring the City to maintain the grassy areas of all cul de sac bulbs in the City, since this was not parkland or open space that was benefiting the public at large. Item #18: 15-3-2H-5 Develop specifications for the construction of emergency service turnarounds. Howard said these specifications are in the International Fire Code. Public Works and Fire Code standards are not in the subdivision code; they are in separate documents. Item #19: 15-3-2J Private Streets -Question about designating responsibility for maintaining private streets and the procedures and financing of such services. Howard stated that while there may be appropriate places for private streets, the City generally discourages them as often people are unaware that they live on a private street and expect the City to solve maintenance issues. Item #20: 15-3-3G Remove this paragraph regarding mid-block pedestrian connections or extend the length of the block before requiring one. Delete subparagraph 1 in its entirety. Amend subparagraph 2 to allow for current maximum block lengths of 2,000 feet. Amend subparagraph 3 to allow for current minimum block lengths along arterial streets. In subparagraph 4, delete the 900-foot maximum cul-de- sac length and substitute "1000 feet." Howard stated that currently there is not much of a standard for block length. While it is best to have more streets with greater connectivity, where that is not possible, mid-block pedestrian connections are an alternative method of achieving connectivity at least for pedestrians and bicyclists. Plahutnik asked if there were instances where it could be waived. Miklo said that language allows the City to waive for example when there is no apparent destination. Item #21: 15-3-46-4 Exempt corner lots from this standard that requires double-fronting lots to be 125% of the required lot area. Howard stated that this was not the intention of the code language. It was intended for lots with parallel frontages. She said that language could be added to exempt double- Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 6 fronting corner lots. Item #22: 15-3-46-7 Clarify that only "public open spaces" as defined by Code are subject to subparagraph 7. Howard stated that staff was at a loss of how to make the language more clear. Freerks and Plahutnik agreed. Item #23: 15-3-4C Provisions To Minimize the Effect of Highway Noise -Delete this subsection in its entirety. Weitzel stated that good design maintains property values and makes quality of life better for those who live in the area. He maintained that certain people would beneft from being able to develop right up to the white line. Howard stated that the federal government encourages local jurisdictions to create standards for residential development near high volume roadways, such as interstate highways. Howard said that some people do not realize how loud the traffic can be when purchasing homes along the interstate and the noise level varies from summer to winter. Miklo said the best solution in their view is to develop that land for non-residential uses, but requiring a buffer area was the minimum necessary. Item #24:15-3-5B -Create an incentive and reward sub-dividers who voluntarily create open space by providing credits towards the required fees in lieu. Howard stated that this was an interesting idea but that it would require further study. Plahutnik stated that this Was a recipe for gated communities with one entrance. Miklo said that Staff recommends coming back to this, putting it on the pending list, and studying it with the Parks & Recreation Commission. Koppes said that Windsor Ridge has all of that park space that is really the backyards of the residents, with no access other than through private property. Miklo reiterated that Staff would like to look at this idea in more detail, but recommended no change at this time. Item #25: Delete this subsection. Howard said this is only across-reference to public works codes and so should not create any conflict with actual regulations. Item # 26: Delete the words "and beyond, as necessary." Knoche commented that there are times when there are topographical constraints or issues with some neighbors not allowing it to be extended for example in which this language becomes necessary to ensure that neighboring properties can be developed in the future. Item #27: Amend subparagraph A to include only projects that have not received final plat approval as opposed to "constructed." Delete subsections B and C. Staff agrees to amend the paragraph in this manner. The developer typically works it out with the Post Office; the City would like to be involved to potentially add their voice to the decision if need be. Staff is against deleting subsections B and C. Item #28: Delete subsection15-3-12B -Staff is against deleting this subsection. Item #29: 15-3-14C Delete "at its discretion, may' and insert "shall." Howard said the intent behind this language was to avoid leap-frog development and amending the language would tie the City Council's hand with regard to setting priorities for capital improvements. Weitzel asked the best procedure for making motions to make changes in the Formal Meeting. Miklo said that the best thing to do would be to make motions to make changes for the ones the Commission wished to change. It was decided not to go through the entire matrix at the formal meeting, but to identify those things they wish to change and then make their motions. Koppes asked when the Commission would be voting on aVice-Chair. It was decided that this would be placed on the agenda for June 2, 2008. There were no further questions or concerns Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 2008 Page 7 ADJOUNRMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. C O .N N ~E E U v O1 O C U •~ d K N ~ o ~ ~ N ~A c a ~c y A Q a U 3 O y X X X X ~ ~ ~ X a X X X X X X p l X X X X X X X ~ M X X X X X X p ~ X X X X X ~ ~ '~' X X X X X O X ~ ~ O ~ c+J N O ~ ~ O ~ ~ M _ N ~ N ~ N N N N ~(1 F-IL 0 0 0 O O O O o E ?'< c Y t ~ 0 7 C t d o ~ d A ~ w d E m w ~i Y° a ai ai 3 z ro U Q ui ~ O F- F ~ N ~ X X X X I X a X X X X X X X l X X X X r O O O 1 C r X X X X w 0 w_ 0 W_ 0 I 1 ~ d ~ 0 ~_ ~"1 N O O ~ M N u 7 ~ ~ N in N in N F- I L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y E N ` N ~ Y C c O C O O Y ~ O L C A Y ~ m` w d li Y° A a usi ai d 3 z m ci ¢ ui 3 o ~ ~ d X W N ~ N ~~a a¢¢ I I n u w_ YXOO Ub-U~•U~ IP11 MINUTES Preliminary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Ann Freerks, Robert Brooks, Wally Plahutnik, Charlie Eastham STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: .Carter LeaVesseur, Noah Stevens, Candice Stevens, Jay LeaVesseur, Nancy LeaVesseur, Charlotte Bailey, Dan Smith RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 SU606-00003, an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 SUBOS-00005, an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a final plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 7 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin & Shannon Drive. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 SU608-00002, an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Learner Court, and Marietta Avenue. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 an application submitted by Agudas Achim Congregation to establish a cemetery on 4.12 acres of property located south of Linder Road, west of Prairie du Chien Road. Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 amending regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUBO6-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. The 45-day limitation period is May 25, 2008. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 2 Freerks asked for staff comments. Miklo stated that the full staff report was given at the last meeting and is available online for anyone who is interested in it. The basic information concerning the plat is that it is 51 single family lots, with 2 out-lots for the storm water management system and 2 out-lots to be added to the existing green space. Miklo stated that at the last meeting there were concerns expressed regarding increased traffic in the area, specifically on Dublin Drive, which along with the extension of Tipperary and Shannon Drive, is designed to be a collector street to funnel traffic from Galway Hills and Walden Wood to Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue. These are collector streets which are considered to be overburdened when they carry 2,500 or more vehicles per day. City transportation planners project that the addition of the 51-lots in Galway Hills Part 10 & 11, the existing traffic in Galway Hills itself, traffic in Walden Woods that will choose to go north, and general traffic in the area will add up to roughly 1,500 trips per day using that street network. This projection was based on traffic counts that were taken in August 2007. At the last meeting concerns were expressed that this count was taken in mid-August prior to the start of the school year and thereby failing to include traffic from West High students. As a result, traffic planners took a new count last week, which found the count to be consistent with that taken in August 2007, with roughly 600-700 vehicle trips per day on Dublin Drive and roughly 700 vehicles trips per day on Shannon Drive. An additional count was taken on Sunday to account for the perceived increased traffc due to church services, and again it was roughly 600 trips per day, slightly less than the weekday count. It was found that the increased traffic generated by the church on Sunday was off-set by the decreased general traffic in the neighborhood on that day, a pattern consistent with other neighborhoods throughout the city. Based on these measurements and projections, the transportation planners, do not feel that this street will be overburdened. Miklo reiterated that in the event that it becomes overburdened in the future there are traffic calming techniques that can be applied, and that the streets have been designed with inherent traffc calming features such as turns which are intended to discourage through-traffic in the neighborhood. Miklo pointed out that there will be some benefts to the inter-connected street network for area residents: it will make it easier for the City to provide services to the area, especially emergency services such as f re and police. The Fire Marshall has confirmed that the more ways in and out of a neighborhood the better it is for their department, especially in an emergency situation where one road might be blocked. Miklo also addressed a question raised in the previous meeting regarding the relationship of the street to the open space and the Willow Creek trail network which is in a temporary form in that area. If this subdivision is built out, the W Ilow Creek Trail in this area will be rebuilt and improved to its permanent state. Actually moving the road (Shannon Drive) in relation to the open space, as suggested by residents in a previous meeting, would be difficult as the road has already been built at great expense by the developer of Walden Hills. There was no immediate beneft to the residents if Walden Hills when that portion of the road was built. It was built exclusively to provide connectivity to other neighborhoods at a later date. Redesigning this subdivision to move that road in relationship to the park would be a great expense and one of questionable value given the traffic projections for the area. Miklo stated that the plat, as submitted, does meet all zoning requirements, subdivision requirements, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and what it calls for for this neighborhood, so at this point staff recommends that the preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11 be approved. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked if it was still the position of staff that, as stated in the staff report, in order for bus service to be extended to that area it needed to be a connected street. Miklo stated that in terms of serving the west side, the Transit Department would like to create a loop in that area and this street is necessary to do that; there is not another option. Weitzel asked if Shannon Drive would be widened at all. Miklo replied that it will be a 31-foot street once it gets over the culvert, which is standard for a collector street, and it is the same width that Dublin Drive is built to. Freerks opened the Public Hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 3 The developer was invited to comment f rst, but no one came forward to speak. Eastham disclosed that he went out to visit the proposed site after the last meeting and that while he was there he had a conversation with a resident that had been present at the previous meeting. The general topic of the conversation was regarding the process that the Commission went through in making its decisions. Eastham wished to state this in the interest of full disclosure. Carter LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, stated that he would not like to have the road put in because he and his friends are kind of small and a lot of times adults driving cars would not be able to see them when they were there. They do not want to be hit by cars so near their bike path. Noah Stevens, 2459 Ireland Drive, stated that he agreed with Carter. He bikes to school on the current path often and feels it would be very likely he would be hit if there was athrough-road there. Candice Stevens, 2459 Ireland Drive, had a question about the traffic on Melrose Avenue. She stated that it is difficult already to get out of the neighborhood onto Melrose at certain times of day, and she wondered if there were any plans to alleviate that problem of getting onto Melrose. Miklo stated that Melrose Avenue is an arterial street and that transportation planners did look at that. There are 12,000 trips per day on Melrose, which is not unusual for an arterial street, and is what it was designed for. The transportation planners did look to see if there was a way to synchronize the lights at West High and the one closer to the interstate. The difficulty there is that this is an unusual traffic signal designed specifically to provide better access to West High, and there was not much the transportation planners believed that they could do in terms of synchronization of the signal. They anticipate that some of the traffic from this subdivision is going south and will have the option to take Shannon Drive and Rohret Road. There was not much hope of improving the situation on Melrose. Freerks asked what type of criteria was usually used to look at replacing a traffic signal. Miklo replied that it was not actually about replacing the light, but that there would need to be a warrant to have other traffic lights installed in the area. The traffic counts from Dublin and Galway indicate there are not and probably never will be enough traffic trips per day to warrant a light at that intersection. Jay LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, stated that he would like to take an opportunity for a quick math exercise. LeaVesseur stated that the Melrose Meadows traffic counts alone were 281 cars per day, there were 678 cars that were past Melrose Meadows (not Melrose Meadows traffic), with 51 new lots coming in at 7 trips per day, the numbers are up to about 1,400-1,500, 650 cars coming off of Rohret Road into the other subdivision, and still no car counts are given to anyone on Hunter's Run and the whole Weber side of town which has grown dramatically faster than anyone could have anticipated. LeaVesseur stated that all of those people are going to need to come over to Northwest Junior High, and to take Camp Cardinal over to the mall area. LeaVesseur stated that Galway Hills will become the shortcut, and that all of the traffic counts he stated were getting perilously close to 2,500. He encouraged the Commission not to wait to solve a traffc problem after the fact if they chose to approve the plat. He said it seemed likely that there is going to be a traffic problem heading into the situation, and that it was best to try to incorporate solutions to those problems now by making restrictions on the road or putting some traffic calming measures in at this point in time. Overall, LeaVesseur stated, that he understood that it would be a great expense to move the road, but that the road is still going through the only green space in the subdivision. He understood that the road had valid reasons for going through and that it has been in the Comprehensive Plan for twenty years, but he stated that the demographics are changing, the counts have changed and that it is not an unimaginable scenario that the traffic counts will be as high as the residents are fearing. He thinks the math is flirting around those numbers already. Miklo clarified that the guidelines for a collector street being overburdened is 2,500 vehicle trips per day at the mid-point of the street. The traffic from the elderly housing project was not taken into account because that traffic is not likely to go in that direction, at least not much of it. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 4 Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, stated that she had a problem with the way the new traffic count was done and felt that it was a bit dishonest not to put the traffic counters so that they included traffic from the retirement community. She believes the counters were not put in the right spot and that as a result the traffic counts are off. She fears that their community will become "Gateway Hills" rather than Galway Hills, and that the Commission is underestimating the amount of traffic that will be coming through the neighborhood and that having a park with a street through it is dangerous. She said that she understood the desire to make it a through street to provide city services, but she does not believe that the benefits will be for the Galway Hills neighborhood as there are already two exists in their neighborhood. What she believes is actually the case is that the focus is getting the services over to the over-populated area near Weber which currently does not have a fire department or another way out of their area. She would have felt better about the project if another exist onto Melrose or Mormon Trek had been created for the people in the Weber neighborhood, so that cutting through Galway Hills was not such an attractive option. LeaVesseur said that while she understands that this was the deal that was made fifteen or twenty years ago, the plan no longer makes sense, and it is the residents of Galway Hills who will be stuck with it. She feels it funnels too much traffic through their subdivision, will be dangerous, and will lower their property values, and she believes that no one at the meeting would appreciate the same things happening to their subdivision. She asked the Commissioners to really think about what they would be doing. Charlotte Bailey, 6 Kearney Court, stated that none of the Galway Hills residents were trying to be alarmist, and that they all know roads are important and that the more roads connected in different directions means the more options traffic has to flow. She stated that she believed that the people living south of Galway Hills who do not have another way to get their children to Northwest Junior High, the mall, or to West High are really the issue. The traffic coming in and out of Melrose Meadows still creates traffic at the Melrose intersection and contributes to back-ups, even if they do not drive deep into the subdivision. Changing the math on the number of trips the new residents will generate does not really change the issue or the problem for Galway Hills residents. The other issue she wished to address was not just the volume of traffic, but also the speed of traffic. She wondered if the data that was collected on the most recent count included speed information. Bailey believes that if there is a combination of volume of traffic and speed of traffic then this should be taken into consideration. She believes that speeds increase in the straightaway portions of road nearest the path that was put in for kids living in Galway to walk to West High, and that this presents a danger. Another questions she posed regarding the traffic counter placement as it relates to the issue of speed, was that if you came up with speed data, would the data be collected to show only average speeds. This was significant, Bailey said, because turning traffic of those living in Galway Hills would obviously reflect lower rates of speed than through traffic that would be using Galway Hills as a thoroughfare. She would encourage the Commission to take this fact into consideration if they were given speed information. She reiterated a statement she made at the meeting a few weeks ago, saying that the residents there wanted to be part of a positive process, and that if most of the key decisions that can be made about a plan are made prior to a plat being presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, then this is a hard place to be heard for the first time. She encouraged the Commission to look at the process, because it is hard to come and try to be heard when the majority of key decisions have already been made. Freerks asked if there were any other speakers who would like to address the Commission on this topic. None came forward. Miklo stated that there is a similar connection proposed for west of Highway 218 in the Country Club Estates subdivision which would provide a circuitous connection between Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue. When that development occurs, Miklo stated, the Commission will have a similar question before them. Freerks asked what the timeline on that project would be. Miklo did not feel comfortable giving an actual timeframe as that would be determined by the developer. Miklo also pointed out that there were several residents from Galway Hills present during the Southwest Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 5 District planning, and that discussion of this connection did come out at that time. Freerks asked when this took place. Miklo believes it was 2002. Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, pointed out that in 2002 Camp Cardinal Road was not open yet, and that it's opening changes everything. LeaVesseur did not believe the issue with Country Club Estates would be comparable to the Galway Hills situation, as a connected street there would be used by those in the subdivision, not by several other subdivisions trying to get out. LeaVesseur stated that Galway Hills in comparison with other subdivisions in the area is tiny. She also stated that the person who came to talk to the Commission in 2002 would have been the developer, not the residents who actually live there, and the population over by Weber was not as large at the time. LeaVesseur said that it might have been a different story if they had connected the other street first, from a subdivision to a major road, but that what is being done in this project is taking a cluster of subdivisions and making a gateway road for them through one very small subdivision. LeaVesseur added that the Melrose Meadows counts are really very important as they would reflect the difficulty of trying to get out of the subdivision in the morning. She reiterated that because Melrose Avenue is so overburdened, all of the increased traffic in the Galway Hills area would cause traffic in the mornings to become stuck and backed-up. She believes the Commission would be making a big mistake to approve the plan. Freerks invited the public to comment further. No one came forward. The public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to approve SUB-06-00003, an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive and Shannon Drive. Plahutnik seconded Freerks invited discussion from the Commission Brooks stated his agreement with many of the concerns the residents expressed about the traffc, and as a result, he was not sure that he was ready to support the plat. He stated that he knew it conformed to the master plan, the concept that was developed in 2002, but he agrees that making this the only connection to Melrose from the west side of Highway 218 will increase traffic in the area. He does not believe that the curves in the plan are enough of a deterrent to discourage using the new connection as a cut-through. He stated that he has real problems with the way the area has been developed and what appears to be the lack of street planning to get the traffic moving through neighborhoods to the destinations they seek. He stated that he was not sure what the answer was to this, but that he was not sure he was going to support the plat. Eastham stated that in considering this application he began where he always begins and that is with the Comprehensive Plan. It is clear that the Comprehensive Plan supports a connector street between Rohret Road and Melrose at this approximate location. Eastham visited the area both to look at the potential traffic and utilization issues, as well as the parkland issue. He believes it is a relatively adequate amount of parkland for the subdivision. The only major issue he saw to resolve was the connection between Rohret and Melrose. In considering the matter, he asked himself what was different about this situation and others in the community where two major arterials needed to be connected through existing subdivisions. He was unable to convince himself that this was an unusual or unique situation. He believes there is an adequate alternative for traffic flowing west and north by taking Mormon Trek Boulevard to Melrose Avenue, and believes that most people will continue to take that route. Eastham believes that the route and the traffic calming designs will discourage cut-through traffic, and that it will not present an attractive alternative to Mormon Trek. Eastham feels a great obligation to heed the Fire Marshall's statement that connector streets are very important for public safety overall, whether or not they are utilized in a particular instance; it is simply wise policy in the community to encourage connector streets. The bus service is of concern to Eastham due to the concentration of people, especially the substantial numbers of senior citizens and people with disabilities, and families of lower income in the Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 6 area. Extending bus service to the area will ensure some transportation is available to those families and individuals. For all of these reasons, Eastham stated that he is reasonably comfortable with supporting this application. In the future, Eastham stated, it may be a good idea for neighborhood associations in the area to get together and promote bus usage to alleviate some of the traffic. Eastham said that if traffic speed becomes a problem it can be handled with the installation of traffic calming devices in the future. Eastham said that his family has lived on two major streets and has some experience with traffic, and the family did adapt to the busy traffic. He stated his intention to support the plan. Plahutnik stated that part of sitting on the Commission and voting is making sure that they have not made a snap decision, but that they have thought through their decisions. Plahutnik stated that he is on-record as being anti-sprawl and pretty much anti-development. If within the confines of the Comprehensive Plan he could deny any of this, he would. Plahutnik added that that statement goes back as far as the rest of Galway Hills, Hunter's Run, and all of the rest of the sprawl that has spread out from Iowa City. This, however, is not the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Plahutnik stated that from what he heard, it sounded as though the Commission or staff designed this subdivision. Plahutnik stated that this land belongs to somebody else who has property rights over the land. The developer has designed the subdivision in a process with staff being there to make sure that at every step the developer is complying with the rules that have been set down. That, said Plahutnik, is staff's job. Plahutnik stated that to the extent that staff can nudge a developer in a direction that is more beneficial to the community, he believes that we haves pretty enlightened staff which does that. Plahutnik believes that the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is being misunderstood. The Commission is there to ensure that development is fulfilling the letter of the law. In this instance, the developer has worked well within the recommendations of staff, Plahutnik said. The main concern brought forward by the residents seems to be traffic. The bulk of traffic in the area, according to Plahutnik, will continue to be that of residents. Plahutnik put forth the question for consideration of whether or not residents of a community will drive responsibly within that community. He believes that speed issues have been addressed pretty well by the street design and that if it turns out they are not adequately addressed, they can be resolved in relatively short order. Plahutnik wished to make the point that this is really no longer a subdivision; it is a part of Iowa City. He states that he lives right on Gilbert Street and that the traffic does not present an irresolvable issue for his family; that it has worked across America in hundreds of communities since the post-War years when traffic began steadily increasing. It is time some city services were provided to the area, as the city is filling in. Plahutnik said that as in-fill happens, the areas left as isolated subdivisions will soon be few. For these reasons, and for the reasons Eastham articulated -f re and police coverage, bus service-Plahutnik supports this application, and commends the developer for working within the framework and working with the City so well. Plahutnik stated that the stubbing for all of these properties and the fact that the road was to be filled in has been there for all to see for quite some time, and should not be a surprise. Koppes stated that she will support the plat. She has some concerns about traffc, but feels that she must go with what the traffic planners have been reporting, which is that there will not be a traffic problem. If traffic becomes a problem, she believes it should go right back to the City immediately. Concerning the park, Koppes suggested the idea of a community garden space for the neighborhood. The bus routes will not present a traffic problem, according to Koppes' experiences, and will provide benefit to the neighborhood. Koppes pointed out that every neighborhood has some traffic concerns, but that part of filling in the city is connecting such streets. Weitzel agreed that traffic was a pervasive problem in the community, and is everybody's problem. Weitzel does not believe that traffic is a reason to stop this project. He does not see how we could take one section of the community and say that it does not have to have roads through it, but everyone else does. The positive sides of the street connection are in providing fire safety and police security. Weitzel stated that he would like to see a wetland and a prairie there instead of a subdivision, but that that is just not going to happen. Weitzel said that the subject had to be viewed fairly and from the vantage point that an allowance for some sort of growth must be made. Weitzel stated that this was not a new plan; the subdivision has been growing for some time. He stated that the street design and topography allowed for some natural traffic controls and that in the event that traffic became a problem in the future, traffic- Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 7 calming measures could be implemented. Weitzel encouraged those present to think in terms of wild optimism and toward the future when perhaps cars were not needed, or were much smaller, or everyone rode the bus. He stated that there are a lot of reasons why this plan has met the necessary criteria, although he can see why the residents are upset about it. Weitrel recounted that he lived in a subdivision that had a neighboring subdivision come in and to which current residents were opposed. He said that though many were upset about the idea of it, no one really talked about it anymore. He acknowledged that change in your neighborhood is a difficult thing, and that traffic is a back and forth thing that everyone in the community lives with. He stated his support for the project. Freerks agreed with many of the comments presented and said that she did not know what she could add that would be much different. She stated that the plat was in agreement with the Concept Plan that was developed long ago and the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said that there were opportunities to get involved at earlier stages, and that people need to make themselves aware of the plans for their area and realize that streets will be connected eventually. Freerks believed that the curves will help with traffic calming and that speed is an issue all over the community. She urges residents to address the problem immediately if they do experience speed issues in the future. She stated that it would be negligent in their duties as the Planning and Zoning Commission to not allow for this connection of streets. Freerks stated that she lives on a secondary arterial and has a four year old and a nine year old who have learned to respect the cars. Part of living in Iowa City is everyone sharing the roads. Freerks stated that while she knew residents would not be happy with this decision, the connection is part of the bigger plan. She thanked residents for their input and advised them that they could contact the City Council with further concerns. The motion was voted on and passed 5-1 (Brooks voting no) SUB08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted By Dav-Ed Limited for a final plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin & Shannon Drive. Miklo stated that the final plat is in two parts, Part 10 which includes Dublin Drive, Tipperary Road and Shannon Drive, and Part 11 which includes Limerick Lane, and would complete the subdivision. The plat as submitted is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and zoning code. Staff will be reviewing the construction drawings and legal papers related to the project, and recommends approval subject to approval of those documents prior to City Council consideration. Freerks asked if the Commission had questions for staff. Eastham asked if the developer was obligated to complete Part 10 of the plat first, so that the street connection was one of the first things done on the project. Miklo stated that this was correct. There were no other questions for staff. A public hearing was opened on the issue. Nancy LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, wished to point out that the 92 year old man who began developing this piece of property was very much opposed to this street connection; he wanted to cap the street off and loop through the development. LeaVesseur felt that this version of the plan was forced onto him, and was not consistent with his original vision for the development. She stated that she had lost a lot of respect for the process. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to approve the application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a final plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 8 Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks invited discussion from Commission members. Eastham wished to point out that it often happens that a developer may have had a different street pattern in mind then that in the Comprehensive Plan, and sometimes the Comprehensive Plan has to prevail. Brooks made clear that he would vote in favor of the f nal plat because the preliminary plat had already been approved, but that he still holds the same concerns and disagreements. He acknowledged that the developer had done what was required of him, but feels concern that all of the traffic west of Highway 218 still has no other convenient connection between major destination points. Freerks stated that the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and she would be voting to approve. The motion carried in a 6-0 vote. SUBOS-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is May 22, 2008. Miklo stated that the Commission voted on the planned development for this project at a previous meeting, but that the subdivision had been mistakenly left off of the agenda. The subdivision basically creates two lots, Lot 1 & Lot 2: It also creates the Leamer Court loop and extends Marietta Avenue. Miklo said that the subdivision is in order for approval and staff is recommending approval at this time. There were no questions or staff. The public hearing was opened and closed with no comments. Brooks motioned to approve an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums, a 2-lot, 9.48 acre residential subdivision located south of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited Commission discussion. Eastham thanked Miklo for pointing out the error in the subdivision having been left off the agenda at the previous meeting. The motion carried 6-0. CONDITIONAL USE ITEM: 0006-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Agudas Achim Congregation to establish a cemetery on 4.12 acres of property located south of Linder Road, west of Prairie du Chien Road. Miklo stated that this property is just beyond the city limits, north of Interstate-80, west of Prairie du Chien Road. It is in the Iowa City/Johnson County fringe area, and county zoning code provides for City comment on any conditional use permit within our fringe area. If the City objected for some reason, then it would take asuper-majority of the County Board of Adjustment in order to approve the item. The plan Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 9 would expand the existing cemetery to the east and south. It would include a new interior roadway and seven parking spaces. This property was rezoned last year with the anticipation of this plan. Linder Road is a fairly narrow road that does not provide for off-street parking, so the addition of the interior road would be seen as an improvement to the existing situation. The property is heavily wooded. The County does have their own Sensitive-Areas Ordinance which they would apply to this development. Staff recommends approval at this time. Freerks asked if there were any questions for staff. Eastham asked if this area was likely to be annexed by the City at some point. Miklo responded that it does fall within the City's growth area. Eastham asked if the City's parking requirements would be met by this plan. Miklo said that he did not believe the City had parking requirements spelled out in the code for cemeteries. He said that the roadway's width of 18-feet should allow for a car to pull off to the side of the road informally and let another vehicle pass. Freerks inquired about whether or not there were restrictions on the quality of road to be put in. Miklo was not sure what the County standards would be. Freerks asked if there was signage on the property informing nearby residents of the Conditional Use application. Miklo said that the County had posted signs, but that the City had not. The public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak to the issue and the hearing was closed. Koppes motioned to approve an application submitted by Agudas Achim Congregation to establish a cemetery on 4.12 acres of property located south of Linder Road, west of Prairie du Chien Road. Weitzel seconded the motion The motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. Freerks noted that the matrix prepared by staff outlining the proposed changes to regulations and staff recommendations for each of them was gone through by the Commission in their informal work session on Monday, May 12, 2008. Howard asked if the Commission had more questions for staff, or if the Commission wished to go ahead and go through those items on the matrix in which the Commission was interested in recommending a change. Freerks stated that the Commission would proceed by opening the public hearing and allowing for comments and then close public hearing, entertain a motion, and from there bring up any amendments they wished to discuss. Miklo pointed out that Ron Knoche, City Engineer, was at the meeting and available for comments and questions. The public hearing was opened Dan Smith, 905 Wylde Greed Road, stated that he was present on behalf of the Homebuilders' Association and the Land Development Council. He stated that some while some of their concerns had been alleviated, others remained, and in the interest of time he would focus on those. One issue he wished to bring up was the notion of what is a "complete' application. The issue, Smith stated, really Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 10 revolved around what it takes for an application to be deemed complete. Freerks asked for clarification on which exact proposed amendment he was referring to, so that the Commission was able to follow along. Smith stated that in the interest of making things as easy as possible, he would refer to the matrix. He was referring primarily to numbers 5, 6, and 7 on page four, all of which speak to having a complete application. There is no provision in the code that talks about what a complete application is. The hope and goal is that clarification will enhance the Homebuilders' and Land Development Council's ability to submit a complete application the first time, thereby speeding up the process for all. The second thing Smith wished to address was on page 24 of the actual subdivision document. In this section, the code requires amid-block pedestrian connection in a development "unless that connection is deemed to be unnecessary by the City, and can be waived...." He requests that the City highlight a few of the circumstances that contribute to the connection being waived, and flesh out the details of this clause. Smith stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have, and noted that they were working on a revised document addressing these issues more fully. Eastham noted that currently a preliminary plat does not reach the Planning and Zoning Commission until it is complete and has no more than six technical deficiencies. Eastham asked Smith if at some point the Homebuilders' Association and the Land Development Council intended to suggest specific language either within the existing subdivision code or some additional language. Smith replied that what they had requested was a one mandatory staff review. He said that while they did not wish to burden the Commission's agenda with horribly inaccurate applications, their recommendation was that if there is something that they are not doing in the code or in other ruling legislative language, the City should be able to point to that and say exactly wherein the deficiency and noncompliance lies. That is why they made the recommendation of one mandatory staff review, which they understand may not be feasible, but may get the ball rolling. Citing the code provision would make the deficiencies clear to all parties. Howard recalled a conversation from the Monday work session in which the issue of defining a technical deficiency was raised by a Commission member. Staffs hesitation in doing so, she stated was that it is such a broad term and there are so many different types of standards involved. If it would help the process or make it more clear for the development community, Howard said, staff could probably add a broad defnition of what deficiency is, saying, "including, but not limited to... " She wished to make it clear that these are not discretionary design issues that are being talked about, but technical construction specifications and legal issues such as zoning standards and engineering standards that you must comply with in order to meet the code. This is in contrast to idea of where the streets should go and designing the lot layout, which are policy issues and the kind of questions where staff and a developer might disagree, but are not the kinds of deficiencies being addressed here. Miklo said that the deficiencies staff was speaking of are missing or incorrect measurements, easements, noncompliance with zoning requirements. At this point, Miklo said, staff did not have language for the Commission defining these circumstances, but that before the Council, staff could develop a sort of descriptive list of issues typically found as deficiencies on a plat. In this case, the amendment would be to insert language to define deficiency as one or more of these types of things. Plahutnik asked if somewhere there was a document that stated what a plat consists of. Miklo confirmed that this is found in the subdivision regulations themselves, the engineering standards, and the zoning standards. Plahutnik replied that there are documents that could be easily cited. Howard noted that as most subdivisions in Iowa City go through one firm, she believes that firm knows fairly well what the Ciry's construction standards are. These are complicated documents, Howard said, and it is typical for technical mistakes to be made when the applicant's consultant is in a hurry to submit the application. The City Engineer's Office goes through these documents in detail and highlights discrepancies or omissions. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 11 Howard asked Ron Knoche to address the detailed process the engineers take in reviewing the documents. City Engineers, Howard said review every mark on the plat and then send it back to the developer's engineering firm, who then makes revisions and returns it to the City Engineer who once again reviews every mark on the plat. If there are major changes or deficiencies from the time of the original submission, it is going to take awhile to resolve. Those are the kinds of technical things we are talking about. Greenwood-Hektoen added that even some non-technical deficiencies, such as labeling something as an easement where there was none, is an example of an issue that must be cleared up prior to proceeding; Things such as this are hard to define. Knoche stated that the process City Engineers go through in reviewing the applications is basically the same process the contracting engineer goes through in designing the development. They review each calculation, checking the math, making sure the dimensions are correct, the call-outs for specifcations are correct, and any other unique situations that might come up in a given subdivision. Knoche stated that it was not a matter of going through the documents in an hour or two; rather it was a multiple day's process. He maintained that to have to go through and cite each provision as to why something does not comply with standards and regulations would actually slow the process down, not speed it up, nor would it help the consultant design things better. Koppes asked if Engineering was the department that evaluated whether the fire codes were satisfied. Miklo replied that it was the Fire Marshall who did this. He said that there are several departments that review the application, including: Fire Marshall, Engineering, Water, Housing & Inspections Department Planning Staff, Parks and Recreation. Howard stated that the application comes through planning and is sent out from there to the various departments to be reviewed. At their joint staff meetings where everybody is there from the different departments to discuss it. In a separate meeting, the City Engineers generally meet face to face with the consulting engineers to discuss the plat. Freerks asked if it was one engineer working on a specific plat, or was it more of a group effort. Knoche replied that typically the engineer that starts amulti-phase subdivision stays with that subdivision all the way through to provide continuity for the developer and the City. Koppes asked if the engineers have a list of things they look for. Knoche replied that the review of the final plat is based on what is in the code. Eastham asked for clarification of this answer. Knoche said that for preliminary and fnal plat reviews they make sure that the items called out in the subdivision code are met. The construction specifcations and design standards are what are then used for the technical side of the review. Eastham asked if the parts of the code to which Knoche referred were all in 15-2-2-B. Knoche said the construction standards are not. Howard asked Knoche to address how consistent those construction standards are across jurisdiction. Knoche said that the current standards being used was a joint process developed between Iowa City, North Liberty and Coralville, and so engineering standards are generally consistent amongst the communities and not unique to Iowa City. There is also a statewide construction standards document to which Iowa City contributes, and which Coralville, Iowa City, and North Liberty eventually hope to adopt. Howard said she pointed this because having consistent standards across jurisdictions makes it easier for any engineering firm within these jurisdictions to comply consistently. Brooks asked for clarification that staff would be willing or is currently working on some additional language to clarify or def ne technical difficulties so that there isn't that potential policy-type issue. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 12 Howard said that she believed that they could come up with some type of broad definition which said, "included but not limited to ..." Brooks noted that there was something similar to that in the explanatory notes on the matrix staff had provided. He believes that when it comes to a deficiency that is based solely on technical standards, it should be straight-forward. Brooks said the Commission should not be dealing with technical deficiency, that that is what the City's experts in their various fields are for. Eastham asked if staff was at this point going to come up with some additional language defining technical deficiency. Freerks believed that this type of specific question should be held for the Commission discussion phase, and not in the public hearing. Freerks asked if Smith had anything further to say prior to the public hearing being closed. Smith stated that 15-2-2-B provides pretty good objective measures. Smith said what they've asked is that comments be returned within 20 days regardless of department, so that there is consistency which would allow developers to plan out the process with some degree of certainty. Smith added that 15-2-2-B provides pretty good objective measures. Eastham asked for clarification on the 45-day limitation period as it pertains to the 20-day proposal Smith had made. Miklo stated that the 45-day limitation period is a state law. He added that in order to get an application on the Planning and Zoning Commission's agenda, they must have the comments back well within the twenty days, usually within two weeks all initial comments are back. Howard added that this was the initial set of comments. If the developer then makes revisions to the plat, then it must be reviewed again. Miklo said that they do try to accommodate developers; if deficiencies are minor then they work with the contracted engineer to try to get them resolved so it can get on the Commission's agenda as soon as possible. If the deficiencies are significant or there is a long list of them, then that is not possible. Those delays, Miklo said, are the fault of the consulting engineer who submitted an application with multiple mistakes. Weitzel asked Smith if he was actually seeing problems with long delays, or if this was a preventative measure. Smith said that it was both. Smith stated that the concern was not so much the time in which the application was before the Planning and Zoning Commission as there is a built-in statutory time limit, but the timeframe in getting the application to that point. Smith said that he had been told anecdotally that comments from one city department may come in immediately, whereas another department's may come in much later. Smith said there was no deadline that they were aware of prior to the application being placed before the Commission. He acknowledged that there may be an internal schedule, but that it is unknown to the developers. Freerks asked if the 20-day limit was intended to be from the day an application was sent in. Smith said yes. Miklo clarified that comments trickle in because if Planning gets comments early, they go ahead and forward them to the consulting engineers. Smith said that the Homebuilders' Association and Land Development Council were trying to get their members to take advantage of the City's pre-preliminary plat meetings where all parties are at the table. Encouraging this is their way of trying to streamline the process as they are asking the City to do in implementing a 20-day policy. Greenwood-Hektoen pointed out that the time period being discussed was the time period in which an application had not yet been deemed complete. At that point, she said, the burden is still on the developer to submit a complete application. It should not be up to the City to point out various technical deficiencies that the consulting engineer should have been aware of prior to submission. This is why the deadline is set at the point at which a complete application is submitted rather than any application at all. Smith said they were not asking for the 45-day clock to begin running an earlier; they are just asking to consistently get the comments in a timely fashion; the 20-day number is negotiable. Howard said that the Planning Department's hope was that when the application is submitted it is complete and accurate. When that is the case, it should not take very long for the various departments to Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 13 review it, and it will go directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission. On the other hand, Howard said, if developers are using City staff as quality control, then it takes longer. She believes that this is where the dispute comes in. Koppes asked how often an application was submitted that was so complete and accurate that it went right through to the Commission. Miklo said that an example would be the Galway Hills final plat which had very few technical deficiencies. He said that this was an "above-average' example. Plahutnik stated that the Commission does not see applications that are not complete; staff does. He said that while Smith had heard anecdotal evidence of City delays, Plahutnik imagined that anecdotal evidence could be gathered in the other direction in which applications ranged from the equivalent of something drawn on a napkin to a complete, amazingly accurate technical drawing. Plahutnik said that what Smith was saying was that the drawing on the napkin and the nearly complete application both would need to get comments back within 20 days. Plahutnik said that not taking into account the lower end of that scenario was making an unreasonable demand on staff. Smith replied that in taking the worst case scenario things always sound extreme. Eastham asked how such an ordinance could be enforced. What would happen if the City departments did not return their comments within 20 days? He understands what happens when a complete application is submitted: the Planning and Zoning Commission votes on it and it goes straight to Council. The Council could adopt a policy that asks staff to return comments within s certain amount of time, but he does not see how this could be made into an ordinance. Howard said that there are some larger cities that upon receiving an application that has a number of deficiencies it is rejected out of hand with no comments from staff and returned to the developer for completion. Howard said that they do not like to do that; they like to work with developers to try to work things out and get it to the Commission as quickly as possible. She said that it would not be to the benefit of the developers to have these very precise and exact procedures laid out in the subdivision code. Freerks said that all could agree that it is a complex process and that everyone wants to make sure it is done fairly and accurately. Eastham said it would be helpful if there was some sort of data or list showing the number of applications that were affected in this way. Miklo said that a study was done a few years ago to answer this question, as it is one that has been ongoing. It turned out that typically it was four to five weeks between the time the application was submitted and the time the Commission was voting on it. Miklo said there are outliers that take longer because of complicated issues facing the project. An example is Whispering Meadows Development that was approved last year and had a wetland and various other sensitive features. The plans that were originally submitted would have resulted in a subdivision that did not drain properly and would have had effects on neighboring properties. It took a year to work through those issues because of the wetland and other topographical features and the need to get approval from the Army Corp of Engineers. So there are some projects out there that take extended periods of time, however, Miklo said that for those projects the finger must be pointed at the consulting engineer who designed it. Knoche stated that one item called for in a complete application is that construction plans are according to the specifications of a City Engineer. Basically that means that there are no more "red lines" on any of the documents, all problems identified by the engineer have been resolved. Current practice is to go through the entire document and point out every deficiency before returning it to the consulting engineer so that they have the opportunity to fx things. According to the language, Knoche stated, once the City Engineer comes across one deficiency they are within bounds to stop and send the document back to the consulting engineer, saying that they will not look at it further until all errors are corrected. Knoche thinks there is a lot of give and take in working with the development community in that the engineers do a full Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 14 review of the plans, not stopping after one error and sending it back to them. Knoche said that if the development community wants to seta 20-day limit, then it needs to start when a final set of construction documents that are perfect are submitted. However, it will take a much longer time to get to that point if those sorts of limitations are set. He believes his department has a good working relationship with the development community, and wants to see it remain flexible and reasonable. Knoche also noted that due to the slow market, turn-around time is much quicker than it was four or five years ago. He thinks the process works very well although he acknowledges that there are anomalies out there. Freerks asked for further comments. None were forthcoming. The public hearing was closed. There was some discussion regarding the best way to proceed with motions and recommendations for changes to the subdivision. Koppes made a motion to approve amendments to Title 15, Land Subdivisions, as recommended by staff in the matrix "Proposed Amendments to the Staff Recommended Draft of the Subdivision Code," in #5 adding the word "technical" to language concerning defciencies. Miklo interjected that staff did not in fact recommend adding the word "technical" to deficiencies. Koppes withdrew the motion. Koppes motioned to approve Title 15, Land Subdivisions, including the amendments from the matrix dated April 25, 2008, for items #8, #10, #11, #21, and the first paragraph of #27. Weitzel seconded the motion. Freerks opened the topic for Commission discussion. Koppes stated that she would like to amend #5 to include the word "technical" to deficiency. Freerks asked if she could spell that out and make a motion to do so. She believed an amendment to the motion may be necessary. Greenwood-Hektoen pointed out that the current motion did not include #5, and that after the current motion was voted on, #5 could be addressed. Freerks restated that there was a motion and a second and that the Commission was currently in discussion to approve 15, Land Subdivisions, including the amendments from the matrix dated April 25, 2008, for items #8, #10, #11, #21, and the first paragraph of #27. Eastham required further clarification, asking if voting in favor of this motion to approve the recommended subdivision code with the additions outlined in the various sections of the matrix would preclude the Commission form offering further amendments to change the subdivision code. Greeenwood-Hektoen stated that it was her understanding that further amendments could be permitted. Howard and Freerks asked Greenwood-Hektoen what the best procedure for voting would be for when the changes go to Council, so that they would not have to go through a whole list of amendments one by one. Miklo stated that what Council will receive is a draft that includes any amendments the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved. Plahutnik, Freerks, and Eastham thanked the Homebuilders Association, staff, and other members of the public for their input on the issue. Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 15 A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 Freerks asked of there were further amendments to discuss. Koppes motioned to add the word "technical" in front of defciency in item #5 and add a definition of some sort. Eastham seconded Freerks opened for Commission discussion. She asked if it was clear to staff what was being asked of them in this motion. Brooks said that rather than having to list every single violation, having a clear understanding of the word technical deficiencies would be more effective. He pointed out that there was somewhat of a definition of it already in the explanatory notes of #7. Miklo stated that staff recommendation would be to skip the word "technical," but to define deficiencies. Koppes said that as she understood it there were two kinds of defciencies, design deficiency and technical deficiency. Miklo stated that design was a policy issue, not a deficiency. Greenwood-Hektoen pointed out that there are defciencies other than technical, for example, legal deficiencies, or things required by the fire department that are not fulfilled. Brooks stated that those would be technical deficiencies because they are things that can be specifically tied back to the code or the law; they are not opinion or design issues. Freerks contended that the scope of what could be considered a defciency makes it difficult to define. Brooks said that he just wants to make sure everyone is comfortable with what a technical deficiency is defined as. Miklo said that staffs goal is to draft a definition that excludes things like street curve notes, etc. Brooks said that if we cannot define it we cannot expect anyone to live by it. Plahutnik stated that when engineering makes a red line on a plat, it is clear what the defciency is. He asked if when others are looking at the code -fire, water, housing inspections-is it also as straightforward what the deficiencies are. Plahutnik said that it seems as if this referring back to the original codes is already done. Koppes said that having a definition could only help to clarify things; she did not expect and exhaustive or comprehensive list as things change and you never know what's coming. Koppes asked for clarification on why staff did not wish to have "technical" in the definition. Howard replied that it opened things up for an argument on what is and is not "technical." Howard asked if it would help if they had a list of types of items that would be considered deficient which stated "included but not limited to these types of things' and similar things, but not including the word "technical." Koppes said that that would be fine and that she would modify her motion. Koppes modified her motion to create a definition of deficiencies that would include but not be limited to an illustrative list. Brooks asked what the distinction was between a deficiency and a discrepancy. Howard stated that a deficiency is something that is missing, whereas a discrepancy is something that is inaccurate. Eastham stated that he continues to be bothered by the way the code is written right now whereby the staff can prevent the forwarding of an application td the Commission because in their view it contains too many deficiencies. In his view, he's not quite so sure that that's a good way to construct the process. It appears to give the applicant very little recourse to move an application from a discussion about how many deficiencies it has to being reviewed by the Commission. Koppes stated that she agreed but that this was not part of the motion on the table. Furthermore, Koppes pointed out, it was the Commission who stated that they did not wish to see applications with so many deficiencies anymore. Eastham stated that he thoroughly agreed that a plat should not have more than a few deficiencies before coming to the Commission. The questions, Eastham said, is what if there is a big disagreement within staff about the deficiency and they prevent the application from moving forward. Brooks said that he wasn't sure the Commission should be the arbiter of what is a defciency. To him, that is set by the City Manager and approved by the Council. Those are the things that are deficient. If a developer feels they are being unduly harassed, Brooks said, he believes there is recourse for them besides the Commission. Howard Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 16 stated that the recourse would be through the Board of Adjustment. Howard could not recall any instances in which the engineers disagreed about a technical construction standard, but that if there was an actual disagreement about an interpretation of existing code language, the arbiter of that is the Board of Adjustment. Howard said that she did not think the disagreements that occur between staff and developers are over these types of deficiencies. The disagreements are over policy-type questions. Eastham stated that this answered his concerns; the applicant has some recourse. Plahutnik stated that 15-2-2 pretty clearly says what complete is and then lists, and so it is not really question of staff being in a position to hold an application up. As soon as the list is met, it is complete by definition. Freerks stated that she did not believe staff tries to hold things up. Eastham clarified that that was not what he was saying; his concern was giving proper recourse. There was no further discussion on the motion. Weitzel requested that the motion be restated before being voted on. Freerks restated the motion as: a definition of deficiency including and not limited to a list that staff will come up with before this goes on to City Council. The motion was carried in a 5-1 vote (Plahutnik voting no). The Commission discussed changing wording in item #17 of the matrix. Miklo said that staff recommends changing the language from "adjacent property owner" to say "designated property owner or homeowner's association." Howard suggested the following language: "property owners or homeowner's association as designated in the sub-divider's agreement." Weitzel moved to amend item #17 to the language just stated. Koppes seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried 6-0 Weitzel wished to discuss item #24, per discussions at the informal meeting. Miklo stated that the discussions at the informal had resulted in tabling this particular item until further discussions with Parks and Recreation could be had. Howard stated that this particular item is in existing zoning and subdivision code so changes to the existing language are not recommended at this time. Eastham agreed that the issue would need further discussion. Howard brought up that there were probably some cross-references within the draft that would need to be cleaned up if the changes were made. Eastham wished to discuss item #23, the noise buffer provision, 15-3-4-0 in code. Eastham wished to make a motion to remove 15-3-4-C be removed from the draft of the subdivision ordinance. Brooks seconded. Eastham stated that while this is awell-intended provision, he thinks that some of the objections raised by the Land Development Council on this are well-taken. He finds particularly valid the recognition that a 300-foot buffer would not necessarily offer noise reduction in some of the areas along Highway 218. He is not comfortable having a provision in the subdivision code that is supposed to address the specific problem of noise control when it is clear from the outset that the provision will not be effective in some instances. In his opinion, noise levels are something that can be evaluated by potential buyers. Koppes pointed out that that may not necessarily be the case depending on when they buy the house as Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 17 in the summer the trees provide a buffer, but in the winter, with no leaves, the buffer disappears. Brooks stated his agreement with Eastham. He believes it sets an unaccomplishable goal. He says that studies fall predominately on the side of the argument that vegetation does not necessarily buffer sound. He said it should be up to the developer to provide a good visual screen. Weitzel stated that this is a standard that is trying to avoid the problem of opening your door right onto interstate traffic. Brooks said he struggles with the City mandating 300-feet out of development for a visual screen under the guise of requiring a sound buffer. He suggested that perhaps the City needed to buy that portion of the property if that was there objective. He felt he would have to have time to think about this and validate that this type of ordinance was really reducing the noise in the way it is intended. Freerks requested a view of the map showing what areas were being discussed. Miklo described the different areas of the map where the ordinance applied. Freerks stated that the City strives to create quality neighborhoods, which does not include building right up to the interstate. Brooks asked that the quality neighborhood not be sold on a sound buffer as that was not what he believed the ordinance was about. Brooks said that it was a visual screen that was intended. Eastham said there appeared to be people willing to buy homes in very noisy areas. He felt that if it was clear that sound reduction could be achieved at some reasonable cost and with reasonable certainty, then he would have a much different opinion. Miklo said that as the language is drafted there is an opportunity for the developer to create a berm or a wall to get closer to the 60 decibel or less level. Koppes said she almost felt this policy should go to Council. Miklo stated that the Commission was there to make a recommendation on policy. Koppes said that while she would not personally buy a house along the interstate, how far should the Commission go to protect people from buying them that want to. Miklo said that one of the other concerns was that in a hot real estate market, such houses sell. However, fifteen or twenty years after the house is built and it needs rejuvenation and reinvestment and there are whole neighborhoods, is someone going to be willing to reinvest in them or will we be left with while neighborhoods that are deteriorating? Brooks said that he does not disagree, he simply does not like the fact that it is being sold on the premise of reducing sound. Miklo replied that part of the intent is that you have 300 feet to work with to plant trees, build a berm, or do something. Brooks reiterated that this again was a visual screen being discussed, not actually a sound barrier. Howard said that she believed 300 feet sometimes works as a sound barrier. Distance and berms can work as sound barriers. Plahutnik asked if the word "noise" was left out of Section 1, and the wording simply stated "buffer," and in Section 2 the decibel level remained, would that meet everyone's concerns? Plahutnik said this would take away staff's concerns about noise, and Brooks's concerns regarding selling the idea on a false premise. Brooks stated that that would mean changing the wording in the title that said "To Reduce the Effect of Highway Noise ... " Plahutnik maintained that that could easily be changed to "To Reduce the Effect of Highway Impact." Brooks said he was comfortable with it going forward to Council; he just didn't like selling it on the idea that it would reduce the noise. He thinks what is being done is to try to create a visual barrier between highway and any development, commercial or residential. He thinks that the City should have a policy in general that wouldn't allow anything like what happened along Highway 218 in Coralville. Eastham said that it was a good discussion of the issue, and Freerks called for a vote. The motion failed 4-2 (Eastham and Brooks voting no). There were no further issues to discuss on this item. CONSIDERATOION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 1, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission May 15, 2008 Page 18 Eastham motioned to approve the May 1, 2008 minutes. Brooks seconded. The motion passed 6-0. OTHER: Miklo stated that the election of Vice-Chair would be on the June 5, 2008 meeting agenda. Discussion was held on returning to the 5:30 p.m. meeting time for informal meetings and it was decided that for the time being, informal meetings would be held at 6:00 p.m. ADJOUNRMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. C O N N .~ E U9 Of O C U c ~ N ~ o ~ C N m m c ~ - c ~c y c Z AQ a U O N X X X X X ~ ~ X h N X X X X O I I X `" v X X X X X X O I a X X X X X X X ~ X X X X X X ~ I c ~ X X X X X ~ ~ ~ X X X X X ~ X ~ F ~ O ~ t`') N O o~ ~ t`') C N tn h N N .- in O N ~ m in h- W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Y c d L C a. ° A ~ o R t E ^' E m w LL Y a V1 m ~ z f~ U Q LLI ~ O FF F I h O X X X X X ' X X X X X X X v O X X X ~ ~ X I N r X X X X 0 0 0 1 E ry O ~ M N 0 ~- t D O ~ ~ M _ N N N N ~ N lln N ~ H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ E m y N ?~ c Y L ` J C L ~ E °. m A w ~ w o Y A a r vi E m 'w ~ z ad ci a ui 3 o ~ ~ v a~ U w c c c V1 N N N ~ ~ a¢a II II u w YXOO