Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, August 29,2005 -7:30 PM Informal Meeting Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Meeting Room B 220 S. Gilbert Street Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Items: 1. ANN05-00002/REZ05-00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for an annexation into Iowa City and rezoning to Low Density Single- Family Residential (RS-5) zone of 51.9 acres located at 4670 American Legion Road SE. 2. REZ05-00015 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone, and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. D. Consideration of the August 18, 2005 Meeting Minutes E. Other Item F. Adjournment Informal Formal Commission Meetin s: October 17 October 31 October 20 November 3 November 17 November 20 5T AFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar Item: ANN05-00002/ REZ05-00018 Date: August 18, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Arlington Development, Inc. 1486 S 1st Ave, Unit A, Iowa City, fA 52240 (319) 338-8058 Contact Person: Susan Evers MMS Consultants 1917 S Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 338-8282 Requested Action: Annexation and Rezoning Purpose: To allow the property to be incorporated into the City of Iowa City Location: American Legion Road - to the north of South Point Subdivision Size: Approximately 51.9 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Golf Course - County R Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential- RS-5 and Park land South: Undeveloped County Residential - R East: County Residential - R West: Undeveloped County Residential - R Comprehensive Plan: County Land, within Iowa City Long Range Growth Boundary areas File Date: 08/11/05 45 Day Limitation Period: 09/25/05 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The owners of the property, Fairview, Inc. have requested annexation to Iowa City. This Approximately 51.9-acre property (containing two parcels) is currently in the Scott Township, Johnson County and is being used as a golf course. The applicants, Arlington Development, Inc., are also requesting approval for rezoning of this approximately 51.9-acre land to Sinlge-Family Residential- RS-5 zone. 2 ANAL YSIS: Annexation The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide the decisions regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary petitions files by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be reviewed under following three criteria. 1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary. The area proposed for annexation falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary for Iowa City. This property abuts Iowa City properties on the North. 2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. Annexation of the property would be consistent with the growth and development pattern in this part of the city. The developers have identified a demand for residential development in this area. The recent development patterns and market activity in this part of the city based on the subdivision inventory supports these expectations. Although, approximately 800 lots created since 1990 are undeveloped, the area under consideration is one of the faster growing areas of the city. Recent subdivisions in this area, such as Lindman Subdivision are almost complete built out. Infrastructure, such as sewer and sanitary, water lines will be extended by private development interests. Development of this property will increase the pressure for the City to invest in the reconstruction of American Legion Road. Provided that the developer contributes a proportion share to the cost of this improvement, there should not be an undue burden on the City for allowing this property to be annexed. 3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest. The property is within the Long-Range Planning boundary. Iowa City properties abut this property on the North and North East. As more land is being developed for residential uses, control of development over this property is in City's best interest. If development were to occur under County jurisdiction, it would likely be in the form of lots that would be approximately one acre in size. Private wastewater treatment systems and water wells would be required. Annexation will allow for more compact development and reliable public water and sewer treatment facilities. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively when the above conditions exist. In staffs view, these conditions have been met for this voluntary annexation request. Rezoning The property is currently in the Scott Township and is zoned as County Residential- R. Development on the surrounding properties in the city and in the township is also of low-density single-family nature. As sewer, sanitary and water main infrastructures can be extended from neighboring Iowa City properties, and in view of existing residential development density on surrounding properties, low-density single-family residential zone (RS-5) is appropriate for this property. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property contains some areas identifies as potential un-wooded wetland along the east boundary. Prior to any development activity a wetlands delineation report will be required and any sensitive areas and associated buffers on the property are required to be delineated. ppdadmin\stfrep\ann05-00002+rez05-000 18 3 Traffic implications and access & street design: The property is primarily accessed by the county road, American Legion Road from the south. It can also be accessed by two neighborhood street, Cumberland Lane and Buckingham Lane from the North. With this property under consideration for development in the near future, it would be necessary to include the upgrading of American Legion Road in a future Capital Improvement Plan. Once development is proposed on this property, the right-of-way for American Legion road need to be dedicated to the City as public right-of-way. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that the applicant share the cost of upgrading the road to City standards. The proportional cost of upgrading the road will be determined by the formula developed by the Johnson County Council of Governments for assigning costs related to a street improvement. American Legion road is an arterial street. Therefore, the first step is to apply the assumption that 75% of the function of an arterial street is for through traffic, while 25% is to provide access to adjacent properties. This standard has been used for several years locally. This results in per-linear-foot-cost being applied to adjacent properties for access. The next step is to divide this amount, as the proposed development is on only one side of American Legion Road. This results in per-linear-foot-cost being applied to the applicants. These funds may be paid in conjunction with the final plat approval, along with other development fees. The applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how the property might be subdivided into single-family lots. The concept plan is not binding. The actual subdivision design may change at the time of platting. The concept plan illustrates only one street connection to the undeveloped property to the west. To assure that the eventual development of this property adheres to the Comprehensive Plan goal of 'proving an interconnected street system' (page 22 of the Comprehensive Plan), and to assure that the development of the Fairview property does not hinder the development potential of the property to the west, staff recommends that at least two local streets connect to the west property line of the Fairview property. The City has entered into agreement with Johnson County for the maintenance of the American Legion Road on certain portions. Staff will contact the Johnson County representatives to determine interest in amending, extending existing agreements or forming new agreements as a result of this annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for ANN05-00002 and REl05-00018, annexation to the City of Iowa City and rezoning of approximately 51.'-acre land from County Residential- R to Low-Density Single- Family Residential - RS-5, located on the American Legion Road, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying (1) the developer's responsibility of contributing to the cost of the upgrade of American Legion Road and (2) the subdivision design will provide at least two local streets to the west property line. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Subdivision Concept Plan Approved by: Æ~ ~, Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadmin\stfreplann05-00002+rez05-000 18 CITY OF 10 WA CITY ~ - -- ;' ~- Scott Po ___~--- .-"'-----"".--./ -- . lIJIIT ~ ~ ~ . r BUCKI A 3 >- ~ <>: < u. I ¡ ¡ I REZ05-0018/ ANN05-00002 - - 4670 American Legion Rd. SE - ~ ........ LEGION RD T 12 I ~ ~~ - /c,~~ I ,Ä :> seal? Pork rj / ~ ...J rD 5 u r/ RICAN SITE LOCATION: Fairview Subdivision Concept Plan . - ~~ ~-r ~:::::::::;- ;JJ1í/ ~ -r L_- // ~~~~~ >-~~ ~ ~-~ ~ »)ty~~~,:¿" ~ ~ ::::-Y:---t-kJ I) / 7.' ~..... ..----::: 0- '-- \"'. Ì'-- '/ "/' ~ ~ ( < :--:::: / ,,- l"'" "'- rJ IV/~ ~ 1/ m~ 'i (ù "'" ccc:., ~ ~~8? _Þ;S /% )f(r~ K (j(~ ~ Jln 1= t/ -=- ~Nrcy:::li¿£, '5 /::>::: jtt:J ( '" ¿~~ -- e--___ v- ~ 0~ ì5 1(~Tim-~ ~. v --"'--, .-/ -/: ~-".~ T -- ~:---~ )1 (fÎ V~~' I '~ ~ ~ "'---,I ,~ /~ C=:::Ji')( I V ',¿2 , '1>- 1\ ~ / -- ~ '/ ' --", Ie-- ----- ~ ~~,/: ~ ~~,'~ //~ 'I! 7~ --- ~. Þc~ ~ ,\ (\ x, ___ ________' '/._ il )J , ) (~ '/'-'- ~ H ~/// I .((~ '\ \0.//~V~ "---~~~~ I "// )\\ \ x~::\='i '----/, ~y:' 'J '------- "'-.. ~ \ ì(' ~ _'~ '\ ~ B~ ~ ~'::-"<~~ I --d--~=-' )\' \\\~;{); ~~~~ ' .: L - -:\~ ~~~'Y?~ ~ ~Ñ ill I ~ ( ,:~ -!..----1 X ~ ,\0, \\ 0~~~~~ In '~ I -J 1\ \~~ ~~~,\\\~ ~-",,-~ ~~~~ d ~ 'Y~~ ~ \ ~~ ~\),x :D~¿ ¿ ~~t~~ - ' V ( ,~~~ ',---- '--\ ~~ 1: ~7''¡f~~ m: ~~ ~ '-----_ --I-: '"" "'-I x \ \\$~ ~ ~ ~ \ ::... I 'V "~~~~ ~ ~ x \~~ ~\~ ~ ~~~ ¡; ~ ~~~ <~_ ,,\ W ~ ~~ ¥; 7! '-~ ~'-'~k,---- I :~\~~~- ~~--1 \- ~ ~~~ , ~~ ~ b0 N~~,,, \ / /^.,t I .r I ~\~~~.t: ~¡;t ~;f ~ "L 11/1 \\\Ç~~~\\ ~ ,~ ~ )r'l1\ . ~ F7 . d ) ~~ . ~ " \3. //).~ I¡ Ie :@t¿f~?5\~:~ j(\(: !f~; '-'\'~' i'- ~ - -~...;-. ~~\~,' )\ r ~ ¡\ ~ ~~<~~~J@ ~~~' ~: ~~ -- ~)[- \~~,<" ,-', < <~~V ~ rt illJu \ \ =, V- I ~ , "'" '",- . l"~ ~ ;., \ \ \ , x '::~'''~t~'''~ ~~~~x \~~,~ ~,~ ~~ ' I:---'~ ~ ~ ~' "~"~:<::'~'-" , ''x '- '~~:~ ~ ~\..,,' ~ ~ ~ ~~ :~=~~>" '~~' ~ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 1S, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith and Don Anciaux STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Paula Brandt, Dennis Nowotny, Mark McCallum, Armond Pagliai, Nila Haug, Eric Bochner RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval by a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voting in the negative, Anciaux/Smith absent) the proposed draft Zoning Code as printed on 2/22/05 with the amendments that the Commission had reviewed, approved and voted on at the 6/27/05 and S/1S/05 Commission meetings. REZ05-00014, a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB- S) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2. located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street as depicted on the map. Recommended deferral to 9/1/05 by a vote of 4-0 (Plahutnik recused self, Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05- 00015, a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00016, a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00017, a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00010, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-S) to Planned Development Housing Overlay, Medium Density Single- Family (OPDH-S) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00011, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-S) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00012, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-S) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00013, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-S) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. DEVELOPMENT CODE - PROPOSED NEW ZONING CODE (CITY CODE: TITLE 14): Brooks said this would be the last meeting for public input on the proposed revisions to the revised Zoning Code. Revising of the City's Zoning Code had been a two-year process which had included several formal open houses hosted by City Staff and the Commission where the public could meet one- on-one with staff to discuss concerns and ask questions; a series of meetings with various civic and community groups where Staff had given presentations on the proposed revisions; several public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission; and numerous opportunities in various formats for the public to provide written comments and input to Staff and the Commission regarding the proposed revisions to the Code. At this point in the process the Commission was ready to vote on the proposed revised Zoning Code and make their recommendation to City Council. After receiving the Commission's recommendation and a final draft copy of the revised Zoning Code, the Council would then have a number of work sessions with the Commission to discuss the proposed changes. After that there would be several public hearings held before the Council and then the Council would vote on the proposed revised Zoning Code. Brooks said that the Commission had heard and reviewed a lot of input both in person and in writing. He requested that during this public input session new items and issues be presented to the Commission. Miklo said there were a series of rezoning items associated with the Code listed on the agenda. Public input on these items had been received at previous Commission meetings so they would not be opened for public input however if someone wished to address them during public input for the Development Code they were welcome to do so. Brooks said as a result of the last public hearing regarding the proposed revised Zoning Code there had been several proposals I ideas put forth by the public. These included: · Change the maximum allowed density in the multi-family zones so that a developer is allowed to develop more apartments per acre if the apartments have fewer bedrooms. · Provide a density bonus for handicapped accessible dwelling units that contain a small number of bedrooms. · Incorporate inclusionary zoning provisions into the zoning code that would require developers to build a certain percentage of units within each new development that would be affordable to those at or below area median income. · Table 5A-2 Minimum Parking Requirements: Reconsider the proposal in the new code that would increase the parking requirements in the PRM Zone for apartments with large numbers of bedrooms. · 14-4E=5E and 14-4E-6C: Increase the allowable damage for nonconforming structures from 70% to 75%. The draft specifies that nonconforming structures damaged beyond 70% of the assessed value of the structure may not be rebuilt without bringing the structure and the use into compliance with the Code. Request is to increase this figure to 75%. · Make some allowance for cottage-type industries to locate within retail commercial zones in the City. Clear up any ambiguity in the Code in this regard. Brooks asked the Commissioners if they wished to make any motion(s) to direct staff to include any of the proposed amendments to the draft Code prior to opening the public hearing session. Motion: Freerks made a motion to include proposed amendment #55, to make some allowance for cottage-type industries to locate within retail commercial zones in the City and clear up any ambiguity in the Code in this regard." Koppes seconded the motion. Howard said this was a grey area in the Zoning Code. Currently there were broad use categories which allowed certain uses in certain zones. The cottage-type industries frequently had a small-scale manufacturing type component but a very important retail component to their business so they needed to locate in commercial zones as they needed exposure from a retail district. Typically when they started out the manufacturing component was fairly small. It would include incubator type small cottage industries Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 3 such as bakeries, candy manufacturing, furniture and small consumer items. There might also be some wholesale trade associated with the business. Currently in the Code it was a grey area because it was not well spelled out and Staff had to make a judgment call for each type of thing that came in which made it very frustrating for both Staff and the business owner. Staff wished to make it clear in the new Zoning Code that these types of businesses would be allowed in the commercial areas. Behr said the Rezoning Items under Section D of the agenda would not have separate public hearings tonight because they resulted from the new Code. If people had comments with new and different information about them they should make those comments during the public hearing time for the new Code. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. (Anciaux and Smith absent) Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to include language for proposed amendment #54, "Increase the allowable damage for nonconforming structures from 70% to 75% for nonconforming structures damaged beyond 75% of the assessed value of the structure may not be rebuilt without bringing the structure and the use into compliance with the Code." Shannon seconded the motion. Howard said this was standard in the Code for non-conforming uses. Currently the Code allowed a structure that had been damaged by fire or acts of God to be rebuilt for that same non-conforming use. There was a percentage that the structure had to be damaged before it could be rebuilt. In the proposed Code the percentage of damage had been reduced from 100% to 70% based research done by Staff. They had found that in a number of different zoning codes the typical range was between 50% and 75%. Freerks said she felt the current Code's 100% figure was an anomaly as it was not found anywhere else when Staff had researched it. She was comfortable with 70% as it fell fairly between 50% and 75%. Koppes said she was also comfortable with 70% so she would not be able to support the motion. Plahutnik said in many instances these were people's businesses that they relied upon for their livelihood. Any damage to them, rebuilding a conforming structure many times would prove economically unfeasible so he wanted to give whatever leeway the Commission could to help the people out. The motion passed on a vote of 3-2 (Freerks and Koppes voted in the negative; Anciaux and Smith absent). Behr said with respect to the last motion prior to public hearing, the Bi-Laws provided that it took four (4) votes for a positive recommendation on a substantial amendment to the zoning chapter. For the new Code it would most definitely require four votes. With respect to the question of whether the 3-2 vote on the change from 70% to 75% was substantial or not, Behr said Legal Council would like to reserve judgment on that. Substantial was the key language. Public discussion was opened. Brooks said if there were new items or new information relating to the Code and/or as the Code related to the proposed zoning changes the Commission would receive public input at this time. Paula Brandt, 824 N. Gilbert Street, said the Northside Neighborhood Association did not meet during the summer so they had not previously spoken about the CB-2 zones that affect their neighborhood. However, the Steering Committee had met to discuss the proposed zoning changes for the Northside Market area. They appreciated the work of the City planning staff to further the City's Comprehensive Plan which was developed with the input of the citizens of Iowa City. It was a challenge to balance the needs and desires of residents and historic preservationists and business people and visitors and economic development and parking and aesthetics while still seeing that property owners received a fair return on their investment. Brandt said the Committee believed that the proposed zoning changes for the Northside Market area struck that balance by supporting the Comprehensive Plan and preserving the low scale houses and businesses that helped make the neighborhood a viable, attractive and enjoyable area in which to live and visit and by keeping the higher buildings with higher densities downtown and south of Burlington Street. The Steering Committee wished to believe that the owners of the immediately affected properties shared their enthusiasm for their neighborhood even if they didn't reside there. The Steering Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August18,2005 Page 4 Committee urged the Commission to consider the greater good of Iowa City and the neighborhood and would support the proposed changes to the Zoning Code. Dennis Nowotny, 517 E. Washington Street, said at one time he had stated that the new Code had doubled in length from the current Code. It had been pointed out to him that the type setting was different. The City of Des Moines' Code was approximately 137 pages versus Iowa City's 400+ pages. Their densities started at somewhat more dense than Iowa City's. In their high density areas, Des Moines multi- family dwellings started at 850-square feet per dwelling unit, about 25-square feet less than Iowa City's PRM. Des Moines square foot of lots 2,000 vs. Iowa City's 5,000 in the PRM areas. Mark McCallum, 811 East College Street, provided a copy of the editorial opinion he'd had published in the Press Citizen in July, 2005. He said he was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission for the College Green area. McCallum said he was trying to advocate a few good ideas, the editorial had given the context for the mind set he'd had when he'd proposed them. McCallum said he appreciated the Commission's consideration of his proposals. He'd been trying to follow the Commission's meeting minutes and work sessions on the internet; but the May 23 and June 20th meetings were not available on the internet yet. It was his understanding that his proposals had been discussed during the August 1st work session. Given the visibility that he'd put himself in he would have liked to have had the opportunity to sit in on that work session to respond to any questions the Commission had at that time and to have gotten a consensus as to how they had been thinking. McCallum said he'd gotten a lot of positive feedback on his ideas, particularly from wanna-be politicians who were running for City Council at this time. One City Councilor had asked for copies of all of his proposals. There was interest at the Council level for his ideas. McCallum said he was aware that his historic preservation idea had been a little controversial; the multi- family one was just good common sense. If the City was going to try to effect and create a diverse mix of housing downtown, the Commission needed to do something other than what it was doing right now. He was at a loss why a community that espoused the values that the City said it did, would be against offering a density bonus for handicap housing. McCallum asked if the work session meeting minutes were available, would they be put on the internet and could he ask for a copy? Miklo said the work session minutes were available to the public but typically were not put on-line. He was welcome to stop by the Planning Office to pick up copies. In terms of the bonuses for handicap accessible apartments, because of the ADA, all new apartments/any new buildings were required to be handicap accessible on the ground floor. McCallum said in his analysis of College Street, the issue he was presenting was that he'd spoken with the owner of the property in the 300-block of College Street who'd built over 50-units. He'd asked the property owner if he would build more smaller units if there was an incentive. The property owner had said yes of course he would. McCallum said developers were very simple creatures. They did what the zoning code allowed them and tended to want to maximize their return on investment. Current ADA only required that handicap accessible units be built in new buildings, they didn't specify the mix. In some of the new areas that had been developed in the last 10-years, they were seeing handicap units being built out in 4 or 5 bedroom units. McCallum said to him it seemed they were meeting the minimum standards of the goals of the ADA law but were really not creating a housing mix that was in the spirit of the people who really needed it. Armond Paqliai, 302 E. Bloomington Street, said in the current zoning of CB-2, if they put up a new building, what would their occupancy be; could they build a higher occupancy; what could they build now and how many people could they hold for a restaurant. Howard said the occupancy load would only be limited by the parking requirements. Their current occupancy load was 113 persons, by special exception they could achieve up to 125 persons. The occupancy load was based on a number of factors which included the number of bathrooms, the amount of parking, the amount of space available for seating, how many exits all determined the occupancy load of a restaurant. He could consult Housing and Inspection Services for specifics. Pagliai asked in CB-5 or CB-2 how many people could they seat. Was it limited? Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18,2005 Page 5 Howard said again it would be based on all the Code factors. Although there is not a specific occupancy cap in the CB-5 or CB-2 zones, it would be limited by the amount of parking, configuration of the building and other zoning factors. Pagliai said if they did have the required parking available, there still would be the potential for not being able to expand as big as they wished to. Miklo said that was correct, the size of their lot would determine parking and if they added apartments above, parking spaces would have to be provided for the residential as well. Nila Hoaq, 517 E. Washington, said she'd spoken her mind before so the Commission knew how she felt. One of the things that seemed to be important in the downzoning or which prohibited the upzoning from CB-2 to CB-5 was the parking. It seemed to her that everyone who was in that area had explained that they could get the parking. Hoag asked if the area were upzoned to CB-5, would the Commission consider that parking be made available. In the other CB-5 areas parking was not required, but in this case would the Commission consider an amendment which would require that all the CB-2 areas upzoned to CB-5 be required to provide parking. Freerks said at the last meeting she had requested Staff to provide information regarding parking space availability in the downtown ramps. The Commission had received those numbers. The Chauncey Swan parking ramp had 475 parking spots and currently there were 400 parking permits issued which left only 75 available spaces for paying customers. She didn't think that was enough to meet the needs of the area Hoag was referring to. Hoag said Pagliais had said that they could provide parking, she and the other property owners had plenty of parking or they could provide it on their properties. She said if it was made a requirement however they had to do it they would have to do it. Miklo clarified that Hoag was suggesting that there be an amendment to the CB-5 zone to require parking in these particular areas. Hoag said that was correct - just because they could do it. Miklo said that would require some study by the City and a separate amendment to go forward with that idea. Eric Bochner, Bochner Chocolates, 50 Sumac Court, said he believed that the proposed amendment #55, allowance for cottage type industries, was based on commentary by him. He wanted to clarify some of the issues that he'd had when he had tried to establish his business in CC-2 zoning as well as in CI zoning and to make sure that there was also clarity not that just that he just could have put his business with manufacturing and retail in a CC-2 zone but that also he also had a problem in the CI-1 zone in that he couldn't establish retail presence. He wanted to make sure that the new Code allowed both retail and manufacturing. When he had started his business it had been hard because he had no established retail business so what was the driving force - retail as accessory use or retail as a primary use. They had ended up with it being easy to say "which ever one you want the answer to be" and he'd found out that he was no where. Bochner said he wished to clarify that at least the CI-1 zones should be able to accommodate the same sort of business in the same clear way as well as CC-2 zoning and allow the business owner based on cost and economic issues to be able to locate the business where ever they wanted. He also wanted to raise the issue that he'd previously discussed with Howard regarding the same thing was actually true for the R&D zoning. Some of the same kinds of manufacturing that he did at his business could also be appropriately located in an R&D zone. To identify the larger issue for him, he always tried to find the most number of places that he could accomplish his business purposes within the city bounds and what he'd found was that there was no clear zone for light manufacturing. Possibly an R&D zone with the buildings with their cooling and their infrastructure might be just as good for him but per the R&D uses he was not allowed to locate in that zone either. Bochner said for businesses such as himself he wanted to make sure that there were at least a few choices that made sense consistent with use whether it would be CC-2 or CI-1 or R&D zones that would allow a variety of uses. It was his understanding that attracting light manufacturing to the city was of high importance. He wanted to make sure that if there were other people like him, that they would be able to establish their businesses very easily. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 6 Howard said she felt it had been clarified in the CI-1 zone so that it specifically called out provisions to allow a certain amount of retail as a principle use which had been done earlier. In the current Code there were not use categories so it was a grey area. Howard said with the amendments that Bochner had just discussed it should help in the retail commercial zones of CC-2, CB-5 and CB-10. With regard to the RDP zone, those were originally intended for high tech sorts of businesses so they had been written in that fashion. Without looking at the Code, she was not sure whether an amendment would need to be made to the uses for light manufacturing to allow those types of businesses in RDP and ROP zones. Bochner said the reason he raised that issue was when he'd been looking to expand his manufacturing and locate it somewhere else, the research & development parks whether they were used for pharmaceutical manufacturing or light manufacturing of electronics, etc, had all seemed to be identified ok to be in research & development parks but doing a high tech food manufacturing had not been allowed under the current Code. The infrastructure of those parks, whether it be for trucks or for having office space and being able to do high tech manufacturing, those spaces were actually perfect for his kind of use but under his reading of the Code and his discussions with Staff several years ago had said that those were off limits for him. Bochner said to allow that flexibility as well would be consistent with the use of what those types of spaces and the land uses are done for right now. Howard said the distinction with the RDP and the ORP zones, they were intended for larger uses. There was a 1-acre lot minimum in the RDP zone and a 7-acre lot minimum in the ORP zone. That didn't seem quite consistent with a cottage industry type, maybe incubator business type, but a bakery or something like that probably would not fit in there although the market would tend not to encourage a bakery to locate in the RDP. Miklo said when Staff were talking about a research and development park, they were talking about locations such as ACT, NCS Pearson, Northgate Corporate Park, areas of a little different character than a CI-1 or retail zones. Miklo said on page 183 under #16, the CI-1 zone specifically allowed the type of retail that was requested by Bochner. Plahutnik asked if the current provisions prohibited retail in the R&D parks? Howard said retail was allowed always as an accessory use, there were always businesses that had a mix of things - wholesale, retail, a small retail component but it was intended to be accessory to the larger principle use. In any commercial zone you could have any type of accessory use that would be typical for that kind of a business. That was not specifically called out, it was more of a judgment call, was it something that was accessory or was it a principle use of a property. That was where in the current Code it was ambiguous because there was no use categories to be able to determine which was principle and which was accessory. Howard said Staff felt in the proposed Code it was a little more clear exactly what was a principle use, the accessory uses would still be a judgment call. Howard referred to page 153, the definitions of manufacturing zones, industrial manufacturing categories. Looking at Technical Light Manufacturing, she didn't know if chocolate manufacturing would fall under general manufacturing and not light manufacturing. In the RDP and the ORP zones, only light manufacturing was allowed, so it would require an amendment to those two zones. Miklo said what was important was when looking as the proposed Code compared to the current Code, the proposed Code allowed a far broader number of zones that would allow the sort of manufacturing I retail combination being discussed. Brooks said knowing the plight that Bochner had gone through trying to locate his business, it had been the Commission's hope that they were opening things up to allow that type of business and operation to locate in a broader range of areas. The Code might not have gone as far as Bochner would have hoped, but it would clearly allow such businesses in several more zones when compared to the current code. Bochner said he wished to point out that the proposed amendments would not help him now but he wanted to be sure to do this for others who were like him. Bochner said what was actually happening in his business now was because of the place they'd had to go the retail was actually separating off from the manufacturing. Now looking at his business going forward and forwarding thinking about light manufacturing, was if he wanted to relocate his manufacturing to another location, what kinds of locations would he like for a business like his. An R&D area would be significantly better if the space was available in a park like that to be putting his manufacturing operations, just as if he were manufacturing Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18,2005 Page 7 pharmaceuticals or bio-tech. Even though it was a lower tech product than what people were used to, that was the kind of industry the city wanted. He could do very well manufacturing in that type of park and imagined that other people who didn't make a computer or other type of bio-tech device typically recognized as high-tech, they too could successfully be located in those areas assuming the economics worked out and assuming the infrastructure was right. Bochner said he knew for his particular business, a research and development park developer would have already spent a lot of money on the types of things that would be useful for him and he could do manufacturing in that location. Bochner said he could identify several businesses for which a research and development park might be an appropriate place to locate. Persons might not wish to spend that much money per square foot, but he at least wished to have the opportunity to consider locating there. Howard said to clarify for the record, these types of businesses would be allowed in the CC-2, CB-5 and CB-10, CI-1 zone and if the retail was accessory it would be allowed in the 1-1 zone which allowed general manufacturing. Regarding RDP zoning, there was not much of this type of zoning in the city and most was already developed. There were a lot of ORP zones but it was a minimum 7-acre lot so a small manufacturer would probably not fit in that zone. Nowotny said he wished to speak for the people who were being down zoned essentially from the CB-2 to MU, essentially 9 lots east of the downtown area. They'd had their signatures notarized as not wanting their properties to be devalued. Down zoning to them was devaluation. Brooks said the Commission had received copies of the signature lists. Public discussion was closed. Miklo said there were a couple of decisions that the Commission needed to make before voting on the entire Zoning Code package. The proposal now, as the draft was written, was to eliminate the CB-2 zone and then rezone the various CB-2 areas to other zones. If the Commission decided not to eliminate the CB-2 zone, then they would need to decide that before they voted on some of the other proposals. If they decided to eliminate it, then they would need to vote on the other agenda items after they voted on the proposed Code rewrite. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve the proposed draft Zoning Code as printed on 2/22/05 with the amendments that the Commission had reviewed, approved and voted on at the 6/27/05 and 8/18/05 Commission meetings. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks said this had been a huge process. She felt pretty comfortable with the Zoning Code they had come forward with. You couldn't please everyone all the time with everything. It was about a vision for the community and how to try to create growth yet have it be something that really fit with Iowa City and with the Comprehensive Plan. They were not a political body, they looked at the vision that they had for a community and felt comfortable with getting rid of the CB-2 zone. She felt it was not really a zone that fit that particular area of Iowa City, it was a zone of tall thin buildings surrounded by parking lots, which was not what was needed in those areas. Freerks said she felt they could do better with those areas and it would be discussed later when the Commission voted on the individual development items. Freerks said the Commission was going to have a couple of meetings with the City Council, discuss it with them and the public would have the opportunity to speak with the City Council about the proposed Code rewrite again. Shannon said with this one vote they would be doing away with the CB-2 zone and that would be shutting the door in people's face that had hoped that they could hang on to the CB-2 zone. If the Commission voted to eliminate the CB-2 zone that would make it a done deal, for the people and owners who'd spoken before the Commission at the last 2 or 3 meetings, then they would have to take their cause to the City Council. Behr said if the Commission made a positive recommendation on the Code as a whole without CB-2 zones, the Commission would need to rezone those CB-2 properties which could be done yet this evening. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18,2005 Page 8 Freerks said she was not saying that she didn't think that maybe even some of the areas that the Commission was thinking of rezoning might not be better in CB-5 at some point but it might not be tonight. It could and would be discussed later. Shannon said he was not comfortable doing away with something that that many property owners felt they needed to have for their property to run their businesses or for their values. He liked to listen to people who were actually involved and owned the property. He was opposed to doing away with the CB- 2, he felt it was awfully iffy to tell the people to come back before the Commission and maybe we'll let you have something and maybe we won't. Right now they had the CB-2, maybe it was not a good thing to keep, but apparently at this time they felt it was. Maybe the people didn't understand but maybe they did. Koppes said one of their goals had been to simplify the Zoning Code. She felt by eliminating one zone it would help. It had been a long drawn out process and she had been in it since the beginning. Koppes said she actually understood everyone's concerns but at City Council was where the politics had to be worked out. The Commission was recommending what they thought the City should do, she was going to support the proposed Code without the CB-2. Plahutnik said he'd come later to the process but every single that the Commission had voted on since he'd been a Commission member had been hammered out item by item, the Commission had taken every bit of public comment into their consideration and then in the end voted and tried to do what they thought was best for Iowa City. In terms of this being the final slamming of the door on the CB-2 areas, it was not. The Commission had not come to the final zoning of the two areas being considered and what exactly they would be. What the Commission was talking about was eliminating the CB-2 zone and there was still recourse with the City Council. Every other week the Commission met and people presented them with rezoning applications. Nearly invariable since he'd sat on the Commission in one way or another the applications had been approved. It was not slamming the door, it was an obstacle, but the Commission had worked it all out item by item and given it as much thoughtful consideration as they possibly could and had worked very hard on the Code rewrite. Plahutnik said he was strongly in favor of supporting the proposed Code draft. Brooks said he agreed as had been mentioned earlier that this was somewhat of a balancing act. Having not been involved in the writing from the very beginning but having gone back and reading through all the information, minutes, communications and discussion that had gone on from the beginning it was pretty obvious that there had been a lot of give and take in the process. There had been comments made that a lot of it was being pushed down their throats by Staff, which was the farthest thing from the truth. The Commission had had a very active role in reviewing and working out a whole draft of different options and different directions to go. It was a balancing act and they were there to try to present to the Council a document that was a useful tool in implementing the City's Comprehensive Plan. What they had and what they would be taking forward to them hopefully was going to be a good tool for many years to come. That didn't mean that there couldn't be some tweaking and modification in the coming years as new trends and new things became evident but he felt that they'd come up with a very good document for Iowa City and Iowa City was different than almost any other community in the state of Iowa. That was why we all loved it here and was why we liked to be here. Brooks said he felt very strongly that what they had was a very good document and hoped that as it proceeded through the Council hearings there would be good open discussions with the Council. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voted in the negative; Anciaux and Smith absent). Brooks said he had had a meeting earlier in the day with the City Clerk regarding the timing of when the Council would receive the Code draft and when they'd have work sessions with the Commission prior to the public hearings. At this point the Planning Staff would need to get the amendments incorporated into the draft Code, get the draft re-printed and sent out. They potentially were looking at mid-September before the final draft would go to the Council and then there would be a series of work sessions with the Council and open to the public to review the proposed Zoning Code with them. It would then be totally in the Council's hands to decide when they would set public hearings. Brooks thanked everyone for their input. It was always important to the Commission to hear what the public had to say and to have dialogue with them. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18,2005 Page 9 REZONING ITEMS: REZ05-00014, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00014, as depicted on the map. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Freerks said right now she felt these were the best zones for these areas for the future as she saw it. They Commission was not political, she was looking at it in terms of planning and what she saw as being the best thing for the city in those areas. In the future there could be the possibility that some of those areas could be rezoned, when and what that might be she was not sure. She felt very comfortable with the zones, as currently proposed and what the future held for them. She would support the motion. Plahutnik said currently this area was almost self-zoned, there was not a single building that had been built to the maximum limits of CB-2. The area itself had kind of accepted and built up at lower densities and lower heights than CB-2 allowed. If at some point in the future it became economically viable to build to the densities of CB-5, then there would be the time for rezoning. He would vote in favor of the motion. Freerks said she felt this was a wonderful area, it did well as it was. Change was necessary sometimes, but it was a really beautiful, vibrant part of Iowa City as it was right now too. Shannon said it was a nice area. He was having a hard time following why the Commission felt the need to change something that seemed to be doing quite well for the case of simplification. If it was a good area, why did the Commission wish to tweak it. Brooks said he supported the proposed changes. He'd been convinced that because of the lot sizes and the requirements of CB-2 zone, the vision that some people had for development would never be reality, because there just wasn't the space for parking and the other amenities that were required. What the Commission was proposing as a transition zone between areas to the East and the downtown was reasonable. He would vote to support the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voting in the negative.) REZ05-00015, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Howard said at the Commission's last map, the Commission had requested a different map indicating that the northern portion along Bloomington Street be included with the CN-1 designation. The newly drawn map had been distributed to the public and to the Commissioners at this meeting. Plahutnik recused himself citing a possible conflict of interest due to his employer owning property in this area. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00015 as depicted in the 'new' map distributed 8/18/05 and to zone the area to the North as CN-1 rather than MU. Freerks seconded the motion. Motion withdrawn by Koppes, second withdrawn by Freerks. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer the vote on REZ05-00015 to the 9/1/05 meeting. The motion to defer passed on a vote of 4-0. Behr said for the public's information, at the 9/1/05 meeting there would be no additional public discussion on REZ05-00015, it would just be for consideration before the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 10 REZ05-00016, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00016, as depicted on the map. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00017, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00017. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Miklo said the proposal was to eliminate the RFBH zone and to zone the existing RFBH zones to OPDH- 12. OPDH stood for Overlay Planned Development Housing. The draft Code included the manufactured housing standards in the OPDH zone so in effect the existing parks would continue as they were now. If there was a proposal to expand them they would need to amend the OPDH plan or add additional land to the OPDH plan. Today in the current RFBH zone they would have to amend the manufactured housing site plan or add to the manufactured housing zoning area if they wished to expand the mobile home park. It was more of a housekeeping matter than a significant zoning change and would not change existing parks. A concern had been heard from the public that an OPDH zone would also allow, if approved as part of a zoning ordinance, townhouses, single-family, duplexes and apartment buildings. There had been a concern that those buildings could be built in these zones and displace the manufactured housing. He said that was not the case unless there was action by the City Council after receiving the Commission's recommendation to approve an amended OPDH plan. Brooks said it would still all be part of a planned development process whether it was a residential factory built housing plan or an OPDH. This would collapse all of that into one name and one zone. Freerks said it was not the Commission's desire to eliminate manufactured housing at all. Howard said the original intent had been to make it more fair for new manufactured housing parks not to have to go through a separate special process. They were a type of planned development and would be treated the same manner as other types of planned developments. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00010, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Miklo said on Tuesday evening at 5:00 p.m. there had been 5 individuals from the Longfellow neighborhood who'd met with Staff who'd had some questions trying to clarify what was happening with this rezoning. The area that was currently zoned RS-8 would be rezoned OPDH-8, which would allow the remaining vacant lots to be built with single-family or duplex structures depending on the property owners choice. Early on there had been some confusion regarding the original proposal. There still might be some concern on the part of some of the persons who'd attended the meeting but in general Staff had received indications of support for what was being done. Brooks said the rezoning was intended to facilitate allowing what had been started to be completed. Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve REZ05-00010. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerks said she felt this would help to continue with what had been planned and platted; people already had plans so they could continue with what they had prepared. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August18,2005 Page 11 Koppes said she hoped the public would understand that the Commission was not taking away what they could do, it was exactly the same as when they started. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00011, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. Brooks said this was mainly an effort to try to keep what was started in compliance with the proposed new Code. Miklo said there were two vacant lots there. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00011. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00012, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. Brooks said this was a housekeeping item to allow the City to keep the trend for what had been planned for that area, given the new Zoning Code. Miklo said there were four vacant lots there. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ05-00012. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00013, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Brooks said this was a housekeeping matter to keep things in compliance with the new Code and allow the development to proceed as was originally planned. Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve REZ05-00013. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 4.2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEMS: Brooks said he and Miklo had met with Marian Karr, the City Clerk, earlier in the day. Dates to keep reserved for potential meetings with Council were September 19 and September 26 to September 29 for two two-hour work sessions. There would be one meeting for a one-hour introduction to acquaint the Council with the Code and not deal with specific questions and answers. The next meeting would be discussion of commercial zones or residential zones and the third meeting would be to discuss what had not been discussed at the previous meeting. Attendance was not mandatory but Commissioner attendance/support was strongly recommended. Brooks thanked everyone for their hard work putting the draft Code together, it had not been an easy undertaking. They needed to go forward as a Commission with their consensus on their position on the proposed Code and work with the Council. Brooks said he and Staff had also discussed opportunities to educate the public and the Commission regarding the proposed Code rewrite. Possibilities included a Letter to the Editor, Editorial or Video that Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 12 would be shown on the public access channel to explain what direction the Commission had gone with the Code. He felt it would be best to address the few hot-button issues up front and start to talk about them early. He and Staff would be working on this over the next few weeks and come back with some ideas of how they might take this to the public in terms of what they had finally agreed upon and what was being presented to the Council Miklo asked if there was a consensus with the Commission that it was not a significant change regarding the earlier vote and the proposed Code amendment change from 70% to 75%. The Commissioner's agreed that it was not a significant change and that the 3-2 vote was sufficient to approve it. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 pm. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/minules/p&zI2005/08-18-05. doc = o ..... ~ ~ ..... ë ë o U"O ~'"" = 0 ..... (J = Qì o~ N Qì ~ ~ ~~ ="0 ..... = = Qì = .... ~ .... -< ~ þ ..... U ~ ~ o ""'" trì o o M ~ 0 x >0.<;><;>< ð ::t~XXX~XX 000 0 ~XXXXðXX C) z ¡::: w w ::E .J c( ::E 0::: o IL. ~X~XXXXX r-- 0 §ðXXXXðX ~XðXXXXX !!!XXXXX~X 01) 0 ~ ~ ><: ><: ><: : ~ : .... " ~XXXX , , ¡ ~ ; ~ð~><><: ¡ X ¡ ;QXXXX I ~ 1 10: ~x><><x : ~ : N 10 ~XXXX , , ¡ >< ; Q " ~XXXX:X: .. " ~><><Xð¡><¡ '" ¡::=oU\Oooor---ooo\O ~ '5. ~ - S2 ~ __ e e E-~~~:g~:g:g:g ..:.I .. ~ '" ï: g ;~...I~=c.c 'ÿ 0 4.1 I ~.c ; .~ ""cE~~.s.ce !ij~~~ .~~~ ZQ=<¡.¡....Q... - - 01) :::: XX X X X XX 00 .. ~ X X X ~ XX ...... 00 0 0 00 ð :::: XX X X XX r-- .... ::::X X X X X XX "" ~X ~ ~X , X X , 0 0 , , 00 , , :::: XX XX , X , , , .... , , ::t ~~ , , XX , X , .... 00 , , , , .... ~ , , :::: X XX , X , 0 , , .... , , 00 , ð , ~ XX XX , , , , N , , .... , ~ , .. X X XX , , ...... , 0 , N , , t:! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , , .. U U U U UU , , '" E ~ '.J:) 0 00 r-- 0 00 '.J:) '8 S2 ...... S2 S2 -- ee ~~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 00 ..:.I .. 'c C ~ ~ 0 ;~ ... :; C.c .- 0 .. .c c .... v 0 .. .. .. .- ~ c ... ... ~ ¡¡: .c e <= ~ moo Z QcQ -< ¡.,j ~ Q¡": C) Z ¡::: W w ::E .J c( ::E 0::: o IL. Z "0 "" '" 3 gf >( '';:: ....ê:~~ ~3!~::E oU.c..c 0 6:;««Z II II II II b ~:E ~xooz