HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Formal Meeting - 7:30 PM
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. REZ05-00022: Discussion of an application submitted by Diane Schoenauer and Pat Kennedy for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for 10.38
acres of property located on S. Gilbert Street south of Highway 6 and north of Southgate Avenue.
(45-day limitation period: Waived)
2. REZ06-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc for a rezoning
from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) zone for 21.78 acres of property located on Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft
Avenue (45-day limitation period: June 19, 2006)
D. Development Item:
SUB05-00021 / VAC06-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
final plat of Aviation Commerce Park North (a resubdivision of North Airport Development and North
Airport Development-Part Two), an 11-lot, 57.13-acre commercial subdivision located north of the
Iowa City Airport, along Ruppert Road, and the vacation of a portion of Ruppert Road.
Vacation Items:
E.
1.
2.
F.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
VAC06-00002 Discussion of an application submitted by the Iowa City Airport Commission to vacate
Dane Road south of Highway 1.
VAC06-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Professional Muffler, Inc. to vacate a portion
of old West Benton Street.
Discussion of the following amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code:
Clarification of regulations for drives external to a parking lot versus drives internal to a parking lot.
Clarification of regulations for exterior stairways, exterior corridors, balconies and lifts.
Clarification of minor modification procedures for site development standards in the Multi-Family Zone
Article and addition of a similar minor modification option for site development standards in the
commercial, industrial, and research zones.
Amend to the building material requirements for large retail uses to make allowance for stamped
concrete panels.
Clarification of regulations that relate to the ground-level floor height of storefront commercial
buildings.
G. Other Items
H. Consideration of the May 18, 2006 Meeting Minutes
I. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ05-00022
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: June 1, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Diane Schoenauer
8350 Hickman
Suite 5
Clive, IA 50325
Pat Kennedy
1805 Waterfront Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Russell SChoenauer, Jr.
8350 Hickman
Suite 5
Clive, IA 50325
Phone:
515-251-7332
Requested Action:
Rezoning from CI-1 to CC-2
Purpose:
To allow retail uses.
Location:
Commercial property along South Gilbert Street
between Waterfront Drive and Southgate Avenue.
Size:
Approximately 10.38 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Commercial Intensive (CI-1), current uses include
office, retail, outdoor storage and display, and light
manufacturing.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Commercial (CC-2)
South: Undeveloped (CI-1)
East: Commercial (CI-1)
West: Commercial (CI-1)
Comprehensive Plan:
Commercial
File Date:
December, 2005
45 Day Limitation Period:
Waived
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In December 2005, an application was filed by Diane Schoenauer to rezone property at 160
Stevens Drive from Commercial Intensive (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). Staff advised
2
the applicant that rezoning just one lot in this area would constitute a spot zoning and that in
order to receive a positive staff recommendation, we advised the applicant that some of the
neighboring owners would need to consent to rezoning their properties along Gilbert Street from
CI-1 to CC-2. In February there was a property owner meeting to present information regarding
the requirements of the CC-2 zone and the CI-1 zone. At that meeting several property owners
expressed opposition to having their properties rezoned and the rezoning request was put on
hold.
In April, Pat Kennedy, one of the adjacent property owners, inquired about reactivating this
rezoning request. Mr. Kennedy visited with several property owners along Gilbert Street and
determined t~at a majority of them now support the rezoning from CI-1 to CC-2.
ANAL YSIS:
The purpose of CI-1 zone is to provide areas for businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor storage and display of merchandize, by repair and sales of large
equipment or motor vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in buildings that are not
entirely enclosed. In general, the CI-1 zone allows quasi-industrial uses that are not compatible
with retail areas. The proposed CC-2 zone is characterized by businesses that cater more broadly
to the general public, including retail, office, and restaurant uses.
Currently the CI-1 zone extends from just south of Waterfront Drive to the Crandic Railroad
Line. Land uses west of S. Gilbert along Stevens Drive include industrial service,
warehouse/storage and vehicle repair uses that are associated with the CI-1 zone. Land uses
east of Gilbert along Waterfront Drive include wholesale, office, and other uses. Properties to
the north, directly adjacent to Highway 6, are already zoned CC-2 and include banking (Hills
Bank), grocery (HyVee and Aldi), retail (Office Depot, Zephyr, Advance Auto Parts, etc.), and
restaurants (Los Portales and Carlos O'Kelly's).
Most of the properties along South Gilbert Street contain uses that are appropriate in the CC-2
zone, including a number of office and retail uses. While some current uses (office medical and
accessory apartments) have been identified as non-conforming in the CI-1 zone, none of the
current uses would appear to be non-conforming in the proposed CC-2 zone.
The South District Plan identifies the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor for various
street enhancements and encourages commercial redevelopment in this area. As residential
development proceeds further south, S. Gilbert Street will become a more traveled entryway to
the city. As Iowa City grows in general, this portion of Gilbert Street, with its ready access to
Highway 6, will become a more desirable and more appropriate area for certain types of
commercial redevelopment. The South District Plan recognizes the CI-1 uses as "inconsistent"
with the goal of providing and attractive entrance into Iowa City, and encourages "general
commercial" development with careful attention to landscaping, site design, and other aesthetic
improvements.
Traffic implications
Overtime as properties in this area develop with retail uses, it can be expected that traffic
volumes will increase. The current configuration of Gilbert Street and Highway 6 will need to be
improved to accommodate more traffic. This intersection is the highest volume most poorly
functioning arterial street intersection in Iowa City at this time. The reconstruction of this
intersection is currently in the Capital Improvements Program for 2008. If this rezoning is
approved staff would recommend that these planned improvements not be delayed.
There also needs to be better access control to properties than the existing pattern that has
evolved. This needs to be combined eventually with a capital improvements project that will
ppdadminlstfreplrez05-00022 s. gilbert.doc
3
construct a center turn lane on Gilbert Street through the commercial area south of US 6.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ05-00022, a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community
Commercial CC-2 for approximately 10.38 acres of property along South Gilbert Street, South of
Waterfront Drive and north of Southgate Avenue, be approved.
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Correspondence
Approved by: ~ 1/4,., ,
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfreplrezOS-QOO22 s. gilbert. doc
~
\ \ Y
ltlA08
UWjU
a:-:r:
- 2 I-
>- :::J
-l 0
o V)
IS V'lntlA08
N
(.)
(.)
~
,... w
>
- <{
(.) W
I-
<{
c:>
:r:
I-
:::J
0
V)
~ Dc:
0
V)
t3 z
w
>
W
l-
V)
~
~
~
~ ,...
-
(.)
t3
tlO SN3^31S
o
] 0) 0
<{F ~f-O '- ~
gs (7) ~ t:: ~
~ <: ,... ::::J (J) tJ
(j~ ,,~~Q
__ K ~)
--J
gs~
Q
~
N
,...
en
a:
.............
c
a.
o
1-
C\J
C\J
o
o
o
I
LO
o
N
UJ
a:
C\J
()
()
o
+-'
,-
.....J
()
-
+-'
(j)
+-'
lo-
Q)
..0
(9
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
1',0; c.. "~ ur J: e... ?Lt'HJtU/AJG
f+TTN. $Pr't4 lAJA."",:<:,., Bub (\L" JCLO
"l1 J $ I S (N ~ E61J-7lJ; 5 '"TD ^ 0- 1\
1"1' v,-(a 2-.0>...-) I() S
V2fi. 04.E:.6/ ,3"1 r< ~ s 5 (i:.. L L S c-'i ocOA " A# . :C:. Y7..-c.... ';)
t _ ~ ,-,-vo-e;.,'-.. "f\J I<.. ,~ufJE(C/V
'" DC- A-=.f tb p:::=t ( 60 .5c \-t.. +1-t bUT c AvE 'I r ,- 0 ~
I ~ . '-- I r- '" ~ L-<A...
CJ- J H> CC-L, ::r Sff/or:€ L-J/7H 3~S~EL,::-1?y
? I-x 0 ^"' ~ ",..:> i:> FE- '1-1 R. ES S F-.. j) . (VI- "'1 J- {I) , E .e-E.s. f I r0 T f-\.E
QZ,z'Z-OI\JIA5G ~r) oFFEILE~ '(0 (OJ.1..M-e-T 'jI-HS
? ~of'IWT,'1 q) L0fJG/L.L5 -po. t<. TI+EII< D PI,.! I ON S. I
S po KG- -'ID I rttz: I:::> R CfJ 6fl 'r:.J 0 L.0 .'\) ~(L S 0';:- (HI[
51-fA.-~ E. u? /l-il.Ck. e-& 0'" T t+IC ,(YII+ P ?I2.Cu I {) IE. D i?~
'flHZ PkI9-iUN/AJ(; 'pt:?/. 0 F- S" L.Al A C I'~' Au...-
I' H- G: CL9 IV T A<,.I 7€ fl.S. J N .s -;;;: V- C ';::1=>1 ?A-12- CtlZL$ 9
~D 10 u.>ii-iLf: Jt--l t=PrVo/L. of I~ ~<:..~
-Z D N I f\) ~ . /1+t:: CH.JJ ~ IL 0 F ?1+I2-c- E L 9 's <.11\) DCO:C./;;ED
Irt€' Ov.:J N f;. r'l- 0 F ~fu:.J=..L 10 I 'S 0 f Po s'€:.....D ..
:rr::: AN ~ X10Fo P-M.-lRt' o~ f-:::' AJCE~ED ?UEJt4:E
(!,DJ-\t 'T~ f1.'L1E- ~ .33D - ~r.j-/~ .
S PC,!Z,e.&L-.jr2rJ ~
P fX:;, fZ :2. I '2:> T t+E "-l Ltvk eiE I2-fE b }.-l ~{ 0 ,r-::
17 AIlCfLS J'\.tJ D /t-H::02. C 0 -0T~'K:T PEe..! 0 tJ-S. 'Pi1-&6- 3
, ~ .. t-t-i: :s ~~ t::h ,.... A-?
L/-;;;e,--Ob
?(.I6E (
r
"
I
~,
3
1..(
'5
o
7
9
1
10
1 I
J;)...
PARCeL P{)DR6~
1&0 SouT~6K112 ~E
/ q ) '7 "5~ G t L Betrl ST.
J ;}?.3 J 'S. c; I L- 6€.1Z7 ..$7.
) J ( 5Tf5,v GAJS 7) /L
, 5 C:. '5 <5 _ ~ ( '- Bi:.r.ZI S' "7,
~ j-r~ ~ F :r:. <l...,
IS2<=] S. G. LeER..T sr.
15lf~ .s. G'L-81j1Z7S;-.
;).c:J'-+
J (j 3
) Slid
)crlo
~I G.. u6"'; S j) 12-
s-r-~v 6vVS D tZ.
<;. ~ J LB~(rr 5-;.
S. C,(L 8EiZl SI .
J =3 11;;1-D S. (b I'-~~ ST.
I '-I ) q 30 S. G J L ~ 6,LI ST.
) 5 Kf2-N '''Eb Lf LVA-TE-i2 FR..ut07
A-D fJ (If ~ tV I ~flt2-r if t o7$. I ~ Y-
C a tAJrt'tC! ?ct<S d I\.J ,
11. Lt S S f=LC <:;'<-'-1'00 JJ ~~,
~ />r-{2f<. 'j S C H N lIT J C"
13 06 LL 14 L-E~
-1 f Nt J<rE.1<. Z
11 C> "-l Lu A-D E:"
R-ANb'j I-YTI-E.
B, c~)J Sc-~j~.IL~
DAvE: <2LAF<-'~
r:; [) felTeD ~ E
T3 0 e L l2AJ/O ^-..1
~ I (\;\ KDCo€K-. ~
I u 43 / )+'1 iJ~
fvt A-tl::T/N <; f}-F- F.Ej
7.fFJ ) ~ B-/'J (V~
~~t: L
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar
Item: REZ06-00013 Lower West Branch Road Date: June 1, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Arlington Development, Inc.
1486 South First Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 330-8058
Contact Person:
Duane Musser
MMS Consultants, Inc
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52740
Phone:
(319) 351-8282
Requested Action:
Rezoning from ID-RS to RS-5
Purpose:
Development of low-density residential
subdivision
Location:
On Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft
Avenue
Size:
Approximately 21.78 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped - ID-RS
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Undeveloped, County residential - R
South: Undeveloped Residential- RS-5, RM-12
East: Undeveloped, Residential-ID-RS
West: Residential - RS-5
Comprehensive Plan:
Low Density Residential
Neighborhood Open Space District
Lower West Branch
File Date:
May 11, 2006
June 19, 2005
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Arlington Development, Inc., is requesting approval for rezoning a 21.78-acre
property from Interim Development (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone.
The property is located on Lower West Branch Road along the western edge of south branch of
Ralston Creek, west of Taft Avenue. The property is part of the Stone Bridge Estates development
under the ownership of Arlington Development, Inc.
2
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The property is part of the Lindemann Hills Neighborhood of the
Northeast Planning District. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area as suitable for low
density residential development. The current zoning, Interim Development Single-family
Residential (ID-RS) Zone permits limited development of the property due to the lack of adequate
public infrastructure such as, access streets and utility services. The proposed Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) Zone would allow for a development with a maximum density of
five dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet. This is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan vision and compatible with the zoning and development pattern of the
land adjacent to this property.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages compact, development with streets network that is pleasant
for pedestrians and motorists, accessible open spaces, provisions for trails and bike-way
connections. This property includes sensitive areas, such as a drainage way and regulated slopes.
Remnants of a historic stone railroad bridge also exist on the property. Any future development of
this land should consider preserving and incorporating these natural features. A Conditional
Zoning Agreement (CZA) signed at the time of annexation and rezoning for a land parcel that
included this property. The CZA requires that development of the property is planned in
accordance with the neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District Plan and retention of
the stone bridge is ensured in a manner that the provides public access to the feature. Compliance
with these conditions should be carried over to this rezoning and incorporated into future
subdivision plats.
Traffic Implications: The property can be accessed from a collector street-Lower West Branch
Road and neighborhood streets from the adjacent subdivision Stone Bridge Estates Part 3 and
Part 4 on the west. The property has close proximity to other arterial streets-Taft Avenue on the
east and Court Street on the south.
Staff estimates that approximately 80 dwelling units can be developed on this 21. 78-acer property.
This would generate approximately 600 vehicle trips per day. Lower West Branch Road is
currently a narrow chip-seal road and needs to be improved to City Standards. Improvements to
Lower West Branch Road are part of the Capital Improvement Plan for the financial year 2007.
Once development is proposed on this property, the applicanUowner will be required to dedicate land
to the City as public right-of-way for Lower West Branch Road and provide necessary utility and
construction easements.
As a condition of approval of this rezoning, staff recommends that the applicanUowner be required
to share the proportional cost of improvement for the portion of Lower West Branch Road that
borders this property. The City Engineer estimates the per-linear-foot-cost for Lower West Branch
Road improvement project as $749.16. 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. Lower West Branch Road is a collector street. Therefore, the
first step is to apply the assumption that 50% of the function of a collector street is for through
traffic, while 50% is to provide access to adjacent properties ($749.16/2 = 374.58). This results in
per-Iinear-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 Lower West Branch Road ($374.58/
2 = $187.29). This resulting amount in per-linear-foot-cost multiplied by the length of the property
boundary along Lower West Branch Road will be the applicanUowner's proportional share for the
improvement project ($187.29 x 854.71 feet = $160,078.64). These funds may be paid in
conjunction with the final plat approval, along with other development fees.
It is staff's understanding that this property will be developed in conjunction with other adjoining
pcd\Staff Reportslrez06-QOO13 lowerwestbranch
3
properties under the same ownership on the south along Court Street, on the east along Taft
Avenue and the undeveloped portion of previous Stone Bridge Estates on the west. At the time of
subdivision development access to collector and arterial streets, and neighborhood street layout
should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ06-00013, a rezoning of approximately 21.78 acres from Interim
Development Single-family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-family Residential (RS-5)
located on Lower West Branch Road, west of Taft Avenue, be approved, subject to a conditional
zoning agreement specifying that the applicant/owner would share the proportional cost of
improvement for Lower West Branch Road and that future subdivisions will comply with the
neighborhood design policies of the Northeast District Plan and retention of the stone bridge is
ensured in a manner that the provides public access to the feature.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by: ~~R
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
pcd\Slaff Reportslrez06-OO013 lowerweslbranch
C')
T"""
o
o
o
I
CD
o
N
W
a:
~
11~ll 31'v1tjOdtjOJ A11J 'viM I.
,... .
Z "'tJ
a:
0 ..c
()
c
CO
l....
(l)
+-'
Cf)
Q)
~ S
In l....
t3 Q)
rn ~
a: 0
...J
~ -
0
..c
~ +-'
::::J
0
Cf)
~ -
Q)
>
<t:
~ 4=
CO
t-
t3 -
0
+-'
Cf)
Q)
S
. .
I Z
I 3E 0
~
I ~
I II L <
I - - f- U
~.--j&[
CO I tj~~ 0
C I tj~t ~
c.. I ~
~
0 I ~
I rJ)
0\
I , \
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: SUB05-00021 Aviation Commerce Park
North (A Resubdivision of North Airport Date: June 1, 2006
Development and North Airport Development
Part 2)
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action:
Final plat
Purpose:
To create an 11-lot commercial subdivision
Location:
North of the Iowa City Municipal Airport,
along Ruppert Road
Size:
Approximately 57.13 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped; CC-2, Community
Commercial
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial; CI-1
Airport: P-1
Commercial; CC-2
Commercial; CC-2
Comprehensive Plan:
Retail! Community Commercial
File Date:
May 11, 2006
June 25, 2006
45-day limitation period:
60-day limitation period:
July 10, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Aviation Commerce Park was rezoned in 2005 from Intensive Commercial, CI-1 to Community
Commercial, CC-2. This rezoning was 1) to facilitate the purchase of approximately 21 acres of
property by Wal Mart Stores, Inc.; and 2) to encourage additional retail and related commercial
development on the remainder of the property (approximately 19 acres). The preliminary plat was
approved in August of 2005 as a resubdivision of the previously plats of North Airport
Development and North Airport Development Part 2. The City is now requesting approval of the
final plat and vacation of a portion of Ruppert Road.
2
ANAL YSIS:
With the exception of revisions in the lot lines between lot 1 and lots 3 and 11 and associated
easements (discussed in detail below), the final plat as submitted is in general conformance
with the approved preliminary plat. Construction plans are being reviewed by the City
Engineering Division and City Attorney's Office has drafted legal papers. They must be
approved by staff prior to Council consideration of the final plat.
As part of the resubdivision, the east segment of Ruppert Road is proposed to be converted to a
cul-de-sac, and its name will be changed to Spitz Court. The portion of Ruppert Road generally
located within proposed lot 1 and the western portions of proposed lots 3 and 11 needs to be
vacated to allow this reconfiguration. The vacated portion of Ruppert Road will be replaced by
Westport Drive located on the north side of the subdivision.
Wal-Mart, which has entered into an agreement with the City to purchase lots 1 and 2, has
requested that the lot line between lot 1 and lots 3 and 11 be moved approximately 43 feet to the
east to allow more room for development on lot 1. On the preliminary plat lots 3 and 11 are
shown as being 193 feet wide. The final plat shows these lots being reduced to 150 feet wide. To
allow for this lot line shift and still allow sufficient development area on lots 3 and 11, easements
for utilities and access that were shown on the preliminary plat on lots 3 and 11 have been move
to the eastern edge of lot 1. A cross access easement has been added to allow traffic to travel
from the west end of Spizt Court across lots 3, 11 and 1 to Westport Drive and vise versa. This
will improve traffic circulation and allow the area to be developed as an integrated shopping
center. The lot line shift and relocation of the easements and addition of the cross access
easement are minor variations from the preliminary plat design and will not affect the overall
design or function of the subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends SUB05-00021NAC-6-00004, a final plat of a Aviation Commerce Park North
(A Resubdivision of North Airport Development and North Airport Development Part Two), an 11-
lot, 57.13-acre commercial subdivision located north of the Iowa City Airport and the vacation of a
portion of Ruppert Road, be approved subject to approval of legal papers and construction
drawings prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Final Plat
Approved by: ~~.
Karin Franklin, Direc r,
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\SUB05-00011 NorthAirport.doc
r
I~I
~
- - I
ru==
=0
:N
I~ 0
N
:!:
1- a::
1__ ~n --
C~J! <C
D..2r en
I~Oq+\ 0
\. :r: 'I
I- I I I I I T I
/ / 7
\ar
~
~
-
\
-
o
-
[]
.CI)
G, 2~
~, ~
,.. :::J "- CJ
c.V) ~ Q
N
o
o
~
"--
r I ~-I
-) ~
___~~ 0
o
I
LO
_ 0
co
:::J
U)
~~~/~
~--
.1
,..
D..
..c
t
o
Z
~
"-
crs
a..
(])
u
"-
(])
E
E
o
()
c
o
".;::;
crs
~
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
I
I
-
11111 !:I Iii Iii
n~lI.glh ~;
~
a.
...J
<(
Z
u::
w:I:~d ~
~~~~I! g
i=~Zil~ ~ i5
~8~nnn~
::c:
E-4
0:=
~~ jll
~~ J-JJ
o:=~~ J if
~!~< I;J
c::ll~ J
j~f;l~911
~~i;~ UJ
:;i! ~E~t) ....if
z;::::21o= Bd
~ 8il~ !I~i:
zll I~
o Iii
..-
E-4-<
-<
!>
<
g: iJJ'~fm'rBt~J~lllf-'1
III ."111' il~J!!f!_-
~!: !1~1ii~ ~1~1:liJJ:111
It' IJII!! JI. JI"i'r~,l
hr.), ~!li~i5*"il!!I!
1111 I_~~II' sli!J~rflilf
'1_. II,., I 2'1'11 II ~~ ~1
f~- "d kiJI'fii;;,~ !!
Ji!j .i~Jjlf~ ~I~.- J,D
!!f, rl&IJIJj;J~hm~!Jrlf
~"
i * Iii
o .1
~ Kllu
0( "HI ..11111111111
11111 ,I
z -. : I ! iii Ii
II Ii Ii
-------
O'II~E ___ - ----
f1I'!EI'~ -
------ I!
_---- I!
I
!!:
~~
....@l
w~
'iUf~
~...
....~
WI1'JI
m~
~
w
m
.1.1
1-..
~
J
I
.
r
I
.
.
I
I
--.
I r--~
IImll' '''', I'
/' ','~ .....=.~.."'=:'l:"'_...) I
I '"'ViYW~-'
// ~"" I
. ~. ~
.... :i! I
T il 1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Item: VAC06-00002 Dane Road south of Hwy 1
Date: June 1, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Iowa City Airport Commission
1801 S. Riverside Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Requested Action:
Vacation of Dane Road
Purpose:
To allow for extension of Iowa City
Municipal Airport
Location:
South of Hwy 1 West, north of Mormon
Trek Boulevard
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Airport, P1
South: Undeveloped; CI-1
East: Airport, P1
West: Airport, P1
File Date:
May 11, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Mormon Trek Boulevard was constructed to provide an alternative access to properties located
south of Highway 1 that previously relied on Dane Road for access. A portion of Dane Road
located north of the extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard was vacated by the City in 2005. The
Airport Commission is now requesting vacation of the remaining portion of Dane Road between
Highway 1 and Mormon Trek Boulevard. Vacation and removal of the roadway will allow the
extension of southwest runway of the airport.
ANAL YSIS:
Three general criteria are used to determine the advisability of vacating a street or alley right-of-
way. Vacating right-of-way is not advisable if it would interfere with pedestrian or vehicular
circulation, the ability to access private property, or inhibit the access of emergency or utility
vehicles. Dane Road between Highway 1 and Mormon Trek Boulevard is no longer needed to
provide access to adjacent property. The Iowa City Airport has acquired land on either side of the
road and Mormon Trek Boulevard now provides street access to the general area. A private
driveway will provide access to the Dane Farm from the south.
The property does not contain City water, sewer or storm sewer systems and is not necessary for
municipal utilities. Electric and gas lines that are located within Dane Road are no longer
necessary to serve adjacent properties and are being abandoned by MidAmerican Energy
Company. Qwest is in the process of relocating telephone lines located within the right-of-way
so no utility easements are necessary.
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAC06-00002 a request to vacate Dane Road right-of-way south of
Highway 1 be approved.
A IT ACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by:
Karin Fr nklin, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadmin\stfreplvac06-00002. doc
,/1
~--,,-
-,~
--~-'
~--
~;~
/r~- -
OIfOCJ 3NlfO
-
~
t3
~
~
~
~
~
(j --
()
CJO 30lS lS3M
o
0::
--'
0::
<l:
w
,...
-
()
lS ACJ3.:J.:J3r
CJO 30lS lS3M
,...
o
()
C\J
o
o
o
o
I
c.o
o
()
<(
>
"0
CO
o
a:
Q)
c
CO
o
z
o
~
~
-<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: VAC06-00003 A portion of the former
West Benton Street, east of Riverside Drive
Date: June 1, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Professional Muffler
708 S. Riverside Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Contact Person:
Noah Kemp
2140 Hwy 22
Kalona, IA 52247
Phone:
319-936-2534
Requested Action:
Vacation of right-of-way
Purpose:
To allow additional development area for an
adjacent property.
Location:
Between S. Riverside Drive and Ned
Ashton Park trailhead and north of the
current W. Benton Street right-of-way.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Commercial, CC-2
South: Commercial, CC-2
East: Public Park, P1
West: Commercial, CC-2
Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use and Public/Private Open Space
File Date:
May 1, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Professional Muffler building sustained such substantial damage in the tornado of April 13
that it was not possible to restore the former building. In order to re-establish the vehicle repair
use in the CC-2 zone, the applicant is required to seek a special exception. The prior building was
a non-conforming structure-it did not meet the minimum 10-foot front and street side setbacks
required in the current Zoning Code. For a number of years, the applicant has relied on the lower
portion of the former West Benton Street right-of-way and adjacent City property to provide
parking for his business. The applicant's lot size is limited such that it is not possible for him to
construct a new building of a similar size and meet the current zoning requirements for setbacks,
parking, and screening.
2
The proposed vacation would extend east from S. Riverside Drive to the easternmost limit of the
applicant's property. The applicant is proposing to purchase from the City the gravel parking lot to
the east of his property, extending his property another 55-60 feet (approximate) east.
ANAL YSIS:
Typically, vacating right-of-way can be recommended if, 1) it will not have a negative effect on
pedestrian or vehicular circulation, or planned circulation routes, 2) it will not be detrimental to
emergency vehicle or utility vehicle access to adjacent properties, and 3) it will not diminish
access to adjacent properties and is not needed for public or private utilities.
There is currently a sanitary sewer line located under this right-of-way. A utility easement will
need to be retained over this line. The City has notified private utilities companies about this
proposed vacation. There do not appear to be any private utility lines located within this right-of-
way. The City previously vacated a north portion of the former W. Benton Street right-of-way to
the property to the north, Linder Tire.
The City will retain a 20-foot alley to provide access to the trailhead at Ned Ashton Park and the
Linder Tire property. This will allow the City to vacate the southern portion of the right-of-way
without decreasing access to the area. There does not appear to be any public interest in
continuing to incur cost, staff-time and liability in maintaining the full right-of-way. Vacation of
the property will help the applicant to re-establish his business in compliance with current
zoning regulations.
The proposed vacation would extend east from S. Riverside Drive to the eastern most limit of the
applicant's property. The extent (length) of the vacation would be subject to resolution of the
applicant's proposal to purchase adjacent City property, which would extend the eastern limit of
his property approximately 55-60 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAC06-00003, an application to vacate the southern 33 feet of the former
West Benton Street right-of-way along the length of the applicant's property, be approved subject
to retention of any necessary utility easements.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by: ~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:\PCD \staff reports. doc
~
~ ~ -
+-'
Q)
Q)
~ l....
+-'
Cf)
~ c
0
-c: +-'
c
~ Q)
en CO
+-'
(j)
~ ~ Q)
s
's'n ""0
~ ^ 'VMH:)\H 0
9
. .
f- Z
(j) 0
~
~
<
u
0
~ - ~
~
~
~
rJ)
I
--,
~
.~-----
--- 11
Cf)
o
o
o
o
I
<0
o
o
<(
>
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
May 26, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code
Attached are several staff proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. As was
expected after such a major overhaul, we have found a few provisions in the new
zoning code that need clarification or refinement. Please note that only the
underlined sections on the following pages represent new language. The
language shown with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. We have tried to
provide enough of the surrounding code language to give you some context
within which to understand the changes proposed, but everything that is not
underlined or struck through is existing language in the code and will remain the
same.
Following are the amendments included in this packet:
1. Clarification of regulations for drives external to parking lots versus those
that are internal to parking lots. This distinction is necessary so that screening
and location standards for parking lots and driveways can be applied
consistently.
2. Clarifying language for exterior stairways, corridors, balconies and lifts.
The proposed changes will make it clear that these provisions refer to stairways
and corridors that are located above the first or ground-level floor of a building
and not to stoops or arcades located at ground level. Language is also added to
make it clear that fire egress structures would be allowed on existing buildings to
meet fire safety regulations. This will allow the occasional retrofit for older
buildings.
3. Clarify minor modification procedures for site development standards in
the multi-family zones and add a similar minor modification option for site
development standards in the commercial, industrial, and research zones.
Staff recommends that the same relief valve that we currently have in the multi-
family article should be added to the commercial and industrial zone to allow for
minor modifications in cases where the site developments standards are not
feasible due to difficult site conditions or other unique circumstances.
4. Change the building material requirements for large retail uses to make
allowance for concrete panels with brick or stone veneer or stamped
concrete panels. It is common for large commercial buildings to be constructed
with tilt-up concrete panels. This provision will allow the use of this type of
exterior building material provided that it has a veneer of brick or stone or is
stamped and colored to give the appearance brick or stone.
5. Add a provision for ground~level floor height of storefront commercial
buildings and adjusting related parking provisions to account for sloping
sites. The code currently has a standard that specifies that the ceiling height of
any underground parking may not extend more than one foot above the grade of
the abutting public sidewalk. This provision ensures that the ground-level floor of
a building is conducive to a variety of commercial uses over time and ensures
that entrances to buildings will be accessible to persons with disabilities without
excessive ramping. However, the current provisions do not give any allowance
for sloping building sites and also do not address ground-level floor height for
buildings without underground parking. The proposed changes provide this
needed flexibility without compromising the objectives stated above.
In addition, the language was revised to allow more flexibility for the location of
access points for structured parking facilities in commercial areas near
downtown (CB-2, CB-5, MU). As was the case in the former zoning code,
currently alley access is required if an alley is available. However, this does not
allow any flexibility for difficult site conditions or unique circumstances where
street access may be preferable. The changes to the language will allow needed
flexibility for site specific conditions, but ensure that access points are located
and designed to minimize traffic congestion and hazards to pedestrian and to
preserve street frontages for active building uses.
Approved by: ~ L. ...
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amendment #1: Clarification of regulations for drives external to a parking lot
versus drives internal to a parking lot.
Multi-Family Zones:
Add the following language to 14-28-6C and modify Figure 28.4 and 28.5 as shown:
C. Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached
Garages
1. Location
Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading areas must be
located behind principal building(s) and concealed from view of fronting streets.
Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between a principal building
and the street or within the required side setback area. Any portion of a parking or
loading area that is not completely concealed from view of a fronting street must be
screened to the S2 standard (See Figure 2B.4 and 2B.5, below).
Figure 2B.4 - Location of surface parking for properties with a single building
Street
Unacceptable
Street
Acceptable
Street
Acceptable
1
~
. en
T'
~
Street
Acceptable
Figure 2B.5 - Location of parking for properties with multiple buildings
-
CI)
~
en
Street
Acceptable
-
CI)
CI)
,! J::;
. (J)
Street
Acceptable
Street
Unacceptable
2
2. Aisles and Drives
Drives that are internal to a parking area. including drives that provide circulation
around the perimeter of the parking area are considered part of the parking area and
must meet the location standards for parking areas as stated in paragraph I. above. and
the landscape buffering standard as stated in paragraph 3. below. A non-hard surfaced
drive or aisle that is external to a parking area may not be located closer than 3 feet to
a lot line, except at the point of access with a street, alley, or private rear lane. Hard-
surfaced drives that are external to a parking area must be set back at least 3 feet from
any side or rear lot line, except under the following circumstances:
a. The drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of
water onto adjoining property; or
b. A drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm water
runoff; or
c. Any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a drive is shared with an
abutting lot; or
d. At the point of access with an alley or private rear lane.
3. Landscape buffering
a. A buffer area at least 10 feet in width and landscaped to at least the S2 standard
must be provided between any parking area and adjacent properties and between
any parking area and street rights-of-way (See Article 14-5F, Screening and
Buffering Standards). The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement
any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or
drive is shared with an abutting lot.
b. A buffer area at least 5 feet in width and landscaped to the S 1 standard must be
provided between any parking area containing more than 8 parking spaces and
an adjacent alley.
c. No parking area or drive shall be closer than 10 feet to any portion of a building
other than a garage entrance or loading area apron. This 10-foot area must be
used for walkways and landscaping consisting of at least 50 percent vegetative
coverage. If parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a
wall contain.ing ground level windows, said parking spaces must be screened
from view of the windows to at least the S2 standard.
3
Add the following language to 14-2C-9E and modify Figure 2C.3 and 2C.4 as shown:
E. Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached
Garages for Multi-Family, Group Living, Commercial, and
Civic/Institutional Uses
1. Location
Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading areas must be
located behind principal building(s) and concealed from view of fronting streets.
Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between a principal building
and the street or within the required side setback area. Any portion of a parking or
loading area that is not completely concealed from view of a fronting street must be
screened to the S2 standard (See Figure 2C.3 and 2CA, below).
Figure 2C. 3 - Location of surface parking for properties with a single building
Street
Unacceptable
Street
Acceptable
Street
Acceptable
4
~
VJ
Street
Acceptable
Figure 2C.4 - Location of parking for properties with multiple buildings
-
Q)
~
Ci5
Street
Acceptable
-
Q)
~
.\ Ci5
t-' t< ~
t-:\<~ t ~-
Street
Acceptable
Street
Unacceptable
5
2. Aisles and Drives
Drives that are internal to a parking area. including drives that provide circulation
around the perimeter of the parking area are considered part of the parking area and
must meet the location standards for parking areas as stated in paragraph 1. above. and
the landscape buffering standard as stated in paragraph 3. below. A non-hard surfaced
drive or aisle that is external to a parking area may not be located closer than 3 feet to
a lot line, except at the point of access with a street, alley, or private rear lane. Hard-
surfaced drives that are external to a parking area must be set back at least 3 feet from
any side or rear lot line, except under the following circumstances:
a. The drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of
water onto adjoining property; or
b. A drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm water
runoff; or
c. Any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a drive is shared with an
abutting lot; or
d. At the point of access with an alley or private rear lane.
3. Landscape buffering
a. A buffer area at least 10 feet in width and landscaped to at least the S2 standard
must be provided between any parking area and adjacent properties and between
any parking area and street rights-of-way (See Article 14-5F, Screening and
Buffering Standards). The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement
any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or
drive is shared with an abutting lot.
b. A buffer area at least 5 feet in width and landscaped to the S 1 standard must be
provided between any parking area containing more than 8 parking spaces and
an adjacent alley.
c. No parking area or drive shall be closer than 10 feet to any portion of a building
other than a garage entrance or loading area apron. This 10-foot area must be
used for walkways and landscaping consisting of at least 50 percent vegetative
coverage. If parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a
wall containing ground level windows, said parking spaces must be screened
from view of the windows to at least the S2 standard.
6
Amend the following definitions:
DRIVE/DRIVEW A Y: A permanent, durable surface designed to provide vehicular access
from a street to a lot or to provide vehicular access between different parts of a lot or
parking area. With regard to f)arkiRg areas, A drive that is internal to a parking area is
not the same as an aisle (See definition of AISLE, above).
PARKING AREA: An off-street facility intended and designed for the parking of more
than 4 motor vehicles. A parking area includes parking spaces, aisles, landscaped
islands and medians, and drives that provide circulation within a parking area or
around the perimeter of a parking area. Drives that are external to a parking area are
not considered a part of the parking area.
7
Amendment # 2: Changing the word "stairwell" to "stairway" and clarifying
language for exterior stairways, corridors, balconies and lifts.
Multi-Family Residential Zones:
Amend 14-2B-60-6 as follows:
6. To provide for the safety of residents, access to entrance doors of any individual
dwellings units located above the ground level must be provided from an enclosed
lobby or corridor and stairwell stairwav. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior
stairwells stairways may not be used as the primary means of access to dwellina
units located above the around level floor of the buildina upper level units. This
provision does not preclude the use of fire escapes earess structures.
Amend 14-2B-6F as follows:
F. Balconies and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts
For purposes of this subsection the term. "exterior stairways." refers to stairways that lead to
floors of a building that are above the first or ground-level floor of a building. "Exterior
corridors" refers to unenclosed corridors located above the first or ground-level floor of a
building. Balconies and exterior stairwells stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts
must comply with the following standards:
1. Exterior stainvells stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited in the
PRM Zone; however. the City may allow exterior fire egress structures on existing
buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code requirements. provided the fire
egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a street. In other zones,
exterior stairwells stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts must be covered with
a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. Said
roof should be incorporated into the overall roofplan of the structure. Alternatively,
such features may be recessed into the fa9ade of the building. Exterior corridors may
not be located on a street-facing wall of the building or within 20 feet of a street-
facing wall.
2. Unenclosed or partially enclosed stairways may not be used as the primary means of
access to dwelling units located above the ground-level floor of the building (See 14-
2B-6D-6).
3. Balconies, exterior stain'lells stairways, exterior lifts and exterior corridors may not be
located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property that is zoned Single
Family Residential or that contains an existing Single Family Use. Buildings that are
set back at least 40 feet from any such property are exempt from this standard.
4. The design of any balcony, exterior stairwell stairway, exterior lift and exterior
corridor must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings that are designed and
constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials
used for the rest of the building.
1
Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-I)
Amend 14-2C-70 as/allows:
O. Balconies and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts
For purposes ofthis subsection the term. "exterior stairways." refers to stairways that lead to
floors of a building that are above the first or ground-level floor of a building. "Exterior
corridors" refers to unenclosed corridors located above the first or ground-level floor of a
building. Balconies and exterior stairwells stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts
must comply with the following standards:
I. Exterior stain veils stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited. The
City may allow exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot
otherwise reasonably meet code requirements. provided the fire egress structure is not
located on a wall of a building that faces a street.
2. Balconies may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property
that is zoned Single Family Residential.
3. The outer edge of a balcony shall not be closer than 4 feet from a side lot line.
4. The design of any balcony must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings
that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the
design and materials used for the rest of the building. Unpainted and unstained lumber
is not permitted.
2
Central Business Zones (CB-5 and CB-tO)
Delete 14-2C-8K-2, because it is redundant to provisions stated in 14-2C-8N:
2. Aeeess te eommereialases loeated above the gONRd leyel mast be pre'/ided from llfl
eRelosed lobby or eerridor llfld stairwell. UReRelosea er partially eRelosed exterior
stairwells are pfohibited.
Amend 14-2C-8N as follows:
N. Balconies, and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts
For purposes of this subsection the term. "exterior stairways." refers to stairways that lead to
floors of a building that are above the first or ground-level floor of a building. "Exterior
corridors" refers to unenclosed corridors located above the first or ground-level floor of a
building. Balconies and exterior stairwells stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts
must comply with the following standards:
5. Exterior staiIwells stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited, with
the following exception~. The City will allow exterior lifts on existing buildings that
cannot otherwise reasonably meet accessibility requirements, provided the lift is not
located on a wall of a building that faces a street or the City Plaza. The City may
allow exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise
reasonablv meet code requirements. provided the fire egress structure is not located on
a wall of a building that faces a street or the City Plaza.
6. Balconies may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property
that is zoned Single Family Residential.
7. The outer edge ofa balcony shall not be closer than 4 feet from a side lot line.
8. The design of any balcony must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings
that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the
design and materials used for the rest of the building. Unpainted and unstained lumber
is not permitted.
3
Mixed Use Zone (MU)
Amend 14-2C-9F-6 as follows:
6. To provide for the safety of residents, access to entrance doors of any individual
dwellings units located above the ground level floor of a buildina must be provided
from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stail"\\lell stairway. Unenclosed or partially
enclosed exterior stairwells stairways may not be used as the primary means of
access to upper level units. This provision does not preclude the use of fire escapes
earess structures.
Amend 14-2C-9H as follows:
H. Balconies, and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts for Multi-Family,
Group Living, Commercial, and Civic/Institutional Buildings
For purposes of this subsection the term. "exterior stairways." refers to stairways that lead to
floors of a building that are above the first or ground-level floor of a building. "Exterior
corridors" refers to unenclosed corridors located above the first or ground-level floor of a
building. Balconies and exterior stairwells stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts
must comply with the following standards:
1. Exterior staifwells stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited, with
the following exceptions. The City will allow exterior lifts on existing buildings that
cannot otherwise reasonably meet accessibility requirements. provided the lift is not
located on a wall of a building that faces a street. The City may allow exterior fire
egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code
requirements. provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building
that faces a street.
2. Balconies may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property
that is zoned Single Family Residential or that contains an existing Single Family Use.
Buildings that are set back at least 40 feet from any such property are exempt from
this standard.
3. The outer edge of a balcony shall not be closer than 4 feet from a side lot line.
4. The design of any balcony must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings
that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the
design and materials used for the rest of the building. Unpainted and unstained lumber
is not permitted.
Multi-Family Uses in Commercial Zones
Amend 14-4B-4A-7c(2) as follows:
(2) Access to entrance doors of any individual dwellings units located above the ground
level floor of a buildina must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and
stairwell stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairv:ells stairways are
prohibited. However. the City may allow exterior fire earess structures on existina
buildinas that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code reauirements. provided the
fire earess structure is not located on a wall of a buildina that faces a street.
4
Amendment #3 - Clarify minor modification procedures for site development
standards in the Multi-Family Zone Article and add a similar minor modification
option for site development standards in the Commercial Zone and Industrial
Zone Articles
Multi-Family Zones:
Amend 14-2B-6J as follows:
J. Minor Modifications
A minor modification to adjust or waive specific provisions of this section may be
requested in either of the qualifying situations listed in the paragraphs below. Such requests
will be reviewed jeifttly by the Design Review Committee, the Director of Planning and
Community Development, and the Building Official according to the procedures for Minor
Modifications as set forth in Article 14-8B and must meet the following approval criteria.
The following approval criteria are to be applied in lieu of the general approval criteria
listed in Section 14-4B-I, Minor Modifications.
I. Qualifying Situation: The configuration of the lot or other existing physical condition
of the lot makes the application of a specific standard impractical. In such a case, the
applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met:
a. The applicant must provide evidence that the configuration of the lot, the
topography, or other physical characteristic of the property makes the
application of a specific standard of this section impractical. Examples of
situations that may qualify include double-fronting lots, triangular shaped lots,
and steeply sloping lots.
b. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed alternative design is not
contrary to the intent of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards.
c. The applicant must propose an alternative site or building design that best meets
the intent of the specific standard being modified or wai'iea.
d. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the property is located.
e. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
f. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances,
laws and regulations.
2. Qualifying Situation: The proposed site or building is uniquely designed to fit the site
and the surrounding neighborhood. In such a situation, the applicant must
demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met:
a. The applicant proposes an alternative design solution that equally or better
meets the intent of the specific standard being modified or '.'"ai'/ea.
b. The proposed site and building design is uniquely designed to fit the
characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood such that it equally
or better meets the purpose of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards.
1
c. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the property is located.
d. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
e. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances,
laws and regulations.
Commercial Zones
Add a new section 14-2C-IO, entitled "Minor Modifications to Site Development Stmvlards," as
follows and renumber the current 14-2C-IO to 14-2C-ll.
14-2C-10 Minor Modifications to Site Development Standards
A minor modification to adjust specific provisions of Sections 14-2C-6. 14-2C-7. 14-2C-8. or
14-2C-9. may be requested in either of the qualifying situations listed in the paragraphs below.
Such requests will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. the Director of Planning and
Community Development. and the Building Official according to the procedures for Minor
Modifications as set forth in Article 14-8B and must meet the following approval criteria. The
following approval criteria are to be applied in lieu of the general approval criteria listed in
Section 14-4B-1. Minor Modifications.
A. Qualifying Situation: The configuration of the lot or other existing ohysical condition
of the lot makes the application of a specific standard imoractical. In such a case,
the applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met:
I. The applicant must provide evidence that the configuration of the lot. the topography.
or other physical characteristic of the property makes the application of a specific
standard impractical. Examples of situations that may qualify include double-fronting
lots. triangular shaped lots. and steeply sloping lots.
2. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed alternative design is not contrary to
the intent of the site development standards.
3. The applicant must propose an alternative site or building design that best meets the
intent of the specific standard being modified.
4. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health. safety. or
welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the
zone in which the property is located.
5. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly
authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
6. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes. ordinances. laws
and regulations.
B. Qualifying Situation: The prooosed site or building is uniauely designed to fit the
site and the surrounding area. In such a situation, the applicant must demonstrate
that the following approval criteria are met:
I. The applicant proposes an alternative design solution that equally or better meets the
intent of the specific standard being modified.
2
2. The proposed site and building design is uniquely designed to fit the characteristics of
the site and the surrounding area such that it equally or better meets the purpose of the
site development standards.
3. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health. safety. or
welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the
zone in which the property is located.
4. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly
authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
5. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes. ordinances. laws
and regulations.
Industrial and Research Zones
Add a new subsection G to 14-2D-5, entitled "Minor Modifications to Site Development
Standards, " as follows:
G. Minor Modifications to Site Development Standards
A minor modification to adjust specific provisions ofthis section may be requested in either
of the qualifying situations listed in the paragraphs below. Such requests will be reviewed
by the Director of Planning and Community Development and the Building Official
according to the procedures for Minor Modifications as set forth in Article 14-8B and must
meet the following approval criteria. The following approval criteria are to be applied in
lieu of the general approval criteria listed in Section 14-4B-l. Minor Modifications.
6. Oualifying Situation: The configuration of the lot or other existing physical condition
of the lot makes the application of a specific standard impractical. In such a case. the
applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met:
a. The applicant must provide evidence that the configuration of the lot. the
topography. or other physical characteristic of the property makes the
application of a specific standard impractical. Examples of situations that may
qualify include double-fronting lots. triangular shaped lots. and steeply sloping
lots.
b. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed alternative design is not
contrary to the intent ofthe site development standards.
c. The applicant must propose an alternative site or building design that best meets
the intent of the specific standard being modified.
d. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health. safety.
or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the property is located.
e. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
f. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes. ordinances.
laws and regulations.
7. Oualifying Situation: The proposed site or building is uniquely designed to fit the site
and the surrounding area. In such a situation. the applicant must demonstrate that the
following approval criteria are met:
3
a. The applicant proposes an alternative design solution that equally or better
meets th~ intent of the specific standard being modified.
b. The proposed site and building design is uniquely designed to fit the
characteristics of the site and the surrounding area such that it equally or better
meets the purpose of the site development standards.
c. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health. safety.
or welfare or be iniurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and
in the zone in which the property is located.
d. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subiect property.
e. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes. ordinances.
laws and regulations.
Minor Modification Procedures
Amend 14-4B-IA-16 and add new paragraphs 17 and 18 asfallows:
16. Modifications to the Multi-Family Site Development Standards contained in
Section 14-2B-6 according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that
section. The Buildina Official must obtain approval from the Desian Review
Committee and the Director of Plannina and Communitv Development prior to
arantina anv such modification. Such requests shall be reviewed and approved
jointly by the Design Review Committee, the Director of Planning and Community
Development, and the Building Official.
17. Modifications to the site development standards contained in Sections 14-2C-6.
14-2C-7. 14-2C-8. or 14-2C-9 accordina to the alternate approval criteria set forth
in that section 14-2C-10. The Buildina Official must obtain approval from the
Desian Review Committee and the Director of Plannina and Communitv
Development prior to arantina any such modification.
18. Modifications to the site development standards contained in Section 14-2D-5
accordina to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that section. The Buildina
Official must obtain approval from the Director of Plannina and Community
Development prior to arantina any such modification.
4
Amendment # 4: Change building material requirements for large retail uses to
make allowance for stamped concrete.
Amend 14-2C-6K-5 as follows:
5. Building Materials
a. The building materials shall be predominantly quality exterior building materials,
including brick, masonry, stone, stucco, or textured concrete masonry units.
Concrete panels with a veneer of brick or masonry may be approved provided the
material gives the appearance of one or more of the high auality building materials
listed above. Stamped concrete panels will only be considered if they are finished
with patterns and colors such that they appear to be brick or masonry.
Predominantly is defined as at least 75 percent of the exterior of the entire
building, but not necessarily of each building wall. For example, use of such
materials may should be concentrated along building walls that are visible from
public streets or that contain public entrances.
b. Use of smooth-faced concrete block, unadorned tilt-up concrete panels,
prefabricated steel or vinyl panels or sheets should be minimized. If used, these
materials may cover no more than 25 percent of the exterior of the entire building
and should be reserved for building walls that area less visible to the public.
1
Amendment #5: Ground-level floor height of storefront commercial buildings and
related parking provisions
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone
Add a paragraph 2 to 14-2C-7N as follows:
2. To encouraae commercial activity at the street level. entrances to storefronts and the
around level floor heiaht should be no more than one foot above the level of the
abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. On slopina buildina sites and for existina
buildinas. the City may adiust this requirement. However. on slopina sites at least a
portion of the around level floor heiaht of any new buildina must be located no more
than one foot above the level of the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and the
floor heiaht of the around level floor of the buildina must be no more than 3 feet
above the level of the abuttina public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point alona
a street-facina buildina facade.
Central Business (CB-5 and CB-10) Zones
Add a paragraph 2 to 14-2C-BK as follows:
2. To encouraae commercial activity at the street level. entrances to storefronts and the
around level floor heiaht should be no more than one foot above the level of the
abuttina sidewalk or Qedestrian plaza. On slopina buildina sites and for existina
buildinas. the City may adiust this requirement. However. on slopina sites at least a
portion of the around level floor heiaht of any new buildina must be located no more
than one foot above the level of the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza: and the
floor heiaht of the around level floor of the buildina must be no more than 3 feet
above the level of the abuttina public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point alona
a street-facina buildina facade.
Mixed Use (MU) Zone
Add a paragraph 4 to 14-2C-9K as follows:
4. To encouraae commercial activity at the street level. entrances to the around level
floor of a buildina that fronts on a public street or pedestrian plaza should be no more
than one foot above the level of the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. In
addition. the around level floor heiaht for buildinas that front on a street should be no
more than one foot above the level of the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. On
slopina buildina sites and for existina buildinas. the City may adiust these
requirements. However. on slopina sites at least a portion of the around level floor
heiaht of any new buildina must be located no more than one foot above the level of
the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and the floor heiaht of the around level
floor of the buildina must be no more than 3 feet above the level of the abuttina
public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point alona a street-facina buildina facade.
1
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
Amend 14-5A-5F as follows:
A. Standards for Structured Parking in Multi-Family and Commercial Zones
The following standards apply to structured parking in all Multi-Family Zones and all
Commercial Zones, except the CB-l 0 Zone. Standards for structured parking in the CB-l 0
Zone are specified in Subsection 14-SA-3D, above.
1. In Commereial Z08es the CN-I. CB-2. CB-S. and the MU Zones the ground level
floor of a building is reserved primarily for principal uses allowed in the zone.
Therefore, any parking located within the exterior walls of the building must meet the
following standards:
a. Structured parking is not permitted on the ground-level floor of the building for
the first 30 feet of lot depth as measured from the minimum setback line. In the
CN-l Zone it is measured from the "build-to" line.
b. No more than 50 percent of the ground level floor of a building may consist of
parking.
c. The ceiling height of an underground parking level may extend no more than I
foot above the level of the adjacent sidewalk. On sloping building sites and for
existing buildings. the City may adiust this requirement. However. on sloping
sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building must
be located no more than one foot above the level of the abutting sidewalk or
pedestrian plaza: and the floor height of the ground level floor of the building
must be no more than 3 feet above the level ofthe abutting public sidewalk or
pedestrian plaza at any point along a street-facing building facade.
2. Except for garage openings, the parking area must be enclosed within the exterior
walls of the building. In no case shall a building have the appearance from the street
or from abutting properties of being elevated above a parking level or "on stilts." (See
Figure SA.!)
3. Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public or private street
or from an abutting property must appear to be a component of the fac;ade of the
building through the use of building materials, window openings and fac;ade detailing
that is similar or complementary to the design of the building and must comply with
the other standards ofthis Section. (See Figure SA. I )
2
Figure 5A.] - Structured Parking
c.-....2:T>--
..:?,;';--t~:'\-~
\(~~_......_V~~,
o
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
4. In addition to window openings, the City may require landscaping as a means to
soften the visual effect of any garage walls located at the street level. Shrubs, small
berms, and planters may be used to form a landscaped screen generally ranging
between 2 and 4 feet in height. Trees may also be incorporated into the landscaped
area if sufficient area is available for tree growth.
5. Garage Entrances/Exits.
a. Vehicular access to parking within buildings should be located and designed to
minimize traffic congestion and hazards to pedestrians and to preserve street
frontages for active building uses.
b. In the CB-2. CB-5. and MU Zones. alley or rear lane access is preferred. If alley
access is not feasible due to topographical limitations or other unique
circumstances. garage openings may face a street. but must be designed to in a
manner that will best meet the obiectives listed in subparagraph a.. above.
'I ehicalar access to parkiHg mast be from a rear alley or private rear lane, if
&yailahle. If fear access is HElt possible, garage ElpeHiHgs may face a street, but
mast eompl)' with the f-allowing standanis:
e. The lElcatioH of driye',vays and gamge ofleHiHgs must be desigaed to miHimize
h~ards to pedestrians.
d. If the structured parking is intended for residents or tenants of a building and not
the general public, there may be no more than one double-wide or two single-
wide garage openings per building. Double-wide openings may not exceed 18
feet in width; single-wide openings may not exceed 9 feet in width. For
structured parking intended for use by the general public. garage openings
should be limited in width and number to only what is necessary to provide
adequate access for the types and numbers of vehicles using the parking facility.
e, Except in the CN-I, CB-2. MU and CB-5 Zones, the opening(s) must occupy no
more than 50% of the length of the street-facing building wall. On corner lots,
only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. In the CN-I, CB-2.
MU and CB-5 Zones, garage opening(s) along the primary street frontage are
not permitted if access is possible feasible from another local or collector street
or from a rear alley, private street or private rear lane. If there is no feasible
alternative, garage opening(s) ftfe may be allowed along the primary street
frontage, provided that they occupy no more than 35 percent of the length of the
primary street frontage of the lot and provided that all provisions of Article 14-
5C. Access Management are met.
3
B. Standards for Structured Parking in Industrial and Research Zones
Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a principal building, the following
standards apply:
1. Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from an arterial street must
appear to be a component of the fayade of the building through the use of building
materials, window openings and fayade detailing that is similar or complementary to
the design of the building. In no case shall a building have the appearance from an
arterial street of being elevated above a parking level or "on stilts." (See Figure SA. I )
2. Garage Entrances/Exits. 'I ehieular aeeess to parking within buildings must be fr0m a
private street, rear alley, or private rear lime, if available. If sueR aeeess is not
possible, garage openings may faee a publie street, but must be designed to minimize
hazaras to peaestriaRs. Vehicular access to parking within buildings should be located
and designed to minimize traffic congestion and hazards to pedestrians: and to
preserve street frontages for active building uses to the extent feasible. Garage
openings should be limited in width and number to only what is necessary to provide
adequate access for the types and numbers of vehicles using the parking facility.
Standards for private oft-street parking in the CB-10 Zone
Amend 14-5A-3D-4c, as follows:
c. Underground parking is preferred over above-ground structured parking. The design
of any underground parking must not detract from or prevent active building uses on
the ground-level floor of the building. To that end, the ceiling height of any
underground parking level may not extend more than 1 foot above the level of the
adjacent sidewalk. On slopina buildina sites and for existina buildinas. the City may
adiust this requirement. However. on slopina sites at least a portion of the around
level floor heiaht of any new buildina must be located no more than one foot above
the level of the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza: and the floor heiaht of the
around level floor of the buildina must be no more than 3 feet above the level of the
abuttina public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point alona a street-facina buildina
facade.
Multi-Family Uses in the CQ-1, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-
10 Zones
Add a subsubparagraph (3) to 14-4B-4A-7c. as follows:
(3) To facilitate commercial uses at the street level. the around level floor heiaht should
be no more than one foot above the level of the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian
plaza. On slopina buildina sites and for existina buildinas. the City may adiust this
requirement. However. on slopina sites at least a portion of the around level floor
heiaht of any new buildina must be located no more than one foot above the level of
the abuttina sidewalk or pedestrian plaza: and the floor heiaht of the around level
floor of the buildina must be no more than 3 feet above the level of the abuttina
public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point alona a street-facina buildina facade.
4
Surface parking in the CB-5 Zone
Amend 14-2C-BG-2a, as follows:
a. Vehicul:u access to parking areas and allloading.'unloading facilities must be
provided from a rear alley or pri'Jate rear land, if available. If alley access is not
available, driveways between a street and a parking area must be minimized in
number and width and must be designed to minimize hazards to pedestrians.
Vehicular access to parkina should be located and desianed to minimize traffic
conaestion and hazards to pedestrians and to preserve street frontaaes for active
buildina uses. If available. alley or rear lane access is preferred. If alley access is
not feasible due to topoaraphicallimitations or other uniaue circumstances. driveway
access from a street may be allowed. but must be desianed in a manner that will
best meet the obiectives listed in this subparaaraph.
5
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL
MAY 18, 2006
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks,
Terry Smith, Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Swartzendruber, Mary Frantz, Cindy Clark, Bruce Teague, Michael Lensing,
Julie Hauserman, Teresa Steicher, Maria Chavez Escobar, Tim Schumacher,
Peter Rohrbough, Kelly Lamb
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB06-00005, a preliminary plat of Hollywood Manor Part 9, a 12-
lot, 4.84-acre residential subdivision located west of Russel Drive and south of Burns Avenue subject to Staff
approval of the grading plan prior to consideration by City Council.
Recommended denial, by a vote of 7-0, REZ06-00012, a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for 6750 square feet of property located at 619
Kirkwood Avenue.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, CZ06-00001, a rezoning from R, Residential, to County A,
Agricultural for approximately 4.34-acres of property located in Fringe Area A, south side of Linder Road NE
with a conditional use permit for a cemetery and recommendation for additional off street parking for the
expanded cemetery.
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB06-00005, discussion of an application submitted by ST Enterprises LC for a preliminary plat and sensitive
areas site plan of Hollywood Manor Part 9, a 12-lot, 4.84-acre residential subdivision located west of Russell
Drive and south of Burns Avenue.
Karen Howard summarized the staff report. Howard stated that the proposed preliminary plat is in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision will be the last part of Hollywood Manor subdivision. The land is
already zoned for single family residential uses. 12 single-family home lots are proposed within the
subdivision, with a residential density similar to the adjacent subdivision. The lots will be a little larger because
of the triangle-shape of the lots and cul-de-sac design backing up to Wetherby Park. The streets are designed
to terminate in cul-de-sacs at the ends of Totting Circle and Wetherby Drive. There is no opportunity to
connect the streets due to the location of the park and the fact that the property to the south has already been
platted without connecting streets extended to this property. Existing groves of trees are located on the
property, which contains a single-family farm house. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a Level 1
sensitive areas review [Staff level administrative review] when groves are present on a property to make sure
that the property is platted to preserve the trees to the extent practical. Staff reviewed the proposed
preliminary plat and requested some adjustments to the street design and to the lot lines in order to
save/preserve more trees than what was initially proposed. The loop drive at the end of Totting Circle is
proposed in order to preserve two large white pine trees which the City Forester has determined are worthy of
preservation. The linear grove that extends along the park boundary will create a nice buffer of mature trees
between the park and the proposed subdivision. The trees marked with an 'X' on the proposed plat are
proposed to be removed during grading. Howard said that the City had not yet received a revised grading plan
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 2
but she thought that the applicant intended to submit one soon. The City Engineer will need to review it to
make sure that the grading plan will work to preserve the trees shown on the plan and facilitate the proposed
storm water management for the southern portion of the property.
When the property was initially zoned RS-5, the conditional zoning agreement was adopted that requires an
access to Wetherby Park from this subdivision; that access is shown on the plat as Outlot A extending from
the end of Wetherby Drive to the park boundary. An additional walkway was proposed from Totting Circle, but
was rejected by the Parks Director because it would interfere with established garden plots and would result in
the loss of additional mature trees near the boundary of the park.
Designing the stormwater management for the property was somewhat difficult for the developer because this
property is surrounded by property that has either already been developed or has already been preliminary
platted. The northern portion of the property flows northwest, the middle portion of the property flows to the
South Sycamore Drainage Corridor and the remaining southern portion flows to the southwest across the as
yet to be developed Brookwood Pointe subdivision. Brookwood Pointe was preliminary platted without an
accommodation for stormwater flows from the subject Hollywood Manor property. The two property owners
are currently working out an easement agreement for a temporary stormwater outlet to flow onto the property
to the south until Brookwood Point is developed, when at such time a connection will be made into the
stormsewer facilities planned for Brookwood Pointe.
Howard said items which still needed to be resolved included a review of the grading plan by the Public Works
Department. Staff recommends approval of SUB06-00005, provided the grading plan is submitted and
approved by Public Works.
Freerks asked how the protected groves in the conservation plan would be marked and protected. Howard
said the developer and construction manager(s) would meet with the enforcement department on the actual
site before any grading or development activity began. There was a particular concern for two trees with
respect to the street design and ensuring that no damage occurred to the trees. Bob Miklo said at the time of
final plat it could be addressed in further detail, such as requiring fencing.
Public discussion was opened.
Sarah Swartzendruber, 1 S. Gilbert Street, attorney for S. Larson. She said ST Enterprises had developed the
property adjacent to Hollywood Manor Part 8 and has this real estate under contract in order to purchase it. It
is the developer's intent to preserve the farm house located on the property. The applicant met with City Staff
numerous times to determine what was and was not practical with respect to saving trees. Swartzendruber
said she understood there was concern among the neighbors regarding the preservation of trees and assured
them that all trees delineated on the Sensitive Areas Development Plan would be preserved as well as all
other trees that it would be practical to do so. The developer had no plans to grade the entire area that was not
within a conservation area. The real estate has been zoned for single-family low density development since
1983 so it should have been anticipated that Hollywood Manor would continue into that parcel of land. The
applicant requested that the Commission vote on the application during the meeting and the grading plan
would be submitted for review prior to Council consideration.
Mary Frantz, 2359 Russell Drive [Lot #54] said from their living room window her family could see a beautiful
space with trees and a lovely garden with hostas and flowers. She and her husband felt it was a beautiful
place and they would like to preserve the area. They did not object to new neighbors, but requested that the
plat could be reconfigured to allow some green space and common areas where people could enjoy nature.
Cindv Clark, 1442 Wetherby Drive [Lot 50] said they'd had several neighborhood meetings and a lot of feelings
had been expressed regarding what was happening to Helen's property. They'd known that there would be
some type of further development around them, but they'd not know how it was going to affect the landscape.
The property was fantastic, a beautiful grove of colorful trees. Clark said she thought Helen would probably be
turning over in her grave regarding the turn of events. Helen had talked about her property and had forbidden
a subdivision of her property to happen, but when her son had obtained the property he'd chosen to do
otherwise. As more of the neighbors became aware of what was happening, they all became a little angrier.
The farmhouse, located to the west of her property, was to be preserved but the driveway was to be rerouted
so it would run right past her bedroom window. Clark said she'd specifically designed her house so as to be
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 3
able to enjoy Helen's property. She was displeased with the proposed redesign I relocation of the driveway;
could anything be done about it. Larson was aware of her concern(s) and how personally upsetting it was to
her as she'd designed and built her house for the visual reasons to the west. Clark said she was very upset
about the subdivision of the property as well as the future of lots 7 & 8 which totally would take away what all
the adjacent lot owners had built their houses there for. They'd all built their houses or purchased their lots for
the visual beauty of Lots 7 & 8, as proposed in the new subdivision. If the lots could somehow be preserved
that was a main point. It was a grassy area with very beautiful trees and would be difficult to build on due to
the awkward shape of the lot. She asked it could it become a park area or be reviewed for the preservation of
the trees.
Clark said another concern was having a walkway over to the park, the barrier of trees that went along the
parkway was a wind barrier as well as a security area to screen and buffer what went on in small little used
community parks. Clark said having the trees there as a screen and the barbed wire fence made it a secure
area, which separated their development from the park. Having the proposed walkway through there was a
surprise to the neighborhood, if that could be eliminated or relocated it would be a preference of the residents.
Clark said when she was searching for a lot to build her house on, the farm property had meant a lot to her, it
had been the biggest selling point for her. It had determined how she designed her house and where she
located it on her lot and where she put her big windows. Now, it would be all ruined.
Clark said a lot of the neighbors who'd attended the neighborhood meetings had been unable to attend the
P&Z meeting due to being out of town or other commitments including the people who currently resided in the
farmhouse, otherwise there would have been a larger group of neighbors present.
Freerks said there was a notation on Lot 50, "existing gravel drive to be removed", what was that? Howard
said it was the existing driveway to the farmhouse which went across Lot 50 and was scheduled to be
removed. The new drive is proposed to come off Wetherby Drive. Clark said it went through her yard, but she
didn't care.
Public discussion was closed.
Ann Freerks asked what was the maximum density for these lots. Howard said this was an RS-5 zone; the lots
proposed are bigger than what is required because of the nature of the property and being on a cul-de-sac. It
was probably the most lots that could be placed on a cul-de-sac and have enough frontage to meet the
minimum zoning requirements. The streets were designed in order to maximize the number of lots.
Motion: Terry Smith made a motion to approve, SUB06-00005, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan
of Hollywood Manor Part 9, a 12-lot, 4.84-acre residential subdivision located west of Russell Drive and south
of Burns Avenue subject to Staff approval of the grading plan prior to Council consideration. Charlie Eastham
seconded.
Beth Koppes asked if it would be possible to have the new driveway moved a little so it would not be so
intrusive. Could the Commission review that and make a statement to the developer at final plat stage.
Howard said the proposed location was not shown on the plat, she was not sure that they could comment on
it. Behr said driveway placement was not within their platting purview, but the Commission could make a
statement. Miklo said the Zoning Ordinance would require it to be at least three feet from the property line.
The City could not dictate its exact location but the Commission could encourage the developer to place it
further to the west.
Wally Plahutnik said he understands that some people feel they would be adversely affected by this
subdivision. Neighbors want some of the area to be park land and he also noted that it was the first time he'd
ever heard citizen input that access to a park would be a bad thing. He resided 'right down town' and there
was a lot of "action" in his neighborhood as well, but Plahutnik said he regarded neighborhood parks as a
good thing and walked through them at least a couple of times in a week. He stated that if the neighbors are
interested in a private park, they might do what persons on the north side have done; get together as a group
and purchase tracts from the developer. They'd signed covenants which prohibited any future development
along the ravine(s). It would cost some money, but this was all about money. The property belongs to
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 4
someone who wants to develop it and make some cash. The developer worked with the City to make it as
good for the City as possible, which was what the Commission was trying to do as well. Plahutnik said looking
at the plats, this property has been zoned for development for many years and it was not too different than
anything already developed to the east. It was unfortunate; the adjoining property owners enjoyed their views
for many years which now might be somewhat diminished but in this instance it was someone else's property.
Smith said he echoed Plahutnik's comments. He lived in the area and shared the neighbor's sentiments but
agreed with Plahutniks' assessment of and suggestion for possible remedy.
Freerks thanked the neighbors for taking the time to come to the meeting and share their comments. She said
RS-5 was the lowest density so the neighbors would not be seeing large parking lots or high density. City Staff
had worked with the developer in a number of sit-down sessions to make the proposed development better
than what was initially proposed with regard to preserving mature trees.
Eastham and Brooks said a walkway to the park had been part of the original rezoning years ago and was
intended to serve all the people that resided to the east of the park.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ06-00012, discussion of an application submitted by Bruce Teague for a rezoning from Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for 6750 square feet of property
located at 619 Kirkwood Avenue.
Sarah Walz summarized the staff report. Walz said the zoning on all sides of this parcel was residential except
for the Lensing Funeral Home property which is zoned Commercial Office CO-1. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends that the area be maintained as residential; it also identifies Kirkwood Avenue as an area of
particular concern with respect to capacity of the street to handle increased traffic and the need to preserve
the integrity of the existing neighborhood along Kirkwood Avenue. Areas of concern include not only traffic
traveling on Kirkwood Avenue but traffic attempting to exit from and enter on to Kirkwood as well.
In 1993, the property immediately to the west was rezoned from RS-5 to CO-1 to allow expansion of the
existing funeral home. At that time, Staff recommended against rezoning that parcel believing that a clear
demarcation between the commercial and residential zones would be eroded and that it would also encourage
further requests for rezonings to commercial moving further to the east. Conditions placed on that particular
rezoning included closing a curb cut; moving an access further to the west away from the residential area;
additional landscape buffering along the streetscape to add to the demarcation between commercial and
residential.
Since the granting of that rezoning, residents along Kirkwood Avenue and some commercial property owners
have continued to express concern regarding the traffic load on Kirkwood Avenue and the difficulty of entering
and exiting onto Kirkwood Avenue.
Access to this specific property would be a one-lane drive in the front which Staff feels would create a safety
concern for vehicles parking on the site which would be required to back onto Kirkwood Avenue to exit the
property. To create a situation in which vehicles could turn around on the property would require paving most
of the front yard. An alternative would be to allow traffic access to the property through the gravel alley in the
rear of the property, but it would direct commercial traffic onto Diana Street and through a residential
neighborhood. The flow of commercial traffic on Diana is a current complaint for some residents on Diana
Street.
The subject lot is only 45-feet wide which would make it difficult to provide a buffer between any commercial
development and the residential neighborhood and to preserve the house. If the house were removed, it would
change the residential character of the neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 5
Walz pointed out that the applicant indicated that his business would not have clients coming and going from
the site, however a rezoning to CO-1 would allow for a more intensive use of the site over time. By definition, a
rezoning is not restricted to the current owner or to their good intentions but ran with the property without
regard to a change in circumstance. Allowed uses in a CO-1 zone would include medical and general office
uses, retail personal services uses, funeral home and other uses, such as veterinary clinic by special
exception. Staff has a concern that if at some point in the future the adjacent funeral home acted on the option
to purchase this parcel and were able to extend into the commercial zone, it would compel commercial traffic
onto Diana Street instead of onto Kirkwood Avenue. Diana is a residential street and not intended to
accommodate frequent large volumes of commercial traffic. Staff felt that no change in conditions or
circumstance had occurred to warrant the rezoning. There was no shortage of office space in the community
or shortage of commercial space. In his application, the applicant cited the opportunity to reduce his overhead
costs for the rent of his business. It was a legitimate concern for the business but the particular constraint(s)
and specific uses of the applicant on their own did not provide sufficient justification for a rezoning. The intent
of zoning is to help create vibrant commercial and residential areas by restricting one use from creeping into
the next use by controlling expansion of either use into areas where things were incompatible. CO-1 zoning is
sometimes an appropriate buffer between residential zoning and more intensive commercial zones, but in this
location staff does not believe that the rezoning would serve as a buffer but would rather contribute to eroding
the residential character of the area. Walz said Staff recommends against this particular rezoning from RS-5
(residential) to CO-1 (office commercial).
Eastham said after the discussion at the informal meeting regarding other possible spaces the applicant could
conduct his business in, he wondered if the proposed use would fall under one of the home occupation
accessory uses allowed by the Code.
Walz said residing in the residence was required as well as the Code limited the number of off-site employees
to one. As long as the business had no more than one non-resident employee, the applicant could operate out
of his home. Any such situation would also need to be reviewed by the Building Official.
Miklo said on Monday evening the Commission requested an indication of possible traffic levels. The Traffic
Engineer reviewed the situation. There are a wide variety of offices that could generate a range of traffic
levels. A low intensity use might generate only 40 trips a day, however a use such as a salon could generate
up to 125 vehicle trips a day based on a 3,OOO-square foot building. In comparison, a single family home
typically generated 7-10 vehicle trips a day.
Smith asked what the parking requirements for CO-1 zone? Walz said it depended on the particular use and
the square footage. Miklo said that the requirement for office uses, retail and personal service uses is
generally one space per 300-square feet of floor area.
Public discussion was opened.
Bruce Teaaue, 619 Kirkwood Avenue, thanked the Commission for allowing him the opportunity to present his
request. Teague said in October of 2004 he started his business, Caring Hands and More, a home healthcare
business which provides care in the community to elderly clients. Teague's business has grown in response to
the great need for this type of service(s) in the community. He employs a full time secretary and an RN whose
work load was increasing so his current residence at the time was not ideal for having more than one person in
the home. He'd contacted a realtor to look for an existing property to accommodate the training needs of his
future employees who would go into private homes to provide in-home care. The training needed to be
provided in a structure similar to a home-like structure, which was his main criteria for purchasing. There was
not a shortage of vacant office space in Iowa City, but a structure similar to his current structure was not
available. The commercial structures near Mercy Hospital were unavailable. He stated that no clients would
come to his building. He acknowledge that the City has a concern regarding the potential re-use of his
property. Teague said if he sold his property, it would probably go to Michael Lensing, owner of the adjacent
funeral home, who had a great interest in his property however he was unable to limit what the selling
agreement would be. He felt Michael would make a nice use of the property.
He agreed with the safety concerns regarding the property, initially he had considered allowing parking only in
the rear for his staff. It was anticipated that there would be 3 persons plus trainees in the home at one time.
Teague said his request was for a building that would accommodate the specific needs of his business; the
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 6
existing available commercial properties did not do so. Therefore he was requesting that the Commission
consider his request for a rezoning of his property.
Michael Lensino, 605 Kirkwood Drive, said he and his business partner owned Lensing Funeral Home, the
property at 1018 Diana Street and were in negotiations for the property next to it. Lensing said he preferred to
be honest. The alley was owned by the City. He'd spoken with all his neighbors and two years ago he'd
received permission / the option to purchase the alley from the City. Once that transaction took place he would
give them the 20-feet of extra land at no charge. The goal of the funeral home was to be able to square off
their lot as they needed more parking and wished to put an addition on to the rear of the funeral home. If
Teague sold his property and they purchased it, they would move the house off the property and close the
driveway. Their intent was to request a rezoning to CO-1 in order to square off the lot, to add more parking and
to shift the driveway further to the east exiting straight out instead of curving. The lot next to the alley was non-
conforming, if they purchased it they intended to remove the house, place parking and more trees to be park
like on the lot.
Lensing said even though the City owned the alley, for 30 years they had not maintained it. He'd spent the
monies to maintain the walnut trees. He was concerned about the traffic on Kirkwood Avenue and Diana
Street; the City talked about it a lot but did nothing. They should look at a traffic signal or changing the flow of
traffic onto Diana Street. It was his hope that the City would allow him to blacktop the alley and gate it so that
older clients could access the funeral home without having to travel on Kirkwood Avenue during high traffic
volume times; the City had not responded favorably. He suggested not allowing street parking on Diana Street
Shannon asked Lensing if his intent for the properties they were hoping to purchase was to request a zoning
change. Lensing said that was correct. If Teague ever sold, he would probably have right of first refusal and he
would purchase Teague's parcel. It would give them more time to landscape and to square off his lot.
Julie Hauserman, 1038 Diana Street, said she'd lived on her property since 1984. She couldn't think of anyone
she'd rather have for a neighbor than Bruce Teague; he'd been with her father when he'd passed away.
Michael Lensing was a wonderful neighbor as well. However, being a resident of Diana Street and having
endured such things as the Governor's Ridge development, the street at Boyrum and the empty promises that
had been made to stop commercial development encroachment into the residential area, she urged the
Commission to take Staff's recommendation. She was there to speak against any additional commercial
zoning into the residential and/or Plum Grove area. There was a lot of traffic from Dodge Street that used
Diana Street and Keokuk Court to cut through to Highway 6. She was aware that very soon the lot on the
corner of Dodge Street and Kirkwood would become for sale and that the lot could be split which would
generate more traffic. Hauserman said she'd like the City to take a look at the neighborhood's traffic concerns
including reviewing the speed limit.
Teresa Steicher, R.N., 1028 120Th Street, West Liberty. She was a team member of Caring Hands and More.
They were a team committed to providing excellence in home care services. To ensure their mission, it was
essential to have ongoing and applicable training for their home health care aids. Since they provided in-home
services, it was a great benefit to have a home to train in. Teague's current property had a tub, stairways,
kitchen, small bedroom and narrow doorways, things they dealt with in client homes. The structure provided a
mock training facility which enhanced the skills and comfort levels of their employees as well as those of their
clients who they sought to help remain in their homes. Hospitals and nursing homes were able to train in their
environments but as a home health agency, they missed out on the opportunity of doing crucial training mainly
due to the fact that a regular office space did not assimilate to the real environment of the population of home
care clients that they were working with. This home provided an essential and excellent training place for the
staff of Caring Hands and More.
Maria Chavez Escobar, 1206 Diana Street, said her friend had formerly owned the property that Teague had
purchased. She was aware of the concerns regarding traffic, but Iowa City was growing and there would
always be traffic issues. She had previously resided on First Avenue and was well acquainted with traffic
issues. She currently resided on Diana Street, the traffic problems existed and would continue to exist. She
didn't feel the issues would get worse with the addition of Teague's business. She agreed with Lensing's
suggestion to install a traffic signal to direct traffic. Chavez Escobar said she strongly felt that Teague was
giving the community a much needed service as elderly persons were living much longer and wished to be
able to stay in their homes. She was a provider at Oaknoll and was familiar with the wishes of persons who
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 7
wanted to remain in their homes and be cared for. They would not be forced to leave their dignity and the
memories that they had implanted in their homes, if there were more services such as Teague's available.
There was a need for his services in Iowa City and to have their staff well trained, as Teague intended to do.
Tim Schumacher, 807 Walnut Street, said he opposed the requested rezoning for the reasons mentioned by
Staff. He said Teague's business sounded like a favorable business and perhaps it would be possible to give
him a special exception since he was only going to have 3 employees and no customers would be going to
Teague's business. The business was just barely up and running and there were already discussions as to
selling the lot, tearing the house down and installing parking lots. If it was rezoned, it would be the inevitable
result. There are only three residential houses left on this part of Kirkwood Avenue.
Peter Rohrbouah, 711 Kirkwood Avenue, said it was great to get to meet his neighbors that he'd not met
before. Teague's business sounded like a good intention, but if he were to be struck by lightening, there was
no telling what his heirs would do. He felt nothing good could come of the rezoning in the end.
Kellv Lamb, 120 Koser Avenue, said she was one of the social workers in Johnson County who got to clean up
the messes by leaving persons in their homes without good home health care and was privy to the horror
stories of families who hired untrained persons to come into their homes to watch their family members with
memory impairment, etc. She understood that it could not be rezoned for just Teague's business. She'd
moonlighted for Teague for two years and had never seen more than three cars at the residence at one time.
For trainings it was not possible to get a huge group of people together at one time, it would not generate a
traffic increase. Sycamore Mall was on one end of Kirkwood and Benton Street commercial on the other end,
traffic was inevitable. The rezoning would not create a huge change in the traffic and there was not a better
commercial entity to allow into that area. If a special exception would be possible, she'd suggest using it.
Public discussion was closed.
Smith asked Behr if there were any options for special permits, exemptions or anything other than rezoning to
accommodate the needs of the applicant. Behr said there really was not, the application was for a rezoning,
the use sought was not allowed as a special exception in the current zoning.
Motion: Freerks made a motion to deny REZ06-00012, a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for 6750 square feet of property located at 619
Kirkwood Avenue. Plahutnik seconded.
Freerks said there were a number of concerns when you started to whittle away in an area such as this. It was
a complex area, she wouldn't want to be the last house either. There were all kinds of traffic problems as well.
Comment had been made that the City didn't do anything about it, but she saw denying this application as a
way of trying to do something. Denying this application would support the Comprehensive Plan's intent for this
area to maintain the residential character. They had to look ahead at what potentially could be located there if
the parcel were rezoned to CO-1.
Eastham said he felt compelled to vote to deny this application by applying the guidelines that were
established in the Comprehensive Plan for the Central Planning District. The most applicable guideline
suggested that the Plan seek to preserve lower cost housing in the Central Planning District. He'd looked at
housing values for this property and this area, in his mind it would fall within the realm of affordable. Other
considerations were traffic issues - the proposed use would have a relatively minor impact but the proposed
rezoning would have a potentially significant impact. Eastham said the applicant had said that he needed a
residential property for training to develop his business, which was a legitimate use. He felt this type of use
should be looked at in the future, it was a small business and he wished to encourage and support the
development of small businesses.
Dean Shannon said he'd been a life long Iowa Citian and had seen this problem coming. In 1959 the top half
of the CC-2 lot had all been residential; the Handy family had had a large home there. He felt the City had
made a mistake and let the lion out of the cage and now the current City Staff were trying to draw a line on it.
In a perfect world there should probably be no commercial zone along Kirkwood Avenue, but at some point it
had been allowed to happen. People wished to keep developing and where did you stop? Shannon said he
understood both sides and was very troubled with how to vote. Now the City wanted to draw a line in the sand
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 8
but it might be too late to draw that line. Teague's current use sounded like a good use of the property, but in
two years when he wanted to move on to a bigger area, then what would happen to the property if it were
rezoned.
Plahutnik said he'd voted earlier in the evening to approve paving more of Iowa City; here was a business that
he felt should be supported and helped in any way. But looking on beyond, he felt he needed to vote to deny
this application. He would have personally liked to have been able tell Teague to go ahead, he had a great
thing going and to have told the previous applicant, no you're not going to pave another inch of Iowa City. To
the persons who'd built their homes 10 years ago and were now complaining, he'd liked to have suggested to
them to tear their homes down and to replant trees because no more pavement in Iowa City was needed. He
had to go by the Comprehensive Plan. Their area had been zoned for residential and Helen Jensen's property
had been a beautiful space but it had been zoned residential. In Teague's case, the Comprehensive Plan said
here is where things stop. He'd have to vote to deny the application.
Koppes said she'd struggled with this as well. She would vote to deny given consideration of the
Comprehensive Plan, the traffic issues and the domino effect that was occurring. They needed to stop the
effect.
Bob Brooks said he didn't have much to add as most everything had already been mentioned. Traffic was his
biggest concern in this area. The off set intersection of Diana Street and Kirkwood Avenue was extremely
problematic. The application would continue the domino effect. To piece meal this together given the adjoining
residential areas and the traffic problems, would not be the correct direction to move in right now.
The motion to deny passed on a vote of 7-0.
Miklo said home occupations were allowed in any home. The resident could have a small business in the
home which would be limited to 25% of the floor area. By minor modification one outside employee could be
employed on a full time basis. In terms of the training aspect, he didn't think it would be outside of the
definition of home occupation for the owner to occasionally employees who were not employed on a regular
daily basis to come there on occasion for training. It would have to be reviewed by a Building Official to clarify,
but it did seem like this business in a smaller capacity could occur as a home occupation on that property
without amending the zoning code.
CZ06-00001, discussion of an application submitted by James Batterson for a rezoning from R, Residential, to
County A, Agricultural for approximately 4.34-acres of property located in Fringe Area A on the south side of
Linder Road NE.
Miklo said the property was just north of Interstate 80, located within the City's growth area. Someday it might
be annexed into the City. Even though it was a County action, the Fringe Area agreement called for the
Commission to review the rezoning. The Board of Supervisors would have final say but looked to the City for
its recommendation. The cemetery that was currently there wished to purchase an additional 4.5-acres to
expand. Cemeteries were not allowed in County residential zones but would be allowed in the County
Agricultural zone by conditional use permit. Staff felt that the open space use of the property as a cemetery
would be a good use because it was adjacent to the Highway. It would have occasional traffic. A concern was
the narrowness of Linder Road and that there are only two off-street parking spaces for the current cemetery.
Miklo said Staff recommended that when the County reviewed the conditional use permit, they look for a way
to provide additional off street parking for the expanded cemetery. Staff recommended approval of the
rezoning from R, Residential, to County A, Agricultural with the anticipation that there would be a conditional
use permit for a cemetery use.
Brooks asked if the County had indicated any plans in their general improvements plan to improve Linder
Road, it was pretty narrow I bad in that section. Miklo said they did not.
Public comment was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve CZ06-00001, a rezoning from R, Residential, to County A,
Agricultural for approximately 4.34-acres of property located in Fringe Area A, with a conditional use permit for
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Page 9
a cemetery and recommendation for additional off street parking for the expanded cemetery. Koppes
seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Koppes said some of the persons who'd been in attendance for REZ06-00012, might not be aware that the
Commission didn't have the final word and that they could also speak before the City Council. She requested
City Staff to send a letter to them.
Miklo said the policy was that if an item was denied by the Commission, it did not go on to City Council unless
the applicant formally requested it. If the applicant made such a request then City Staff would notify the
persons who'd spoken during public discussion.
CONSIDERATION OF 4/20/06 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Plahutnik seconded.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
OTHER ITEMS:
Miklo gave notice to the Commissioners that at their next formal meeting, there would be a few Zoning Code
amendments regarding housekeeping items that had come up, would need to be discussed and voted on.
Staff would notify members of the neighborhood associations, realtors association, homebuilders association,
and other public who would have an interest that Code Rewrite items would be included on the next agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Eastham seconded.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:/pcdlminuteslp&zl2006105-16-06.doc
e
o
'C;;
I/)
'E
E
o
O'E
mo
e u
.- CD
Co::
o
NCD~
....uo
-eN
mftS
e'C
.- e
e CD
e:::
.!!<
D..
~
U
ftS
~
.2
CC)
- X X X X X X X
-
."
~ X W X X X X
(5
N X X X X X X
-
CO')
U) W X
- X X X X (5
-
N
~ X X X X X w
(5
en w
- X X X (5 X X
-
-
." X X W X X X
- 0
-
en 0 co " 0 co
E ~ T"" T""
T"" T"" 0 0 T"" e T""
Q).~ - in - - - -
LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ e
I/) ~ I/) 'c 0
~ ftS ~ - e
0 .c ~ ~ e .c
- CD .c -
e I/) ftS 'E
Q) ftS e ~ ftS .c
E In W u.. ii: en en
cu m u -i. u.i ~ c:i t-=
z
(9
z
i=
w
w
~
...J
<(
~
0:::
o
LL
.....
N X X X X X 0 X
-
N
CO') W
- X X X X X (5 ><
N
en CD 0 co " 0 co CD
E ~ e T"" ~ e T"" 0 0
Q) .~ - - - -
LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC)
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>< ~ e
~ I/) I/) e 0
~ ~ ~ - e
"' 0 ~ ~ e .c
'(j CD .c -
e ftS 'E
Q) e e 0 "' .c
E < In u.. ::.:: ii: en en
cu c:i m -i. u.i ~ c:i t-=
z
(!)
z
i=
w
w
~
...J
<(
~
0:::
o
LL
Z
"t:l
Q)
en
:::l
(0)
X c:
W:;::6
--:;::'Q)
c: c: c: Q)
Q)Q)Q)"",
en en en":::'
~.o.oo
a..<(<(z
.. II II II II
>- w~
Q) --
~XOOZ