HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, July 30, 2007 - 5:15 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Items:
1. REZ07-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC for a rezoning
from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone for
approximately 2,035 square feet of property located at 301 S. Dubuque Street and rezoning
an additional 9,890 square feet of adjacent property from Neighborhood Public/Central
Business Support (P1/CB-5) zone to Central Business District (CB-1 0) zone.
(45-day limitation period: August 2,2007)
2. REZ07-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services
LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development - Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to
Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Planned Development Overlay zone
for approximately 34.58 acres, Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone
for approximately 8.75 acres, and Interim Development Office Commercial (ID-C01) zone for
approximately 1.71 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Kennedy Parkway
and Camp Cardinal Road.
(45-day limitation period: September 3, 2007)
D. Consideration of the June 21, July 12, and July 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes
E. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
October 15
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 27,2007
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: 301 South Dubuque Rezoning to CB-10
Consideration of the 301 Dubuque Street rezoning proposal was deferred from the July 19 meeting in
order to provide some clarification and rewording with regard to staff's recommendation for
"substantial compliance with the site plan submitted." The applicant expressed concern that he not be
tied to a particular "picture" of the building design, which is still a "work in progress." In response, the
some commission members expressed a desire for some flexibility to allow design changes to the
elevation of the building and that such changes should be handled through the Design Review
process. In addition, commissioners asked for a clear definition of the term "site plan".
The terms of the revised conditional zoning agreement are below. Staff has modified items f, I, and j
to provide the flexibility sought by the applicant while making more explicit the requirements and
goals for the Design Review process. The CZA clarifies the meaning of the term site plan, which is
the placement of the building and other features or amenities on the site. The applicant's submitted
site plan shows that that the development will make full use of the property up to the required
minimum setback, and Staff recommends substantial compliance with this aspect of the plan. A final
site plan will need to demonstrate all the required landscaping and amenities for the pedestrian area
within the setback and street right-of-way.
Staff recommends that REZ07 -00008, a request to rezone approximately .21 acres of property
from CB-5 and P1/CB-5 to CB-10 be approved subject to the following conditions:
a. The building to be constructed on this property will be a mixed-use commercial and
residential development with a minimum of one floor of commercial development above
the ground floor.
b. The property shall contain a mix of studio or 1 bedroom units, 2 and 3-bedroom units, and
there shall be no dwelling units with more than 3 bedrooms.
c. No more than 30% of the dwelling units shall contain 3 bedrooms.
d. The building shall be a minimum height of 7 stories.
e. A parking requirement will be calculated for all dwelling units within the development
based on the parking requirements of the CB-5 zone, pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 5,
Article A, of the Iowa City Code, entitled "Off Street Parking and Loading Standards." Prior
to issuance of an occupancy permit for the building or buildings to be constructed on the
property, payment of parking facility impact fees will be made to the City for dwelling units
for which on-site parking is not provided. The amount of the fee for each required parking
space not provided on-site shall be computed in the manner set forth in sections 14-7B-
7(C) and 14-7B-7(F) of the City Code. Payment, deposit, use and refunds of fees shall be
governed by sections 14-7B-8, 14-7B-9 and 14-7B-10 of the City Code.
f. The building shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the Burlington Street right-of-way
as specified in 14-2C-8. In addition, this 1 O-foot setback applies to the upper floors of the
building as well as the ground floor. Certain building features, including projecting bays,
July 25, 2007
Page 2
may extend into the required setbacks as specified in 14-2C-4B-4, except for the following.
Balconies are not allowed on the Burlington Street fayade and projecting bays are not
allowed below the fourth floor of the building.
g. The applicant shall grant a public access easement across the entire 10-foot
walkway/setback along Burlington Street to assure maintenance and snow removal.
h. The applicant shall provide landscaping and streetscape improvements, including textured
paving materials, plantings, and street furniture as approved by the City. This includes
construction and installation of the streetside landscaping within the Burlington Street
rig ht -of-way.
i. Substantial compliance with the preliminary plan submitted by the applicant showing the
placement of the building on the site.
j. Levell! Design Review is required- the site and building will be reviewed for
compliance with the Design Review Guidelines as specified in 14-3C-3C and the
CB-10 Site Development Standards as specified in 14-2C-8. Special attention will
be given to design elements that encourage pedestrian activity at the street level
and that break up the mass of the building and differentiate it from the adjacent
building proposed for the Hieronymus development.
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ07-00011
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar
Date: August 2, 2007
Southgate Development Services LLC
755 Mormon Trek Blvd
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319) 337-4195
Glenn Siders
755 Mormon Trek Blvd
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319) 337-4195
Rezoning from ID-ORP to OPD8 (34.58 acres), 10-
RS (8.75 acres) and ID-C01 (1.71 acres)
Residential development
South of Kenney Parkway, east of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard
45.04 acres
10-ORP
North: Undeveloped - Residential Coralville (R1 B)
South: Undeveloped (ID-ORP)
East: Residential (IO-ORP and OPD-5)
West: Undeveloped (ID-ORP)
Low density residential, Office and Research Park
(Clear Creek Master Plan)
Clear Creek (NW1 )
July 19, 2007
September 3, 2007
Sanitary sewer and water lines are available and can
be extended from Camp Cardinal Boulevard
The City will provide police and fire protection. The
City refuse and recycling collection services will be
provided for the single-family houses. The multi-
2
family dwellings will need to be served by private
services for refuse and recycling collection.
Currently, no transit route serves this area.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In April 2002, the Commission reviewed and endorsed a concept plan-Clear Creek Master
Plan-proposed by Southgate Development Services, LLC (previously Southgate Development
Company) for the development of an area covering approximately 462 acres of land that is
located both in both Iowa City and Coralville. The area is generally bounded by Melrose Avenue
on the south, Highway 218 on the west and Clear Creek on the north. In May 2002, the City
Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Coralville and Southgate
Development Services, LLC to agree upon a concept that envisioned a "conservation-type"
development including residential and commercial uses in the area. The master plan also laid
out the financial participation of the cities and Southgate for the reconstruction, realignment and
extension of existing infrastructure including the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard to
facilitate the development.
The applicant, Southgate Development Services, LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of
approximately 45.04 acres of land from Interim Development Office Research Park (IO-ORP)
zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Planned Development Overlay
zone for approximately 34.58 acres, Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS)
zone for approximately 8.75 acres, and Interim Development Office Commercial (10-C01) zone
for approximately 1.71 acres. The applicant has submitted a preliminary planned development
plan of Cardinal Point South, a residential development with 18 single-family residential lots, 17
attached zero-lot line single-family residential lots, and 69 multi-family "townhouse-style" units
on three large lots. The plan also includes three outlots, one of which is set aside for dedication
as public open space, and the other is set aside for private open space, to be maintained by a
homeowners association. Another outlot (Outlot C) is set aside for future residential
development.
Good Neighbor Policy:
The applicant has indicated that they have not held neighborhood meetings; however, during
the lot sales of Cardinal Ridge most of the property owners were informed of the plans in this
area. The applicant also indicates that they have contacted surrounding property owners both in
Coralville and in Iowa City.
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan and Current Zoning:
The land is part of the Northwest Planning District. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan identified this
area as suitable for office and research facilities, and low-density residential development.
Based on the long-term vision for an Office and Research Park type development, the land is
currently zoned as Interim Development-Office and Research Park (ID-RP). The Plan, however,
recognizes that with the establishment of Oakdale Campus north of Interstate 80, the possibility
of additional development of office and research park type uses in this area may not be realistic.
The Plan also recognizes the topographical and infrastructurallimitations of the area, and
therefore, supports the development with a mix of uses, such as low density residential and
office commercial uses. The Plan also supports clustered development that would result in
pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with minimal disturbance of the sensitive areas.
The memorandum of understanding and Clear Creek Master Plan supplement the
Comprehensive Plan policy for this area. The master plan laid out a general development
concept with possible street layouts, residential neighborhoods with various densities, and
PCDlStaff Reports\rez07 -00011 cardinal point south 1.doc
3
commercial and office development. Camp Cardinal Boulevard has been designed as a major
north-south arterial street that connects Highway 6 and Melrose Avenue, and Kennedy Parkway
as one of the east west collector streets, extending west to connect to Deer Creek Road. The
master plan calls for uses of moderate intensity, such as neighborhood commercial, office, or
mixed uses at the intersections of the major streets, and a mix of low to medium density
residential uses on the interior areas.
The proposed planned development-Cardinal Point South-is in the southeast section of the
overall Clear Creek Master Plan area and it would be the first development as part of that
master plan. The land that is immediately to the north of the proposed development, also part of
the master plan, is in Coralville and the part along Camp Cardinal Road would be developed as
low-density residential development. The portion on the northeast side is reserved as a future
elementary school site. The land on the east is part of the ongoing residential development of
Cardinal Ridge, which is also a clustered development with low-density single-family residential
dwellings.
Subdivision/Planned Development Design:
The applicant is proposing a residential development with a mix of small lot detached as well as
attached single-family dwellings, and town-house style multi-family dwellings. Following the
principles of the master plan, the subdivision has been designed to minimize the impact on he
sensitive areas that exist on the land. Two neighborhood streets are proposed with the
detached single-family lots on the northernmost part of the development, and the attached
single-family lots are proposed along a circular drive in the southern part. The multi-family
dwellings occupy three large lots in the central section of the development, with street facing
townhouse-style buildings. Vehicular access for these units is being provided through rear
private drives. The street design is not exactly as envisioned in the master plan, but has been
realigned to minimize disturbance of the sensitive areas. On either side of the proposed
residential lots are two large outlots, which contain most of the sensitive areas on the property,
and as mentioned above have been set aside as open spaces.
Planned Development - proposed modifications to the zoning requirements:
The planned development process provides an opportunity to develop land where it may be
inappropriate or difficult for a conventional development, such as the land with environmentally
sensitive areas. The code allows for flexibility and modification to the requirements of the
underlying zone, provided the modifications are not contrary to the intent of the code,
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. The
code provides for flexibility in the design, placement and clustering of buildings that maintain
pedestrian-oriented street frontages; encourages mixture of land uses, smaller street layouts
and utility networks that use the land efficiently, and preservation and best use of the existing
natural features. In general, the planned development should be the in public interest, in
harmony with the purpose of the code, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The code sets a few general standards and other specific standards to achieve these goals and
to allow the modifications and/or waivers in the zoning requirements. The approval criteria for a'
planned development include density and design compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhoods in terms of the land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open
space, traffic circulation and general layout. The development should not overburden the
existing streets and utilities, adversely affect the views, light and air, property value, or privacy
of neighboring properties, any more than would a conventional development.
The applicant is requesting approval for 18 detached single-family dwellings on lots that exceed
the minimum lot standards for RS-8 zone (lots 20 - 30 and 31-38). These lots range from 6,838
to 9,423 sq. ft. in area and 56.1 to 67.5 feet in width, and require no waivers from the zoning
requirements. Staff suggests that the design of these units should be compatible with the rest of
PCDlStaff Reportslrez07-00011 cardinal point south 1.doc
4
the subdivision to create a consistent streetscape. As part of the Planned Development Overlay
zone approval, staff recommends the street tree be required to be planted on these lots to help
assure that the overall development is cohesive.
The applicant is requesting approval for attached single family dwellings on lots 1- 17 in the
southern section of the proposed development. As attached dwellings are only allowed in RS-8
zone as provisional uses on corner lots, modifications in the RS-8 requirements are required to
allow development the 'zero-lot' units on the interior lots. The code allows for the modifications
to requirements such as lot size, required setbacks, building heights if the conditions listed in
article 14-3A-4 are met. The conditions include provision for adequate light, air, privacy between
dwellings; sufficient area for utilities and street trees; measures to ensure that the plan does not
result in traffic congestion; and garages and off-street parking spaces are planned such that
they do not dominate the streetscape. The proposed attached single-family lots meet the
minimum lot size and frontage requirements, as well as the side setback requirements for
attached dwellings. The applicant has submitted a set of typical elevations for the attached
units, which show the garages on the front. The applicant is proposing a design that keeps the
garages flush with or behind the front building plane, so that the entry porch or portico is not
significantly obscured by projecting garages.
The plan includes 69 townhouse-style multi-family dwellings, clustered on three large lots. Rear
private lanes provide vehicular access to these units. Most of the units are street facing and
have been designed in the clusters of 4 and 6 units. The applicant has provided a layout with
imaginary lot lines, which show that the lot width and lot area for most of the dwelling units
within the clusters is considerably less than the minimum standards for a lot in RS-8 zone,
resulting in a density of over 10 units per acre. Although there is a concentration of density
proposed in the center of the development, the overall density is approximately 3 units per acre.
The applicant has provided typical elevations and plans for the multi-family and zero-lot line
attached units. Given the large number of attached units proposed to be concentrated in the
southern portions of the development, it is important that the units are not too repetitive or
monotonous. Staff is working with the applicant on modifications to the elevations to meet the
intent and purpose of the code to ensure adequate variety yet result in consistent architectural
style. Provided that concerns regarding the building elevations can be resolved, staff believes
that In general, the proposed planned development is consistent with the adjacent existing
development and the proposed Clear Creek Master Plan.
The applicant is also considering development of commercial office type uses on a 1.71-acre
parcel on the northwest corner of the property (lot 31). The applicant is seeking approval of
Interim Development - Commercial Office (ID-C01) zone for this parcel. Although such a
development may be appropriate and work well with the proposed residential neighborhood, the
design of the commercial use and placement of parking will be critical to achieve compatibility
with the proposed single-family homes on the other side of the street. The applicant is not ready
with a detailed plan for this parcel, and to ensure a proper transition to the adjacent proposed
residential neighborhood, the applicant has agreed that the parcel be rezoned to 10-C01 until a
detailed plan is developed. If it is not feasible to design a commercial office development with
such a transition, this parcel could alternatively be rezoned for residential developed.
The applicant is setting aside Outlot C (covering approximately 8.75 acres) for future
development. Similar to the proposed development, this area contains sensitive areas, and may
require a planned development overlay. Staff recommends rezoning this area as Interim
Development - Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) at this point in time.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
The property contains several environmentally sensitive features including regulated slopes,
PCDIStaff Reportslrez07-00011 cardinal point south 1.doc
5
jurisdictional wetlands, drainage ways, and woodlands. The applicant has submitted a sensitive
areas development plan that shows approximately 25.3 acres of woodlands, two drainage ways,
and several areas with protected, critical and steep slopes. The plan also delineates areas with
jurisdictional wetlands. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 10.1 acres
(approximately 39.9%) of the existing woodlands for the construction of the infrastructure and
the houses. The code allows the removal of up to 50% of the woodlands for residential
development. The plan shows adequate buffer areas for the protected slopes and wetlands the
applicant is not disturbing these areas. The applicant is proposing to disturb approximately
37.8% of the critical slopes for grading related to streets and houses. Large amountd of the
sensitive areas are located on the outlots.
Traffic implications and pedestrian facilities:
The proposed planned development is accessible from the newly constructed Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, which connects to Melrose Avenue on the south. The development would also be
accessed on the north through the proposed extension of Kennedy Parkway from the east. Due
to the existing topography and sensitive areas, the development has been clustered to minimize
the disturbance of the sensitive areas. Only two new streets have been proposed as part of the
subdivision-Ryan Court and Preston Lane.
The applicant is proposing to plat the remainder of Kennedy Parkway along the north boundary
of the property as part of the proposed subdivision and planned development, however, is not
proposing to construct it at this time. Staff believes that the connection is necessary for orderly
development, to provide adequate connectivity to the adjoining existing development. When
Cardinal Ridge subdivision was approved, staff emphasized the need for such a connection to
provide a secondary access to the neighborhoods in this area. Most of this existing and ongoing
development can only be accessed by Melrose Avenue via Kennedy Parkway from the east and
a chip seal road-Old Camp Cardinal Road from the north. Staff recommends a conditional
zoning agreement specifying that:
1. Kennedy Parkway will be constructed by the applicant within two (2) years of the final
plat approval for the first phase of Cardinal Point South, when the school (north of
Kennedy Parkway) is constructed, when any development occurs on Outlot C or on the
adjoining land to the east, whichever occurs first,
2. No building permits will be issued for Cardinal Ridge - Part Three until the Kennedy
Parkway connection to Camp Cardinal Boulevard is completed, and
3. Issuance of building permits for the Cardinal Point South will cease if the street is not
built within two years of the final plat approval.
These terms should also be included in the legal papers for the final plat.
As mentioned above the multi-family townhouse style buildings have been provided with rear
private drive access to eliminate multiple curb cuts for the driveways that facilitates an efficient
vehicular movement and an enhanced pedestrian friendly streetscape with street trees. All the
proposed multi-family as well as the single-family dwelling units have been provided with
adequate pedestrian connections to the street sidewalk network.
Neighborhood parkland:
Outlot B has been set side for neighborhood open space, and the applicant is proposing to
dedicate this 5.26-acre open space to the City as parkland. The neighborhood open space
requirement for a subdivision of this size (43.33 acres) is approximately 1.63 acres. This
includes the dedication requirements for the future development of Outlot C. The Parks and
Recreation Commission has been provided with the plan and is considering accepting the land.
There is no public park facility in this part of the city. The proposed dedication would be a good
location for a neighborhood park as it is easily accessible to surrounding development by the
trail/wide sidewalk along Camp Cardinal Boulevard on the west and a proposed neighborhood
PCD\Staff Reportslrez07 -00011 cardinal point south 1.doc
6
street-Preston Lane from the south.
The plan indicates that Outlot A is reserved as private open space to be maintained by a
homeowners association. Outlot A contains some of the protected sensitive areas found on the
property, including a drainage way, protected slopes and woodlands. The plan also includes an
interior shared open space on lot 18. The private open spaces should be improved for their
intended uses and a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures to be followed for
maintaining the shared private open space and for financing maintenance costs, will need to be
prepared and submitted with the final plat.
Storm water management:
At the time of the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, a regional stormwater basin was
built to the west of the Camp Cardinal Boulevard with capacity that can used for some of the
surrounding development. The City Engineer is assessing the plan to verify if there is sufficient
capacity to handle the stormwater from the proposed development and anticipates completing
the assessment in time for the August 16 meeting of the Commission. If the proposed planned
development can not be served with the existing stormwater basin, the applicant would need to
build a stormwater management facility on the property.
Infrastructure fees:
The proposed planned development is subject to the water main extension fee for $395 per acre
(a total of $17,790.80 for 45.04 acres) and sanitary sewer tap on fee of $570.98 per acre (a total
of 25,716.94 for 45.04 acres).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral pending resolution capacity analysis of the storm-water detention
management facility, agreement on the design of the multi-family and attached units and
resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below
Upon resolution of these issues, staff recommends that REZ07-00011, a rezoning of
approximately 45.04 acres of land from Interim Development Office Research Park (IO-ORP)
zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Planned Development Overlay
zone for approximately 34.58 acres, Interim Development Single-Family Residential (IO-RS)
zone for approximately 8.75 acres, and Interim Development Office Commercial (ID-C01) zone
for approximately 1.71 acres; and a preliminary Planned Development of Cardinal Point South,
a residential subdivision with a mix of single-family and multi-family residential dwellings, be
approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying:
1. Kennedy Parkway will be constructed by the applicant within two (2) years of the final
plat approval for the first phase of Cardinal Point South, when the school (north of
Kennedy Parkway) is constructed, when any development occurs on Outlot C or on the
adjoining land to the east, whichever occurs first,
2. No building permits will be issued for Cardinal Ridge - Part Three until the Kennedy
Parkway connection to Camp Cardinal Boulevard is completed, and
3. Issuance of building permits for the Cardinal Point South will cease if the Kennedy
Parkway is not built within two years of the final plat approval.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Rear elevations for the multi-family and attached single-family units as well as the side
elevations for the attached single-family units
2. Storm sewer and road grade design must be included throughout Kennedy Parkway.
This is because the road development is directly related to the plat
3. Storm sewer outlet on the north end of the property must have a dedicated drainage
PC DIStaff Reports\rez07-00011 cardinal point south 1.doc
7
easement or a blanket drainage easement to ensure its longevity
4. The proposed placement of the sanitary sewer connecting Private Drive #3 with Ryan
Court is unacceptable. Move the manhole and connection out of the drive of Private
Drive #5 (as shown on marked up drawing)
5. Trees should be moved a few more feet away from underground and aboveground
structures, like pipe and intakes, in case repairs are needed
6. Show mailbox detail. Dimensions and materials are important
7. A sign near the fronts of the homes on Private Drive #3, including addresses of those
homes will be required for emergency services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Clear Creek Master Plan
3. Preliminary Plat~ Planned Development Plan
Approved by: ~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PC DIStaff Reportslrez07 -00011 cardinal point south 1.doc
!'III.lliull :31:3111
i!;'iHnnlll~~ I~
Y;'~5~~m=~I:{~
~;.,::......_~ ;.-
, ~~~~U
_'-':1
/.1; 't'
, ......... f-...;....
:-:'"/~
\......"
'-.
,~""" ", Y.'!
'.',', ';, 1
~>~::?:/1
. , ,
:~~~~'."~
",<:'~;.-- .
',-...... "
..... "'\, ", .
\ -'\ "
L"'_ , \....~ ",
<....'..,
',\ ..
), \"~
Ii \.
-
Pl~
.L
UI'
II
.h
Ilil
I~b
m ~~
~Q ~~
~~ m_
~ i~
~!~~
.'~,,--,:'./~~i~~~?~;~ i :
/
......,,:
A'li
,.",~ _., ! I /1.-, '
. "':\'
~".." r"
... ._,!
~... ';/,/.
/, ,~>-
y,/,
~~~' ";.:
'~-
._-
_ __ILR_
mil ._--
IIIIIIllm ._-
~"""'l .---
.......
~._-
~._-
~ooo
.0.00..0 ----
.0.00...
~:.r.-'.f1lUll
__....IC
__.UIICP''''
i\iiiE'~n._.
\ \'/'
,,"Jl
.'<f::'
, \. , "\>:/;'1
"-:::~~;fl
-. - ,- - ::.===:.mr--:-
IIn I ,I
l.AT, OSA PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREAS Sf
CARDINAL POINTE SOUTH
IOWA CITY, IOWA
.......--,.
~f
'.."\
~. ._~\,.-\ \
+
~
--...
....
PLAN
"I
:~~~
'II
I
.~-
. 'oJ
'- .
.j
" ", :
:'<::'i: i;
'-,... 'J
'.\',' "
,:.... "I
'- ...', /
'".
I,ll
....
.:.~
U...l
~.
It
j
~:~.:::"'=:"
~_~,'~'l
'I!,I'~ ~ "~',~ ,::::;:
, ,I ,~ '~ "
.I "-"\ ", .....,
-~~'\ -
--//'"'\ "
,':\\>~
r...........
'~~,.t=
~' "
C'.
///
\.:
.~-..
....."
E
-
(C~IJW (Q)[F (C(Q)[Ri~[L W~[L[LIE
=1:!!1.~ ~.J~ ~
_an...._ ........ _ ..~-=-
PRELIMINAR'
z
o
I-
-<t
(J
d
I-
Z
~
I-
Z
.:J
OJ
cij
<(
I
x
LL.J
~
o
x
W
-J
n..
::l
o
y
l-
S
z
Q
J-
<t
>
III
-J
W
J-
Z
G
[J c:::J r:::J t~ rl ~
I:] r::::J r:::::l ,11 u...
\)
...
o
3=
~
i5
~
<l.
>
uJ
d
~ ,
,.....
uJ
rC
~
I
:~
8:J
I-
III
~"'t
(-.J
--ow.
D....
W
l-
I})
~-.::t
C....
-....
I
1:n
"
6
I-
..::(
-~
cJ
d
~
..::....
o
D::.
LL
~
)<
W
r[
,.6
d)
Z
()
J-
~
>-
U1
-'-
U1
U1
Q
~D
--1
-1:
::j
l-
fu
\,1
Z
()
\1
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2007 - 7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes
MEMBER EXCUSED: Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer
CALL TO ORDER: Eastham called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Public Discussion of Anv Item Not on the Aqenda
No discussion.
Annexation/Rezoninq Item
ANN07-00002/REZ07-00010 discussion of an application submitted by St. Patrick's Church of Iowa City
for an annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) zone to Low Density Single-Family (RS-5)
zone for approximately 14-acres of property liocated at 4740 Lower West Branch Road SE.
Miklo announced that Ann Freerks had recused herself from discussion of this item because she is a
member of the St. Patrick parish.
Howard said the property that was being sold to St. Patrick's Church by the Miller family surrounded a
proposed public square that was being built by the City of Iowa City as part of the reconstruction project
for lower West Branch Road. The entire parcel of land would need to be annexed at the same time. The
property for the public square would be zoned P-1 and the property for the church would be zoned RS-5.
When the City received an application for an annexation request, Staff considered three questions:
1 Did the area under consideration fall within the adopted long range planning boundary?
The land being requested for annexation does fall within the adopted long-range planning
boundary for Iowa City and abuts property already within City limits.
2. Will development in the area proposed for annexation fulfill an identified need without imposing an
undue burden on the City?
The Church had identified the need for a new church and related facilities and found this site to
be suitable for their needs. City services infrastructure were available for extension to this site;
the City found it suitable for urban development.
3. Is control of the development in the City's best interest?
There is a market for residential development in this area. Annexation would allow for integration
of the proposed church into future neighborhoods planned for this area in a manner that would
ensure efficient provision of public services and adequate traffic circulation.
The property is currently zoned County Residential - R. Rezoning this property to RS-5, Low Density
Single Family Residential, as requested by the applicant would allow single family dwellings as well as
religious/private group assembly uses as a special exception. The City acknowledged that churches were
an anticipated part of residential neighborhoods and that such large uses would require special
consideration to ensure that they were developed in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan
and with the surrounding existing and future residential neighborhoods located in the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 21, 2007
Page 2
This property is located in the Northeast District. The public square is intended to be a focal point for the
surrounding neighborhoods in the area; it was an important feature to the citizens who were involved in
the Northeast District planning process. They did not want just a series of unrelated and unconnected
subdivisions but wanted a way to integrate the neighborhoods together and create neighborhood focal
point. Higher density multi-family residential buildings were planned for the area immediately abutting the
public square transitioning into lower densi~y residential neighborhoods going further south and further
north.
The Northeast District Plan illustrates a grid-like street pattern with the public square as the neighborhood
focal point. City Staff was working with the Church to determine an acceptable street pattern that would
meet the needs of the church and also ensure pedestrian and vehicular access to the square and provide
efficient traffic circulation for the surrounding east and west neighborhoods. City Staff were working to
ensure good access to the site itself for the church and for the projected traffic flow as the church grew.
Howard said Staff felt that the Church met all the criteria for annexation and that RS-5 zoning was
appropriate provided that conditions were established to ensure compliance with the Northeast District
Plan. Both the Church and the City were working with consultants to determine what those conditions
would be and how the NE District Plan might be modified to accommodate such a large institutional use;
Staff recommended deferral of this item tOl the July 12, 2007 meeting to allow the Church and their
consultant additional time work on their site planning process.
Eastham asked Staff to discuss neighborhood trail proposals for south of the major road and north of the
annexation. Could the annexation/rezoning be integrated in to the neighborhood trail system? Howard
said there were some planned trail systems being built along the existing stream corridors; to the north
Staff didn't know exactly where the trails would be located as the streets were not yet platted. Miklo said a
public park in the Lindemann subdivision wQuld be turned over to the City with anticipation that it would
extend up to Lower West Branch Road as the area was annexed and developed. A second greenway in
located east of Stone Bridge Estates was private with a public access over it. The City was planning an 8-
foot sidewalk on one side of Lower West Branch road which would serve as the trail
system/accommodate pedestrian traffic flow to the square.
Eastham asked if there had been discussion with the applicant as to what was planned for the parcel of
land located west of the public square. Miklo said in early discussions Staff had indicated that an
appropriate use of the area would be multi-family or townhouses or perhaps a location for a rectory. The
area to the east of the public square was a low spot and only 78-feet wide; it was questionable if it would
even be developable unless it was combined with land to the east. Miklo said what happened with the
actual farm property itself would also influence an appropriate use of that narrow strip of land - combining
the piece with the farmstead might be the best alternative.
Public discussion was opened.
Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, said they were working with the applicant. He was there to answer
any questions.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to defer Af'jIN07-00002/REZ07-0001 0 to 7/12/07. Koppes seconded.
Motion approved by a vote of 4-0 (Smith, Brooks absent; Freerks recused)
Consideration of the June 7, 2007 meetinq mlinutes
Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve tlhe minutes as typed and corrected. Plahutnik seconded.
Motion approved by a vote of 4-0. (Smith, BrQoks, Freerks absent)
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 21, 2007
Page 3
OTHER
Koppes asked why South Gate Development had blocked off the gravel road between Sand Hill and
Langenberg Drive. Since the road had been closed, there was now only one way in and out.
Mlklo said he would ask Public Works Department and report back to the Commission.
Adiournment
Motion by Shannon to adjourn. Koppes seconded.
Motion approved by a vote of 4-0. (Smith, Brooks Freerks absent)
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill.
s/pcd/minutes/p&Z!2007/6-21-07.doc
PRELIMINARY
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 12, 2007 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dean Shannon, Elizabeth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Terry
Smith
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Bob Brooks, Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Adam Ralston, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT:
Karl Schmidt
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
No discussion.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM
Freerks said the Commission will consider setting a public meeting on July 19th for an amendment to the
Northeast District Plan. The amendment will modify the Lindemann Hills Map to incorporate a large
institutional use and adjust the conceptual street pattern north of the public square along Lower West
Branch Road.
Freerks recused herself indicating that she is a member of St. Patrick's Church, the applicant for the
following annexation and rezoning items (A~N07-00002/REZ07-00010). Freerks left the meeting room.
Eastham said the Commission will only setthe date tonight for the public hearing on the amendment of
the Northeast District Plan. There will be time for public input on July 19th.
Motion: Shannon made a motion to seta public meeting on July 19th for an amendment to the
Northeast District Plan. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion carried on a vote of 4-0 (Freerks recused).
ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEM:
ANN07-00002/REZ07-00010: Discussion of an application for annexation of 14 acres of land owned by
Henrietta Miller and 1.89 acres of land owned by the City of Iowa City located north of Lower West
Branch Road, north of Brentwood Drive and Broadmoor Lane and the rezoning of 14 acres from County
Residential (R) to Low Density Single Fartnily Residential (RS-5) and approximately 1.89 acres from
County Residential (R) to Neighborhood Public (P-1).
Howard said staff modified the descriptiom of the annexation to include the public square that was
dedicated to the City of Iowa City from the Miller family.
Howard said the memo she sent to the Commission this week that continues on from the original staff
report. The memo elaborates on the conditions that staff has discussed with the church on integrating
this large institutional use into future neighborhoods that will develop around the church. Staff is
concerned about the church property extel1lding approximately a quarter mile from Lower West Branch
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 12, 2007
Page 2
Road, which will reduce the number of east-west street connections; the church purchasing three sides of
the public square, which is intended to be a public focal point of the neighborhood; and the traffic the
church will generate from services or special events. The first condition staff discussed with the church
would provide for future street access to the church property from the north. Because development north
of the church will not likely occur for several years, it is not feasible for a street to be built along the
northern boundary of the church property at this time. However, staff recommends that the church
dedicate at least half of the right-of-way for a future street that would extend east-west across the
northernmost portion of their property. A second access point would help disperse traffic as the
neighborhood grows around the church. A second condition is that the church would dedicate the land
for the street connections to the northeast and northwest corners of the public square along Lower West
Branch Road, to ensure good access to the public square from future neighborhoods that would surround
the church property. Staff feels that dedication of land for these street connections is sufficient at this
time, but if the church sells either of these small parcels prior to these streets being constructed, the
church or the party they were selling to would need to construct the street connections at that time. A third
condition would be to install an 8-foot sidewalk across the church property to create an east-west link
between the residential areas east and west of the church. The location of the sidewalk is conceptual
and its exact location can be determined when the church finalizes its site plans. Howard recommended
deferring the annexation and rezoning items until after the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is held.
Smith asked if the cost of the streets were contemplated at all in the proposal. Howard said the street
connections to the public square would benefit residential developments that would form east and west of
the church property, so could be required as a condition of annexation and rezoning for those properties.
Staff felt that it was an adequate condition far the church to dedicate the land at this time.
Koppes said she is concerned the road to the north would not be built, and then there would not be a
secondary access to the church, like what happened behind Grant Wood Elementary. She asked if the
City is guaranteed that this road and secondary access will be built. Howard said the City has quite a bit
of control over where streets are built because the land has not been annexed yet. There will be some
assurance if the district plan amendment refers to the importance of this street and if the church dedicates
land for that purpose. Howard said the access point on Lower Branch Road would be adequate for
distributing the initial traffic from the church. There is two-way traffic around the square, which will help
other drivers avoid the traffic generated by the church.
Shannon asked if the City currently owns the land that makes up the public square. Howard said that the
dedication of the park occurred since the last Planning and Zoning meeting.
Eastham asked what would happen to the. right-of-way north of the proposed church if the road never
materializes. Howard said the right-of-way could be vacated. Eastham asked where the ownership
would go from there. Howard said the property typically goes to the adjacent property owner. Eastham
said the church would have an opportunity t<l> buy the property at its appraised value.
Smith asked if there was a mechanism that could split the cost of constructing the road north of the
proposed church between the church arild the future developer of property north of the church.
Greenwood said the Commission could address it more proactively. Howard said escrow could be
required, but given the uncertainty of when the property north of the church would develop, the escrow
might expire before any construction could occur. Another option might be to have the church dedicate
land for the entire street right-of-way (60 feet).
Public discussion was opened.
Karl Schmidt introduced himself as Henrietta Miller's son-in-law. He asked that after an annexation, if the
Comprehensive Plan is set exactly how it i~ shown on the map or is there an opportunity to adjust the
plan. Howard said the maps in the Com~rehensive Plan are conceptual and slight variations will be
allowed, but the principles, the connectivity of the streets and open space, need to be followed. The City
uses the Comprehensive Plan to guide development. Alignments of the streets can be adjusted for
topography or similar. Any request for development in Iowa City, which must come through this
commission and the City Council, has the opportunity to make an amendment to the Plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 12, 2007
Page 3
Schmidt said that his family was not aware the process for development in Iowa City. His family was told
that when the land was annexed in, that the family had to follow the plan and donate the public square to
the City. He said that if his family does decide to sell more land to the City, there are some things in the
proposed amendment to the district plan thart his family has difficulty with and would like an opportunity to
work with the City to make adjustments. Schmidt said that the public square itself has not been named,
but Henrietta has donated this land to the city and would like to see her name included in the name of the
park.
Greenwood said she would like to clarify what it requires to change the Comprehensive Plan. In the
zoning ordinance, it states that it must be a substantial change in circumstances, which is what happened
with the sale to the church with it being such a large parcel. It is a high threshold to meet to cause a
change in the Comprehensive Plan. Schmidt asked if topographic features would meet those
requirements. Howard said nothing about ~he public square circumstances has changed. The southern
half of the square has already dedicated to the City. There is a significant change in circumstances with
the proposal from the church to keep one large tract of land as an institutional use north of the public
square. This is quite different than what is shown in the current district plan. Howard also noted that if
the Miller family decides to sell more land for development, those plans for development must be
consistent with the concept plan in the Comprehensive Plan, but the exact alignments of the streets can
be adjusted.
Schmidt said he does not like that the concept plan shows streets running through their mature timber.
Eastham asked if Mr. Schmidt would be willing to get together with staff before the public hearing next
week. It would be easier to make the change now rather than later.
Eastham said that the naming of the public square is not the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Terry Smith said that Parks and Recreation handles the naming. Howard said the name
"Lindemann Hills" is a fictitious name used for conceptual purposes in the district plan. The Millers can
determine the future name of subdivisions on their property. Schmidt said keeping the name around in
some form would help the farmers who worked the land to preserve their legacy. Howard said the
naming of streets would be something their family should discuss with a developer before selling the land.
Shannon said he is the only current member that was on the Commission when the Northeast District
Plan was drawn up and many of the members were concerned about putting a park in the middle of a
busy country road. The staff at the time said that Lower West Branch Road won't always been a country
road and this is a plan for the future. He $aid he goes along with the concept of radiating streets and
neighborhoods around a public square. The' Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a guide.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Koppes motioned to table discussion until the next meeting. Smith seconded the motion.
Motion carried on a vote of 4-0 (Freerks r,cused).
Freerks returned to the meeting room.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB06-00003: Discussion of an applications submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of
Galway H ills Parts 10 & 11, a 53-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dubl in Drive & Shannon
Drive (45-day limitation period: July 23, 2007).
Howard said staff received a request from the applicant to defer this item indefinitely. The applicant said
they would like more time to discussion their options for developing this property.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith motioned to defer the application. Eastham seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 12, 2007
Page 4
Motioned carried on a vote of 5-0.
SUB07-00004/SUB07-00005: Discussion of an application from Tyler Rogers for a preliminary and final
plat of North Fifty First Subdivision, a 3-lot, 3.00 acre residential subdivision located west of Kansas
Avenue, south of IWV Road SW (45-day limitation period: August 2,2007).
Howard said this application will need to be deferred because one of the requirements in the Fringe Area
Agreement is to have a fire rating from th~ volunteer fire department that will serve this development.
The developer's engineer has not received the rating yet, but plans to have it prior to next week's
meeting.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith motioned to defer the appllication. Eastham seconded the motion.
Motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
VACATION ITEM:
VAC07-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by University of Iowa to vacate a portion of Court
Street west of Madison Street and Front Street south of Burlington Street.
Ralston said the University requested this vacation to help facilitate redevelopment. The University
intends on building a new recreation center between Burlington, Court, Madison, and Front Streets.
Ralston stated that a vacation that recently occurred in this area was VAC02-0002, which was submitted
by the CRANDIC railway, it cleared title em the sale from CRANDIC to the University. It ended up
vacating four very small parcels. A second vacation that occurred in this area was VAC02-00004, which
was also vacated to the University. He said there was and access easement retained to allow access to
the Iowa River. The Near Southside Design Plan identified a "green link" from'the government area
around the Courthouse to the river would be an amenity to the public. Ralston said that Harrison Street
runs directly into the Iowa River and the public easement would allow for an access to be built in the
future. The Court Street right-of-way would run into the University's power plant, so public access is not
necessary.
Ralston said vacations are reviewed with several factors; the first being impact on pedestrian and
vehicular access and circulation, and the second being impact on emergency and utility vehicle access
and circulation. In this area, Burlington Street and Madison Street carryall of the vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. The land being vacated acts as an access road to the university properties and won't
affect the general public.
Ralston said that MidAmerican identified a major gas line under the Court Street right-of-way, and should
this vacation be approved, a blanket easement should be included. Staff is recommending approval of
item VAC07-00004 subject to the retention of necessary utility easements.
Koppes said Front Street has been blocked off by fences for quite a few years and using that as an
argument against public access seems wrong. It is backwards logic to block off a street and then tell the
public that they don't need it. Ralston said that it has been blocked of since at least 2002 indicating that it
is not needed for circulation. Shannon said that the University said they would remove the fence in 2002.
Miklo said Public Works might have approved the fence and staff will look into it. Koppes said she recalls
that the University said they would remove ~he fence. Miklo said there is no reason for the general public
to be in this area. There isn't a business or residence in the area that someone would want to go to.
Eastham said there could be the possibility- of the Front Street right-of-way to be used as an east side
river trail. Miklo said the location isn't ideall for a trail. Eastham asked what the University's intension is
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 12, 2007
Page S
for the Front Street right-of-way. Miklo said it would be used as a driveway for buses for swim meets.
Miklo said staff's recommendation is to approve this vacation. If the Commission wants to defer the item,
Staff could check on the trail issue with Parks and Recreation and fence issue with Public Works.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Eastham motioned to defer the application until the July 19th meeting. Shannon seconded
the motion.
Eastham said that he would like to defer the application until the Commission hears back from the Parks
and Recreation Commission or staff on the potential for a trail system on the Front Street right-of-way.
Smith asked if anyone has looked at accessibility to the area. It might be something staff will want to look
at.
Motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
OTHER
Howard said that in the most recent City Council meeting, the Council decided to go SO-SO with the
developer on Whispering Meadows for the cost of constructing the street that will cross the greenway.
The Council also asked the developer to make an effort for affordable housing. Howard said no definite
percentage was agreed upon, but a note was made on the Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Howard said the other issue was considering dedicating land along the trail. Parks and Recreation took a
look at land in Outlot A and determined the area needed a lot of clean up due to barbed wire and downed
trees. The Council sided with the Parks and Recreation department's recommendation. The fees in lieu
of won't be determined until the final plat.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Shannon made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Smith seconded.
Motion approved bv a vote of 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Doug Ongie.
s/pcd/minutes/p&z12007/07 -12-07
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 19, 2007 - 7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Terry Smith, Beth
Koppes
MEMBER EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Walz, Adam Ralston, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT: Swen Larson, Sarah Swartzendruber, Rev. Rudolph Juarez, Gene Miller, Karl
Schmidt, Kevin Monson,
Recommendations to Council:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0 (Freerks recused, Plahutnik absent) an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. the Northeast District Plan and modification of the plan map for the Lindemann Hills
Neighborhood to incorporate a large instituti~nal use into the conceptual street pattern north of the public
square along Lower West Branch Road and to include the text as recommended by the revised 7/19/07
Staff memo.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0 (Freerks recused, Plahutnik absent) ANN07-00002/REZ07-
00010. application for annexation of 14 acres of land owned by H. Miller and 1.89 acres of land owned by
the City of Iowa City located north of Lower West Branch Road, north of Brentwood Drive and Broadmoor
Lane and the rezoning of 14 acres from County Residential (R) to Low Density Single Family Residential
(RS-5) and approximately 1.89 acres from County Residential (R) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) with
conditions #1-4 as suggested in the 7/9/07 Staff Report including an amendment under item #4, the
dedication of a 60-foot wide strip of land along the northern boundary of the church.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent) SUB07-00004/SUB07-00005. a preliminary
and final plat of North Fifty First Subdivision, a 3-lot, 3.00 acre residential subdivision located west of
Kansas Avenue, south of IWV Road SW subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction
drawings prior to consideration by City Council.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0 (8rooks recused, Plahutnik absent) VAC07-00004. a vacation
of a portion of Front Street between Burlington Street and Harrison Street as well as Court Street
between Front Street and Madison Street subject to the retention of any necessary utility easements.
Call to Order:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
Public Discussion of Anv Item Not on the Aq~nda
No discussion.
Rezoninq Item:
REZ07-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC for a rezoning from Central
Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Bl,Isiness (CB-10) zone for approximately 2,035 square feet of
property located at 301 S. Dubuque Street and rezoning an additional 6965 square feet of adjacent
property from Neighborhood Public/Central Business Support (P1 /CB-5) zone to Central Business District
(CB-1 0) zone. (45-day limitation period: July 19, 2007)
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 2
Walz said the rezoning area incorporated a surrounding piece of publicly held land that had been
considered for development at the time that the Court Street Transportation Center had been constructed.
The City had been unable to obtain the tract of land at the corner of Dubuque and Burlington so it had
been anticipated that at some point a private developer would develop this small piece of land. The
Comprehensive Plan was amended at the time of the Hieronymus Square rezoning so that the City could
consider CB-10 re-zonings south of Burlington Street and north of Court Street provided that certain
criteria were met including:
. any extension of the downtown to south of Burlington Street
. be well connected to the established downtown in terms of pedestrian access
. the increased demand for parking be addressed
. design of the building to be compatible with the downtown
The extension of the CB-10 zone would allow for taller buildings to be constructed south of Burlington
Street providing a diversity of uses and hOl.lsing types. When Plaza Towers had been constructed, the
market had shown that there was a desire for a different type of housing in the downtown area. Per the
Comp~ehensive Plan, the functions of the core downtown area were to be at the pedestrian level. There
was public concern that the downtown might redevelop at such an intense level, which might lead to the
removal of some historic buildings and change the pleasant character. Since the established downtown
already has the desired pedestrian level interest, it was appropriate to allow some CB-10 development
south of Burlington to reduce development pressure on the established downtown. Creating more
housing in the near downtown area, south of Burlington Street, would create more opportunities for
downtown commercial entities to be supported by the residential uses.
Because the subject lot is so narrow, it is not feasible for parking to be provided on site so the applicant
proposed to provide parking in the Court Street Transportation Center. The parking fee requirement,
which was a condition of the Hieronymus Square rezoning, would also be applied to this property. The
developer would pay a fee for parking spaces based on the CB-5 requirements. Parking permits for the
tenants of the building would be available in the Court Street Transportation Center. The parking permits
would not guarantee that parking would be available in the ramp but would ensure the right to look for a
space in the parking facility.
Design compatibility issues considered by Staff included ground floor entrances and windows and
entrances located at grade level, variation in the fa9ade, the faCfade being split up into distinct units,
sidewalk level entrances and canopies to emphasize the entrances. The optimal building design would
be one that functioned as a pedestrian friendly building. The proposed building would be 13 stories high,
the same height as the Hieronymus Building. Staff had asked the developer to consider varying the roof
height and line to distinguish it from the Hieronymus building. Bays would extend out 5-6 feet from the
building at their apex to allow some variation in the building faCfade and to provide more space for the
development since it was such a narrow site.
Street amenities including trees would be provided to separate the pedestrian traffic from the high volume
vehicular traffic flow on Burlington Street. The street level walkway would be located on private property;
Staff had requested an access easement sO it would function as a public sidewalk even though it was on
private property. The design images being reviewed to the Commission did not depict the actual facility
design or color scheme. They had been rendered by a UI graduate student in Urban and Regional
Planning for the purpose of illustrating the bulk/scale of the proposed development in the surrounding
environment.
Walz said Staff recommended approval of IREZ07-00008 a rezoning from Central Business Support (CB-
5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone for approximately 2,035 square feet of property and rezoning
an additional 6965 square feet of adjacent property from Neighborhood Public/Central Business Support
(P1/CB-5) zone to Central Business District(CB-10) zone, based on the nine conditions listed in the Staff
Report of 7/19/07.
Freerks asked if the City had received any Qomplaints about motorists not being able to find parking spots
when this type of permit had been issued. Walz said she'd discussed the issue with Jeff Davidson. The
City had a formula which takes into consideration short-term versus permit parking, the number of any
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 3
given spots needed during the business day versus non-business hours, etc. It was thought that at least
90% of the time a parking spot would be avcailable for permit holders. Miklo said the situation was closely
monitored and that Staff was not aware oW any negative issues with regard to parking availability for
current permit holders in this or other City ramps.
Walz confirmed that the same height requirements, minimum of 7- and maximum of 13-stories that had
been applied to the Hieronymus Square Development would also be applied to this project.
Public discussion was opened.
Swen Larson, applicant, said they'd had good success working with City Staff and meeting all the design
requirements to date. The City had decideo to remove the existing curb cut to Burlington Street and this
would make developing the property a challenge.
Eastham asked Larson if he had any rea<i:tion to any of the conditions that City Staff had proposed.
Larson said there were some small language issues that his lawyer and City Staff were working through.
In general, the requirements set forth were fine.
Sarah E. Swartzendruber, 1 S. Gilbert Street, said she'd spoken with City Legal Staff prior to the meeting
and didn't think language would be a big issue. The applicant was agreeable to all conditions as set forth
except item (i), Substantial Compliance. The developer felt the design review process was a good
process, especially for a development of this magnitude but they didn't want to be tied to 'substantial
compliance' with the plan that was submitte(l with the rezoning appliation. Swartzendruber said that there
had been give and take on both sides; it had been a collaborative process and the applicant wanted that
process to be able to continue. If the developer was looking at interior design issues and needed to make
some slight modifications to the exterior of the building, they wanted to be able to do so without having to
reappear before the Commission in a few weeks or months. She thought the language could be worked
out, but the applicant wished to request that they not be tied to an exact site plan or exact footprint
submitted with this particular application.
Miklo said Staff had discussed that request earlier in the afternoon. It was Staff's feeling that substantial
compliance would allow for some leeway for adjustments. Any other language could open it up to
become quite subjective. Since the City waiS selling property for this proposed development they wanted
to be relatively sure of what they were goilng to get. Staff felt 'substantial compliance' gave them the
flexibility to work out those issues. Staff's concern was that by having less language, such as general
compliance, it could open it up to become an argumentative situation between the developer and the City.
Swartzendruber said the language used for the Hieronymus Square development did not contain the
'substantial compliance' language, it had only included the design review process. The applicant was
concerned about being tied to a picture at thiis early stage in the process as it was only the rezoning.
Miklo said less specific language was one of the City's concerns with the Hieronymus development. The
bulk of the development looked quite differElnt than the original building proposal. Staff was continuing to
review those issues with the developer; tM proposed building still had to go through the design review
process. That was one of the reasons why Staff had revised the language for this and future applications.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer R~Z07-00008, an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC for
a rezoning from CB-5 zone to CB-10 zone fbr approximately 2,035 square feet of property located at 301
S. Dubuque Street and rezoning an additiomal 6965 square feet of adjacent property from P1/CB-5 zone
to CB-10 zone, provided that the applicant was agreeable to an extension of the 45-day limitation period
to the next formal Commission meeting on 8/2/07 to allow discussion of and resolution of the substantial
compliance language issue.
Larson agreed to an extension of the 45-day limitation period.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 4
Smith seconded the motion.
Brooks said he did not see a need to defer, he was confident that legal counsels could work out the
language issues. There were a number of other more detailed criteria listed in the bullets in item (i) that
covered the issues critical to Brooks in terms of the appearance of the building. Substantial was
subjective, to get hung up on one word didn't seem productive to him.
Miklo said if the Commission opted to defer this item to allow resolution of the language issue it would not
slow down the process for the applicant or delay when the application actually went before City Council.
The sale / purchase of underlying land would not be ready to be placed on the Council's agenda before
the 8/21/07 meeting.
Freerks and Smith voiced concern regarding the Commission voting on language knowing that it would
be tweaked by City Staff without their approval. Smith said the wording listed in the Staff Report was part
of their motion and he didn't feel that Staff had the liberty to tweak the Commission's approval after it had
been done. He was comfortable having the first sentence in section (i) struck out as the design was still
subject to the review of the Design Committee.
Brooks said a Site Plan to him was a plan that showed how a building would be positioned on a site which
had no association with the appearance of the fagade of a building. In the Hieronymus case a site plan
had been important because their building had not taken up the entire site. The other bulleted items in (i)
were critical to the design facade of the buil~ing and didn't pertain to the site plan. He felt they needed a
legal definition of site plan. Brooks said, as a landscape architect with numerous years in the building
design business, a site plan was a set of plans showing how the building would be positioned on the site,
it didn't refer to fagade or breaking up the fag:ade of a building.
Freerks said she was not comfortable striking the first sentence from section (i), it could lead them into
territory that they were not prepared to address.
Miklo said Staff's request would be to defer the item rather than striking the first sentence to allow Staff
the opportunity to find language that would be acceptable to both Staff and the applicant.
Eastham said he had not been inclined to defer this item but after listening to the discussion and
comments, he felt that deferral was optimal. Eastham said he agreed with Smith, the initial sentence was
not completely satisfactory from either the applicant's or City's perspective. He didn't want to send a
recommendation to Council that the Commission had approved but Staff had tweaked the language
and/or conditions after the approval and without a re-review by the Commission. He would be absent
from the August 2nd meeting but for the record wished to state that he was supportive of the rest of the
application and Staff's recommendations. The sentence in question was the only item that he had any
concerns about.
Smith said it was a substantial change in ~he right direction for the Community. He supported Staff's
recommendation short of the one sentence in question. He also wanted a clear definition of site plan.
Freerks said she was in favor of deferral. The item in question could mean different things to different
people, it would be best to work it out and perhaps gain some additional knowledge from the resolution.
The motion to defer passed on a vote of 6-0 (plahutnik absent)
Comprehensive Plan Item:
Public hearing on an amendment to the Northeast District Plan modifying the plan map for the Lindemann
Hills Neighborhood to incorporate a large institutional use into the conceptual street pattern north of the
public square along Lower West Branch Road.
Freerks recused herself citing conflict of interest, as a member of the St. Patrick's parish.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 5
Howard said the impetus for this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was the application by St.
Patrick's Church to build a new church north of Lower West Branch Road and north of the public square
that was currently being constructed. Initiailly in the Northeast District Plan it had not been anticipated
that a large institutional property would be located in the middle of the neighborhood north of the public
square area. Therefore an An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary to show how
such a large tract with an institutional use could be integrated into the new neighborhoods that would form
around it. The City hired a land planner to review the area, the topography, the existing Comprehensive
Plan, the principles from the existing NE Disltrict plan and asked her to try and incorporate them all into a
new plan map for the Lindemann Hills area in the NE District Plan. The planner worked to keep all the
existing principles of the NE District plan in place, including a interconnecting street system, good
connectivity between areas east and west of the church property, preserving open space along the
stream corridor, connecting trail system for means of transportation and travel across the neighborhood,
incorporating the public square so it would! have good street access to be used for all the residential
neighborhoods in the area, and that the square would remain the focal point for the new neighborhoods.
The church property would need to have an east/west street connection at the north end of the property
which would substitute for what had previously been planned. An additional means of travel would
include having some sort of trail connection across the church campus when the Church had determined
their site plan, buildings and parking lot.
Howard said Staff supported the modified plan map; they felt that the principles originally identified by the
citizens who had crafted the NE District Plan were in place, while accommodating the proposed church.
Staff also recommended adding language tc) the Plan which would describe what the new plan map was
and what it meant, making it clear that it was a conceptual plan and when land was purchased there
could be adjustments made to the exact location of roadways to preserve natural features and farmsteads
to preserve estates that currently were located in the area. Staff had provided proposed draft language to
the Commission prior to the informal meeting and had revised that language based on the Commission's
discussion at the Informal meeting. Howardalso mentioned that staff met with the Miller family to discuss
their concerns about preserving natural features, such as the woodland on their property and the
farmstead which abuts the Church property., The proposed language that would accompany the revised
plan map in the NE District Plan was responsive to their concerns. Howard read the proposed language
revision to the Comprehensive Plan for the benefit of the members of the public present.
Smith requested two additions to the proposed language:
1) An additional sentence at the end of the first paragraph indicating that the City was addressing the
location of the street at the northern edge of the property. This was in response to recent events where
developers had been requested to make improvements to City owned land. He wanted to make sure that
the land dedicated for a street would be constructed as a street when the time came to develop property
north of the church. He suggested adding the sentence: "Public right-of-way is being acquired from the
church for this purpose."
2) Second underlined section, "based on topography or" to preserve natural features and existing
farmsteads and estates.
Brooks said he supported those two chamges, he had thought of a similar suggestion regarding
topography himself.
Public discussion was opened.
Father Rudolph T. Juarez, pastor of St. Patrick's Church, thanked the City for the great accessibility that
they'd been given all through out the process of the prior months. Father Juarez said that the tornado
that had devastated St. Patrick's Church <l>n 4/13/2006, had forced the parish to ask themselves the
questions of when and where to rebuild and how to best serve the spiritual and material needs of their
parishioners and how to be a positive force in Iowa City. The decision had been reached that it was time
for a move. Several locations had been 10<l>ked at but none had worked out. When the Henrietta Miller
property had become available, Father Juarez had told the parishioners that it was time to hurry up,
slowly. Father Juarez said the church intended to build an aesthetically pleasing church and campus
using local architects, local contractors and local labor. The parish felt that the new St. Patrick's would be
a stabilizing force and a positive presence not only in Iowa City but in the new neighborhood as it
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 6
developed. The Church and parish hoped t~ remain true to their mission dedicated to the service of God
and true to their neighbor. They were pleased to count themselves among the citizens of Iowa City and
hoped to continue to be good neighbors amd allies while working for the greater good of Iowa City for
generations to come. It was the Church's intent to be a LEED-certified building and be earth friendly.
They hoped to break ground in spring 2008.
Gene Miller, 4975 Sharon Center Road, said he and his brother in law, Karl Schmidt, as representatives
of the Miller family wanted to go on record as generally approving the changes to the Comprehensive
Plan and to the Northeast District Plan to accommodate St. Patrick's Church. They were in support of the
changes staff made to the language of the plan to allow flexibility to protect their green timbered area on
the existing farm for a future residential development by family members building in that location. They
wanted to preserve the ability to possibly alter the location of the large main street so as not to go through
the timbered area.
Karl Schmidt, said at the Commission's suggestion they'd met with City Staff and had come up with
language that the Miller family was comfortable with regarding the family's ability to adjust the streets
slightly to accommodate the natural topograplhical features of the land.
Eastham thanked the Miller family for taking time to visit with Staff and to work out a resolution with the
City.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to amend the Northeast District Plan and modify the Lindemann Hills
Neighborhood map to incorporate a large institutional use into the conceptual street pattern north of the
public square along Lower West Branch RoM and to include the text of the 7/19/07 Staff memo with two
language amendments as previously discussed. Shannon seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 (Freerks recused, Plahutnik excused)
Annexation/Rezoninq Item
ANN07-00002/REZ07-00010: Discussion of an application for annexation of 14 acres of land owned by
Henrietta Miller and 1.89 acres of land owned by the City of Iowa City located north of Lower West
Branch Road, north of Brentwood Drive and Broadmoor Lane and the rezoning of 14 acres from County
Residential (R) to Low Density Single FaiTlily Residential (RS-5) and approximately 1.89 acres from
County Residential (R) to Neighborhood Public (P-1).
Howard said Staff recommended approval of ANN07-00002, the annexation of the two properties into the
City and felt that they met all criteria for annexation into the City. Staff recommended approval of REZ07-
00010 with some conditions because the Church was not yet ready to build and had not developed a site
plan.
1) Dedication of land and associated constr\Jction easements to the City for public right-of-way for future
street connections to the northeast and northwest corners of the public square that would ensure street
access to all corners of the public square and help establish the public square as the focal point for the
neighborhood.
2) An agreement that if the Church decided to develop one or both of the parcels of land either to the east
or to the west that abutted the sides of the square or sell it for development, the successor in title will be
responsible for constructing one or both of tHose street legs.
3) An agreement that at such time as the clhurch property was developed the church will be responsible
for construction of and granting a public acCess easement over an 8-foot wide sidewalk extending east-
west across the center of the church property, exact location to be determined through the special
exception process.
4) Dedication of a strip of land along the northern boundary of the church property to the City for use as
future public right-of-way. At such time as the northerly street is constructed, the church also agrees to
construct an access drive from the street to the developed portion of the church property so that it will be
possible for users of the property to access the northerly street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 7
Howard said Staff recommended approval with the conditions as noted.
Public discussion was opened.
Kevin Monson, 221 E. College Street, said the Parish was very supportive of having the church be
connected to the neighborhood in a pedestrilan friendly fashion. Because the exact location of the church
building on the site had not been determined yet, the parish wished to maintain great flexibility and
latitude of location with the intent to connect to the neighborhood with an east to west connection but with
the knowledge that the connection might not be a straight line as currently shown on the map. Dedication
of land - the Church agreed to the request for a 30 or 50-foot dedication requirement, but hoped that it
wouldn't be any more than that. With the ~nderstanding that the future developer in the neighborhood
would pave the street(s), the Church felt that the dedication of the land to the City was a reasonable
accommodation for the development of the site and for a northern access to the property. Monson said
the church felt that it was important that the square was connected and would become a very important
part of the neighborhood.
Eastham asked Monson if the church was satisfied with the open language regarding trails and trail
connections. Monson said it was all in wl10 was interpreting the language. Straight lines made him
nervous.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve ANN07-00002/REZ07-00010, application for annexation of 14
acres of land owned by Henrietta Miller and 1 .89 acres of land owned by the City of Iowa City located
north of Lower West Branch Road, north of erentwood Drive and Broadmoor Lane and the rezoning of 14
acres from County Residential (R) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) and approximately
1.89 acres from County Residential (R) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) with the conditions as stated #1-4 in
the 7/9/07 Staff Report with one amendment under item #4, the dedication of a 50-foot wide strip of land
along the northern boundary of the church. Koppes seconded the motion.
Eastham asked if any members of the Commission had had any discussions regarding this item outside
of the formal or informal meetings with members of the public. None were disclosed.
Brooks said he had real concerns about the future of the roadway and a developer opening up another
can of worms regarding assessment of the cost of the road so everyone shared equally in the cost of
construction. At this point, this was probably the best that could be done
Greenberg said if the Commission wanted the Church to pay for the cost of the paving, this was the time
to make that designation. Miklo said that would have to be accomplished in the form of an escrow which
given the uncertainty of when the property to the north would develop, may not be a viable option.
Escrows would expire after a specified amqunt of time. If this was a fast paced fast growing area, Staff
would support such a proposal. However, given the pace of residential development in this area it would
be hard to predict what would occur in the next 5 to 10 years. If the escrow lapsed, the money would
have to go back to the property owner.
Koppes said that there would be some compensation for the property owner to the north, because the
amended district plan shows higher density townhouses in that area. She also noted that the developer
would get a some compensation for having to build the road by not having to pay for the land that had
already been dedicated by the church.
Shannon said an argument was centering around whom would pay for construction of a future street
when it was not even known if the street wOllJld even come into existence.
Eastham said he agreed with the suggestion that the Church dedicate the full right-of-way width. He
agreed with Shannon, predicting what could or would develop north of the church was difficult.
Smith said it seemed to be a good concept, if the concept materialized it would be seen.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 8
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 (Freerks recused, Plahutnik absent)
Development Item:
SUB07-00004/SUB07-00005: Discussion of! an application from Tyler Rogers for a preliminary and final
plat of North Fifty First Subdivision, a 3-lot, 3.00 acre residential subdivision located west of Kansas
Avenue, south of IWV Road SW. (45-day limitation period: August 2,2007)
Miklo said this item had been deferred from a previous meeting because a fire rating had not yet been
established. A fire rating of 9 had been received from the Tiffin Fire Department. The rating scale was 1
(best) to 10 (worst); per a conversation with a representative of the insurance industry items with a rating
of 10 were uninsurable. This fire rating would put anyone on notice who wished to purchase property that
it would be difficult to provide fire protection for the subdivision. Staff recommended approval.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Eastham moved to approve SUB~7-00004/SUB07-00005. an application for a preliminary and
final plat of North Fifty First Subdivision, a 3-lot, 3.00 acre residential subdivision located west of Kansas
Avenue, south of IWV Road SW subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior
to consideration by City Council. Shannon s!econded.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Vacation Item:
Brooks recused himself citing a conflict of interest due to his involvement with this project.
VAC07-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by University of Iowa to vacate a portion of Court
Street west of Madison Street and Front Street south of Burlington Street
Ralston said this application had been deferred from a previous meeting to allow Staff time to investigate
two concerns:
the possibility of using Front Street as part of a trail system
fencing that the University of Iowa had p!laced over the Front Street right-of-way
Planning Staff had discussed with Terry Trueblood of Parks and Recreation and John Yapp of JCCOG
the possibility of using Front Street as part of a future trail system. Both had indicated that Front Street
would be an undesirable location for a pedestrian trail due to lack of lack of connections to existing trail
connections surrounding the Front Street area and its close proximity to railroad tracks in the area.
Public Works Staff had attempted to research the question as to whether the U of I had been granted
permission to fence off parts of the Front Street right-of-way. They had been unable to conclude one way
or the other whether permission had been grtanted to the University to fence it or not.
It was Staff's opinion that due to the close proximity to the University's power plant and to the railroad
tracks the area was probably not needed for vehicular or pedestrian circulation. To vacate this area
would benefit the City in two ways, it would relieve the City of maintenance costs in the area and
decrease the City's liability for the area. Staff recommended approval of VAC07-00004 subject to the
retention of any necessary utility easements as discussed in the previous recommendation.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Eastham made a motion to approve VAC07-00004. a vacation of a portion of Front Street
between Burlington Street and Harrison Street as well as Court Street between Front Street and Madison
Street subject to the retention of any necessary utility easements. Smith seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 19, 2007
Page 9
Shannon said on a previous vacation request by the University, the University had agreed to remove the
fencing to allow fishermen/women access tQ the river front. The University had neglected to remove the
fence to allow public access to the river. Hewanted to see the community have access to the river. Miklo
said Staff had reviewed the minutes from 2002. This same issue had been an issue of concern for the
Commission at that time. Miklo said he did mot recall if the University had had a representative present or
not. The Commission had requested raised the question of whether permission had been granted for the
fence. But there was no flow through on requiring the fence to be removed.
Koppes said if a vacation at Prentiss Street or other direct access to the river were requested, she would
want a definite public access easement retained at minimum. In the future the City needed to watch what
was being given up as they were giving up access to the river. She felt that it had been mentioned in the
Staff Report but the City had not followed up on it. She didn't like that the fence had been installed or that
the fence still remained.
Freerks said she agreed, it would be good to have protected public access to the river.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. (Brooks recused, Plahutnik absent)
Consideration of the June 21 and Julv 12, 2Q07 meetinq minutes
Minutes are still being transcribed, item deferred to the 8/2/07 meeting.
Adiournment
Motion by to adjourn by Smith. Seconded by Eastham.
Motion approved by a vote of 5-0 (Brooks recused, Plahutnik absent)
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill.
I:
o
'en
,!!!
E
E
o
()"C
...
OlO
I: (,)
,- CI)
go::
NCI).....
olS(,)g
I:N
OlIG
I:"C
.- I:
I: CI)
1:-
.!!!<t
a..
>.
~
()
IG
::
.2
(!)
Z
I-
W
w
:!:
...J
<(
:!:
0::
o
LL
('II W W
..... -- >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-- 0
.....
..... W W W
('II 0 >< -- >< >< >< --
-- 0 0
<0
..... W
0 >< >< >< >< -- >< ><
CD 0
.....
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
It)
M
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
it;
01
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
It) W
0 0 >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
'0:1'
It) W
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< --
M 0
.....
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
M
It) w w
..... >< >< >< -- 0 0 ><
-- 0
('II
.....
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
N
CO >< >< >< >< >< ><
..... ><
--
.....
en 0 00 N 0 00
E ~ ..- ..-
..- ..- 0 ..- ..- 0 ..-
Q) 'g -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I- >< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UJ
E ..If:: t:
III III III t: 0
..If:: co ..If:: CI) - t:
CI) 0 J: ... c.. ::l t: J:
E - CI) c.. J: -
0 III CI) co co 'E
ell "- co "- 0 a: J:
z m w u.. ~ t/) t/)
0) >< >< >< UJ UJ >< UJ
-- 0 0 0
.....
co UJ
.... >< >< 0 >< >< >< ><
--
<0
0
M >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
"It'
CD UJ
.... >< 0 >< >< >< >< ><
--
"It'
<0 UJ
N >< >< >< 0 >< >< ><
--
N
0) UJ
N >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
--
....
en 00 0 00
E ~ 0 ..- N ..-
..- ..- 0 ..- ..- 0 ..-
Q).~ -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ I:
U) U) U) I: 0
~ IG ~ CI) - I:
0 ..c: ... c.. ;::, I: ..c:
- CI) ..c: ~
(1.) 0 U) CI) c.. IG IG E
E ... IG ... 0 c: ..c:
aJ W LL ~ (J) (J)
co a:i ci .:( u.i ;: ....:
z c
(!)
z
i=
w
w
:!:
...J
<(
:!:
0::
o
LL
~
"t:l
(1.)
en
::J
U
><
UJ
............:;:,
c c c
(1.) (1.) (1.)
en en en
(1.).0.0
0::<(<(
.. II II II
>. UJ
(1.) --
~><OO