Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, August 16, 2010 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 7:00 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. Development Item: REZ1 0-00007/SU81 0-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development - Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, an 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. D. Code Amendment Item: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 26, August 2 and August 5, 2010 F. Other: 1 . Discussion of Work Program 2. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adjacent to the Iowa River G. Adjournment Informal Formal Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings October 4 October 7 October 18 October 21 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: REZ1 0-00007/SUB1 0-00004 Iowa City Industrial Campus This item was deferred pending submission of a wetlands mitigation plan. We anticipate that a revised mitigation plan will be submitted prior the Commission meeting. The Commission requested information about the amount of industrial zoned land in Iowa City. The attached map illustrates the location of approximately 700 acres of land zone General Industrial (11). This includes the 173 acres within the proposed industrial park. Much of the industrial land is developed. There are few vacant lots within the BDI and Scott Sixth industrial parks. There are large tracks of undeveloped industrial land on the east side of Old Highway 218. Much of that area is within the floodplain and does not have sanitary sewer service. o l n ~ r ~~~I ~ r flr IJ ,~/ II! \ ~6'r ! L Y B ~~~~~~lE ~T B 1 / I II ns 1111~1~ I~~I l.f I ~ I ffiffi 0 ~t7~ "-----.. ~ L1:,; ~ II -'" I ~ L, g.. ~mJrr~ ff -, I~ri ~ / N ~p~ r~mm I.... j~~ /0- r1 ~ Ir~illr ~ 111I~ml n ~~~ /0- ~ (;) lIt==r.E~ ~I.II ])1 :: ::J 1==iW~ll= 11111111:. ~ ~ ~ 'C CI-amll~!l'I1 1ml!IlIIIIJ1lIIIIII ~.5 tiBEmII~11111' 81LIIII ~ 1 ':; ~ ~BAlffiffiB.l~~. ,Dr / U f( ~ =.J1ilJl' am. J ~ ~ \ ~ g;;lJllilw ~ ~~' ~~/ ~w tE:jf5~~~~~wrnB ~~~ v \'L~ J EiE1Ed~rn';B vA' ~ ., ~ L I I IDD~ 't!J ~'" ~~;~~~I;q\\\ ~ n I ~~ I ULj,~ ~[l\ \~ U L5 n?~ .llaP J{A ~t= \\\ 1 m r----, \)\ / I 0 / .-r- A I /L ~~ ~ fn= II l!:! C,) ca e-- co '- - en co co II - CI) f--- C o I------,N -- ..!. I C J.l I l~ / City of Iowa City M~MORANDUM Date: August 19, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Work Program Staff would like to review the Commission's work program (attached) and discuss any revisions, additions or deletions that the Commission would like to consider. Staff has nearly completed a draft of the Southeast District Plan (item #3) and anticipates that it will be ready for the Commission's consideration in September. We also anticipate that you will soon complete the review of the floodplain regulations (item #6) and that these two items can be removed from the list. Staff has recently been asked about zoning code amendments that would allow and regulate wind turbines. Our preliminary research indicates that given local wind patterns, to be cost effective, wind turbines may need to be well over 200 feet tall. We also have had recent interest in solar collection panels. Our current regulations generally allow them as accessory uses or structures provided that they meet building code requirements and zoning setback and height limitations. Housing and Inspection Services recently received complaints about a solar collection devise that was installed within 2 feet of a property line (mechanical equipment requires a 2-foot setback in single family residential zones). A review of regulations for accessory structures to assure that they are adequate may be appropriate. We suggest the Commission consider adding the study of alternative energy sources to the work program. The Commission agreed to discuss land uses in the South Central District related to the City's application for funding for construction of a levee to protect properties on the west side of the Iowa River. If there are other items that the Commission would like to propose for research, please be prepared to discuss them at the informal meeting on August 16. Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Work Program 1. Review CB-2 standards 2. Review of CB-10 zone requirements - setbacks, parking (already addressed) , height limits, number of bedrooms (already addressed) 3. Southeast Planning District (draft anticipated September 2010) 4. Investigate methods of protecting landmark trees 5. Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance 6. Review Floodplain development potential and regulations (draft completed) 7. North Corridor District Plan 8. Northwest District Plan 9. Entryway overlay zone or standards 8-19-2010 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 26,2010 - 6:00 PM - WORK SESSION CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Josh Busard, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Doug Ongie, David Purdy, Julie Tallman OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. PRESENTATION ON CITY OF IOWA CITY FLOOD RECOVERY EFFORTS: Miklo stated that Doug Ongie and David Purdy had been working full time for almost two years on flood recovery efforts, and would be making a presentation to the Commission. Ongie shared an overview of the flood recovery strategy outlined by the City Council in January 2009, which includes: 1) buying out properties in the 100 and 500-year floodplains; 2) elevating Park Road Bridge and Dubuque Street; 3) moving wastewater operations to the south plant. Ongie said that if money becomes available for other projects, such as levees, the Council will consider those projects. Ongie said their presentation consists of five main categories: 1) Public Infrastructure, 2) Buy- out, 3) Replacement, 4) Assistance, and 5) Business Assistance. Public Infrastructure consists of many projects, including: the elevation of Dubuque Street and Park Road Bridge, the relocation of the animal shelter, the west side levee, and water source protection to protect the well-beds on the Peninsula and water-treatment plant sites. Residential Buy-out is funded by three sources: 1) the FEMA buy-out of homes in the 100-year floodplain that suffered substantial damage; 2) the CDBG program buy-out of homes in the 500- year floodplain that suffered at least 60% damage; and 3) the Community Disaster Grant which was used to buy other properties. Purdy noted that through these programs the City has acquired 50 properties, 38 of which have been demolished. Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 6 Purdy noted that the grant period comes to an end in 2012, and the City wants all eligible property owners to have come to a decision on buy-out by May 2012 in order to ensure that demolition occurs on time. Purdy shared maps to demonstrate which properties had been purchased, which were eligible for purchase, and how the neighborhood might look in terms of homes versus bought-out lots at the end of the grant. He also shared some photographs of the full demolition process. Ongie explained that the State had created the Single Family New Construction Program as a way of replacing the housing stock that was being removed from flood-affected areas by the buy-out processes. He said that the first round of funding paid for the acquisition of 40 new homes; the homes must sell for under $180,000 and the applicants must be income-eligible. This program also had a component that provided down-payment assistance. The second funding round required that half of the homes be sold at under $150,000; the rest at under $180,000. Ongie said that the City contracted with eight developers to build 38 homes with the money received in the second funding round. Ongie noted that first priority was given to people in the buy-out program, people affected by the flood, first time buyers, and Johnson County residents, in that order. Miklo explained that part of the rationale behind the program was to replenish the community's housing supply and tax base that was reduced by the buy-out program. Plahutnik asked who owns and maintains the bought-out properties. Ongie said that the City owns the properties and the Parks and Recreation Department maintains them with the intention of adding large tracts of the properties to City Park at some point in the future. Purdy said that Jump Start funding was available for residents of Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild. He said that most of the residents who opted to take Jump Start money were given repair assistance and opted not to participate in the buy-out program. Purdy said that $861,000 in federal funds has been spent on 17 households and $1.84 million in state funds has been spent on 77 households. Eastham asked how much the total amount of money spent on buy- outs came to and Ongie said that roughly $8 million in FEMA funds has been spent on buy-outs and roughly $3.5 million in CDSG funds. Eastham asked if it was correct to say that roughly $15 million had been spent for buy-out and repairs of flood affected homes. Purdy said that figure was correct, noting that it was to-date spending. Purdy said that businesses in the south corridor along Riverfront and Stevens Drives had also received some assistance. He said that most of the businesses had been renting property from a landlord; about $800,000 on business rental assistance was spent for those businesses. He said there is still up to $2 million to spend on business assistance. Eastham asked how much public money was spent on the repair of commercial buildings. Ongie said it was difficult to say, but that the city has given out approximately $100,000 for repairs. Freerks asked if any of this information was available online. Purdy said that there are some maps available on the City website's flood recovery page that he has been updating on a regular basis. Payne asked if the dollars spent could be broken down into those spent for homes in the 1 OO-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain. Purdy said that roughly $9 million had been spent in the 1 OO-year floodplain. Ongie said that an update had been created for the City Council which detailed all of the flood related spending, and that a copy of this could be provided to the Commission. Freerks noted that none of the flood-recovery dollars spent by the University of Iowa was included in these totals. Eastham asked if it was correct that the Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 6 properties that had been purchased through the buy-out process could no longer be used for housing. Ongie said that they are designated as green space and cannot be built on at all. Miklo said that most of the properties will be incorporated into the parks system and will come before the Commission to be zoned as public lands. Eastham asked if there were any restrictions on properties in the same area/neighborhood remaining residential. Greenwood Hektoen said that there were none as the buy-out program is voluntary. Ongie said that there are about seven or eight properties in the 1 DO-year floodplain in the Normandy Drive area that decided not to do the buy-out. Tallman said that along the river side of Normandy Drive the appraised values were much higher than the assessed values, so a number of people whose properties had sustained less than 50% damage opted to go ahead and elevate their properties and rebuild. Tallman spoke specifically to the varying ways several property owners addressed the issue of rebuilding to the appropriate standards. Eastham asked if the homeowners that had opted to remain at their properties and not be bought-out will be eligible for public assistance if they are flooded again. Ongie said he was never able to get a straight answer to that question, but said he would be surprised if the properties were deemed ineligible for assistance based on their decision to stay. Tallman said that according to the federal standards, Iowa City does not have any "repetitive loss properties," properties that repeatedly apply for assistance for flood damages. Payne asked if there was any sense of how much more expensive it would be for the property owners to bring their homes from the 1 DO-year elevation to the 500-year elevation. Tallman said that she believed that once the home was lifted, it did not really make much difference if it was elevated five inches or five feet. Tallman noted that there is still no restriction on using fill to elevate structures in the new ordinance. Freerks asked how other communities had integrated these kinds of residential gaps, or sporadic homes in the midst of parkland that would result from the buy-out. Miklo said that one option was to leave a certain amount of funding available in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget each year so that the remaining homes could be bought as they come on the market. Tallman noted that it did increase City expenses to have such sporadic residential occupation; the Parks Department will have to take on vast expanses of sidewalks, and roads will have to be maintained and cleared for use by just a few residents. Eastham asked if the City has any obligation to change the elevation of the street and Purdy said that it did not; raising the intersection of Manor and Normandy was explored, but no funding source was found. Freerks asked if the plan to ultimately purchase the remaining homes has been formalized or included in a specific, written plan. Staff said that it has not been formalized, but will be a CIP priority. Plahutnik asked if imminent domain would come into play and staff said that it would not. Miklo said that it is likely that most of the homes will come up for sale within a generation. Purdy said that the duplication of benefits issue that is a problem with some of the state and federally funded buy-outs would not come into play if the City was putting out its own money, and therefore some remaining property owners may be more inclined to sell. There were no further questions for Ongie and Purdy. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 6 Tallman explained that the Coralville floodwall that had been discussed at previous meetings would be built entirely in the floodplain, not in the floodway. She said that she does not think that the precise impacts of the floodwall have been calculated, but that the wall will be in compliance with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Payne asked if this wall would cause the water to spread further. Tallman said that it makes sense that it would, but that she was not sure that the floodwall alone would cause that to happen. Eastham said that to him the more critical question was whether Iowa City should build a levee to protect properties near Baculis Mobile Home Park. Tallman said that the City just has to accept that there are limits to what can be done and what can be controlled. Tallman said that at the last meeting Weitzel had asked if the floodplain regulations would apply to historic structures. Tallman said that there had been discussions about integrating language into the variance to address that issue. Miklo said that an example of this issue can be found in the Ned Ashton House in Parkview Terrace; if the City were to buy this, the home would not be removed, but would likely be integrated into some park use. Miklo said there were a number of historic properties in the Ralston Creek floodplain. Miklo said that one major issue at question is the issue of lateral additions. Tallman said she had reviewed the records for lateral additions, and found that it had not come up a lot. Tallman said that she believes the issue is that the City does not want to deny people a reasonable use of their property or deny their ability to make improvements to allow them to age in their homes. Tallman said a review of the permits issued in the last eight years found that out of 288 applications, only six would have had to fill their basements or elevate if the new floodplain standards had been in effect. She said the vast majority of applications did not meet the threshold for a substantial improvement, and of those that did only a small number would have had to have their basements filled. Freerks summarized the new regulations as follows: if the floor area is increased by 25% or the value is increased by 50% then the entire structure would need to be elevated. Current code says that only the lowest part of the new addition must be elevated. Plahutnik said that this might make it more costly to put an addition on a home in a floodplain, but it is in keeping with the goals of the floodplain regulations. Eastham said that he saw one of the goals of the code as preventing public expenditure on the repair of homes located in the floodplain. Plahutnik said that while homeowners may not be pleased with the additional costs associated with these regulations, they will be glad they were in place if their home is flooded in the next flood event. Payne said it also might not allow homeowners to do more minor home improvements because they would have to spend $20,000 elevating their home in order to do their addition. Tallman said she thought the higher standard was a good idea. Tallman said that staffs answer to the issue of how these regulations would apply to historic structures would be to incorporate a change in the definition of substantial improvement to exclude historic structures, or to include language in the variance section allowing exceptions for historic structures. Freerks asked Tallman to research how other communities had handled historic structures. Tallman noted that as it is currently written, substantial improvement has the same meaning as substantial reconstruction or repair; even if a home in the floodplain was damaged by fire, it would still need to be reconstructed to meet all current codes. Tallman noted that some additional oversight might be wise, like input from the Historic Preservation Commision. Freerks said she might be more comfortable if she felt like the people who might be affected by these regulations were aware of the changes being discussed; she added that she knew staff had tried to get the word out. Freerks said she did not think people were aware that it did not matter how a home was damaged (could be fire rather than flood); it would still have to be rebuilt to the new floodplain standards. Miklo said he thought a review of the Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 6 building permits over the past 50 years would find relatively few instances in which a home located in the floodplain sustained 50% damage by fire and was rebuilt. Freerks was less certain of that. Miklo reminded the Commission that the idea was that if someone was going to be putting a substantial investment into a property in the floodplain, then they would be doing so in such a way as to protect their investment. Miklo said that staff could seek some more press coverage to get the word out. Payne noted that homeowners should be made aware that to pay for the cost of elevation they will likely have to borrow more money because insurance would likely not pay the additional costs of elevation. Miklo said that some policies do cover the cost of additional code compliance. Tallman said that for some insurance policies this is done through a rider, through others it is automatic, and for others it is not covered at all. Miklo noted that the Commission was not necessarily expected to vote on this at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote (Koppes and Weitzel absent). z Q en ~ ::Ec ::EO:: 00 UU e"W zO:: -wo zU..... OZo Nc:(N CC ZZ c:(W e,,1- ~~ Z Z c:( ..J Q. ..... w ..... -- >< >< >< >< >< >< CD 0 0 w W N -- >< >< >< -- >< X in 0 0 (Q >< >< >< >< >< >< X in It) w ..... >< >< >< -- >< >< >< ~ 0 ..... >< >< >< >< >< >< w ~ -- 0 ClC) w "'" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< -- 0 C") ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N "'" N >< >< >< >< >< >< X -- "'" U) :lEW ...... ...... ('f) N 0 0 ('f) IXe:; ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::J: >- ~ - I- W ...J ...J W :;) IX m ...J ...J ::J: ~ Z ~ ...J ~ W U) ::J: Z ::J: :IE 0 (.) ~ ::i (.) ~ t= .., W C ~ en en :IE z J ~ W I- W IX ::J: IX W :;) ~ W ~ I- W D.. Z ::J: :IE U) U) W D.. ~ ~ jjj ~ :;) ~ IX 0 ...J Z m W La. ~ D.. D.. 3C C) z t= W W :IE ...J ~ :IE IX o La. C) z t= W W :IE ...J ~ :IE IX o La. Z (Q w w ~ >< >< >< -- >< >< -- ..... 0 0 oo::t W "'" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< -- 0 (Q ..... w "'" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 It) C") >< >< >< >< >< >< w - -- It) 0 N W "'" >< >< >< >< -- >< >< ~ 0 0) w W N >< >< >< >< -- >< -- - 0 0 C") "'" >< >< >< >< >< >< w - -- N 0 U) :lEW ...... ...... ('f) N 0 0 ('f) IX IX ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... -- -- -- -- -- -- - WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::J: >- I- ~ ::i W W ...J :;) IX ~ ...J ...J ::J: ~ Z ...J ~ W U) ::J: Z ::J: :IE 0 (.) ~ ::i (.) ~ t= .., W C ~ en en :IE z J ~ u.i I- W IX ::J: IX W :;) ~ W ~ I- W D.. Z ::J: :IE U) ~ W D.. ~ ~ jjj ~ :;) IX 0 ...J Z m W La. ~ D.. D.. 3C E :J L- a :J ,,0 Q) a ~z L- () -- Q) x Cl.o W:EE :;::'Q)Q) CQ)"<: c-Q)E.o::: Q) C II) ell 1I)~:9a- Q).o......Za C::<CIIIIZ II II ~~ II XOOZ :>-: w ~ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB10-00007/ SUB10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Billion Auto for a preliminary and final plat of D&D Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49-acre commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Blvd, south of Highway 1 adjacent to City View Drive. Kuecker presented the staff report regarding D&D Billion Subdivision. Koppes asked if the City will be compensated for the improvements made to City View Drive. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that the City had not made the improvements to City View Drive and that the City had not accepted the construction, so it was not believed that any money would need to change hands to vacate City View Drive. Eastham asked if the property was further subdivided in the future, would the northern lots have the ability to drain to the storm water management basin. Kuecker indicated that the storm water management basin is designed to accommodate the entire area of the subdivision. Miklo said that the City Engineer would look at storm water if there were any further subdivision of the land. REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development - Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, an 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Howard said this property had had been purchased by the City with the intention of making it an industrial area. She said that south of the railroad is zoned General Industrial and the property north of the railroad tracks is zoned Interim Development Industrial. Howard said the "interim" designation is due to the fact that there are not yet industrial grade roads servicing the area. Howard said that there are hydric soils and wetlands present, and their delineations have been accepted by the Army Corp of Engineers. Because of the configuration of the wetlands, the property is not developable without wetland mitigation. The proposal is to create a new wetland area on a corner of the property to compensate for any loss of wetlands in other areas of the property that occur as the result of development. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2010 - Informal Page 2 of 3 Howard said that the current application is for a preliminary plat and rezoning through the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which would make this an OPD, Planned Development Overlay. Howard explained that rezoning the entire parcel to industrial made the li)ost sense at this time since a road and City services are being extended to the area. Howard said that staff recommends deferring this application until there is a completed wetland mitigation plan that matches the proposed plat. She said she anticipated that being ready by the Commission's next meeting. Eastham asked if the wetlands area would also contain storm water basins. Howard indicated that storm water would drain through the wetland area but that each lot would also have its own storm water management facilities. ZONING CODE ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Miklo said that Julie Tallman, who has been working on these amendments to the floodplain regulations was on vacation, but would be back on Thursday and would be at the formal meeting. He asked that the commission give direction to staff if they wanted to propose any changes to the draft regulations. He said that it was not necessary for them to vote on Thursday night but hoped that they would be ready to vote at the August 19 meeting. Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process. Kuecker explained the changes to the Zoning Code necessary to reflect the changes to the Historic Preservation Handbook. She said that the Historic Preservation Commission had been working on the rewrite of the Handbook for the past two years in order implement the goals of the Historic Preservation Plan and in order to make the process more predictable and user friendly for historic property owners. Eastham asked if all the goals pertaining to the Handbook from the Historic Preservation Plan were addressed with the rewrite. Kuecker indicated that the goals were used as a checklist of changes. Freerks asked if there would be any public input or notice for projects that do not go through the HPC. Kuecker said that each HPC meeting a memo will be provided to the HPC outlining the projects that have received Certificates of No Material Effect or have gone through a Minor or Intermediate Review. This has been written into the Handbook as part of the procedures. Kuecker indicated that a letter was sent to all property owners in Historic and Conservation Districts and of Landmark properties notifying them of the proposed Handbook revisions and asking for comment. Kuecker also said that the HPC Chair would be at the Thursday meeting to answer any questions. OTHER: The Commission indicated that election of officers would occur at the formal meeting on August 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. z Q en ~ :Ec :EO:: 00 UU "w zO:: -we ZU.... OZe N<(N CC ZZ <(w "I- ~~ Z Z <( ..J D. " z t= w w :E ..J II( :E D:: o LL ..... UJ X .... a X X X X X CD 0 UJ UJ N a X X X a X x in co X X X X X X x in It) UJ .... X X X a X X X ~ .... X X X X X X UJ ~ -- 0 Cl) UJ .... a X X X X X X - M "lit X X X X X X X - N .... N X X X X X X x - .... U) :EW T""" T""" C") N 0 0 C") Qd~ T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- wo.. It) It) It) It) It) It) It) 1->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W :J: >- I- <C ..J W W ..J ::::I 0:: m ..J ..J :J: <C z <C ..J <C W ~ U) :::J: Z N :::J: :E 0 0 <C :J ~ ~ i= .., en W ci :E en :E z J <C ~ u.i I- W 0:: :J: 0:: W ::::I ~ W <C I- W 0.. Z :J: :E U) U) W 0.. ~ <C jjj <C ::::I <C 0:: 0 ..J Z m W LL ~ 0.. 0.. ~ " z t= w w :E ..J II( :E D:: o LL Z M X X X X X X X - Cl) co UJ UJ ~ X X X a X X -- ..... 0 "lit UJ .... a X X X X X X CD ..... UJ .... a X X X X X X - It) M X X X X X X UJ in a N UJ .... X X X X a X X ~ en UJ UJ ~ X X X X -- X a M 0 .... X X X X X X UJ - a N U) :EW T""" T""" C") N 0 0 C") 0::9:: T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" -- -- -- -- -- in -- wo.. It) It) It) It) It) It) 1->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W :::J: >- I- <C :J W W ..J ::::I 0:: m ..J ..J :J: <C Z <C ..J <C W ~ U) :J: Z N :J: :E 0 0 <C :J ~ ~ i= .., en W ci :E en :E z J 0:: <C ~ u.i I- W W :J: 0:: W ::::I ~ <C I- W 0.. Z :J: :E U) ~ W 0.. ~ <C jjj <C ::::I 0:: 0 ..J Z m W LL ~ 0.. 0.. ~ E :J L- o :J -00 Q) 0 ~z L- U -- Q) x 0).0 UJ:$E :;:'Q)Q) CQ)""= c-Q)E.o::: Q) C (/) ro (/)~.o<(o_ Q).o zo 11:<(11 IIZ II II !:!::!::E II XOOZ >= UJ :::.:::: MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2010 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Karen Howard, Julie Tallman, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Greazel, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 recommend approval of SUB10-00007/SUB10-00008, an application submitted by Billion Auto for a preliminary and final plat of D&D Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49 acre commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1, adjacent to City View Drive. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of amendments to the Zoning Code, section 14-3B-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-2B-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process, as outlined in the July 15, 2010 staff memo. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 11 DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB10-00007/SUB10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Billion Auto for a preliminary and final plat of 0&0 Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49 acre commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1, adjacent to City View Drive. Kuecker explained that this is a two-lot commercial subdivision that had previously been subdivided as an 8-lot Highway Commercial subdivision. Kuecker said that the general area had recently been rezoned to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to allow for the automotive sale and repair facility proposed for Lot 1. Kuecker said that Lot 2 currently has no proposed use. Kuecker said that there are three access points onto the property. Kuecker said that City View Drive, along with its associated easements, would be vacated and removed but the access points off of it would be retained. Kuecker explained that Outlot B has been approved by the City Engineer as adequate to serve the property's storm-water management needs. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat subject to a conveyance of City View Drive and approval of the legal papers prior to City Council consideration. Freerks invited questions from the Commission. Freerks confirmed with Kuecker that her understanding was correct that no public funds had been used to put in City View Drive. Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the hearing was closed. Busard motioned for approval of SUB10-00007/SUB10-00008, an application submitted by Billion Auto for a preliminary and final plat of 0&0 Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49 acre commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1, adjacent to City View Drive. Eastham seconded. Freerks said that this plan made sense to her, despite her initial reservations about City View Drive. She said the City had been trying to get that area developed for quite some time and she looked forward to seeing something happen there A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development (10-1) Zone to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Howard said this property had come before the Commission several times in the last year. It had been purchased by the City with the intention of making it an industrial area. She said that Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 11 the property south of the railroad tracks is zoned General Industrial and the property north of the railroad tracks is zoned Interim Development Industrial. Howard said the "interim" designation is due to the fact that there are not yet industrial grade roads servicing the area. Howard said that the City has hired a consultant to analyze the property, and to delineate the sensitive features on the property. Howard said there are hydric soils and wetlands present, and their delineations have been accepted by the Army Corp of Engineers. Because of the configuration of the wetlands, the property is not developable without wetland mitigation. The proposal is to create a new wetland area on a corner of the property to compensate for any loss of wetlands in other areas of the property that occur as the result of development. Once that is done, the properties can be subdivided and sold. Howard said that the current application is for a preliminary plat and rezoning through the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which would make this an OPD, Planned Development Overlay. Howard said that the application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which are largely industrial and agricultural. She said the proposed industrial park is supported by the goals for economic well-being outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the strategies therein for diversifying the tax base. Howard explained that rezoning the entire parcel to industrial made the most sense at this time since a road and City services are being extended to the area. Howard shared photos from the wetland delineation plan, explaining that most of the wetlands had been farmed for decades and are nearly indistinguishable from the other farmland. Because the current wetlands are of such low quality the Corp agrees that wetland mitigation is a good step toward creating higher quality wetlands in the area. Howard said that staff recommends deferring this application until there is a completed wetland mitigation plan that matches the proposed plat. She said she anticipated that being ready by the Commission's next meeting. Freerks asked if there were questions for staff. Eastham asked if the wetland mitigation area will also serve as storm-water mitigation for the area of land that is to the north of the railroad track. Howard said that it would, and that is why they wish to include it in the overlay zone; all the wetlands in the entire 173 acre property have been included in the wetland delineation. Howard said that because the City did not know if the lot would be further subdivided in the future, it made sense to mitigate the area now and make the overall area more developable. Eastham asked if the cost of establishing the new wetland would be born entirely by the City. Howard said that it would, as would all of the other infrastructure costs. Plahutnik asked how much the City's overall industrial zoning was increased by rezoning this parcel. Freerks said it would be nice to have an inventory of the industrial property available in the city. Howard said that this is an additional 173 acres of industrial land. Plahutnik said he was wondering what percentage of the current industrial zoning that 173 acres represented, and Howard said she would look into that question. Freerks opened the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 11 Nancy Greazel, 4898 420th Street, said that she lived just up the road from this property. She said she was wondering what will be happening to the water that is draining in and out of this industrial area. She said she sees water travelling in this area daily, and is wondering how putting the wetlands in would affect areas farther north and south of the property. Howard said that the drainage pattern will not actually change; its intake and outsource points will remain the same. The wetland area will actually filter the water, and should help somewhat with volume and flow issues that may have resulted from the wetland degradation that occurred when the area was farmed. Greazel asked if the wetlands would clean up water that had passed through the industrial site before it could drain back into the aquifer. Howard noted that as each of the properties is sold and developed it will have to meet the City's storm-water management requirements. Therefore, each one of those properties will have to have on-site storm-water basins built to handle the amount of impervious concrete the industrial site entails. Greazel said she understood this, but was wondering if anything was done to clean up the water before it goes into the soil. Freerks said that it would be just the same as anywhere else in the city. Greazel said that she is concerned because this industrial site is close to her aquifer. She said she is concerned with the quality of her future drinking water, and does not like the idea of toxins, such as oil, that wash into storm-sewers from large concrete surfaces. Howard noted that none of the properties had been sold yet, and that this was just a preliminary plat before the Commission. She said that until the property is final platted it is not available for sale. There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to defer the application until the August 19th meeting. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0 CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Tallman said that it seems as though one major concern for Commissioners is the affect changes to the floodplain standards might have on already existing structures, and also that the public be fully informed before any changes are made. Tallman said she had prepared a memo giving the Commission some information on existing non-conforming structures and what staff would propose to do with them. Tallman said that a press release had been sent out to make sure that the City is clearly communicating the effects these regulations could have on existing structures. Tallman said she had looked at a map prepared by Shive-Hattery in 1974 as a part of the City's flood insurance study. She said she examined an area bordered by Gilbert Street, Evans Street, Washington Street and Jefferson Street. She said she looked at properties that were already in the 1 DO-year floodplain and also were in the SOD-year floodplain. Tallman said that Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 11 she thought in terms of the tornado that had come through a few years ago. She said that there were 70 properties on that map that would be subject to the new regulations, 15 of those properties were in the expanded flood zone. She said that 55 of those homes were in the 100- year flood zone already and if they were damaged up to 50% or more would have to be elevated under the current standards. Under the new regulations, Tallman said, those same homes would have to be elevated one foot higher. The additional 15 structures would have to be elevated up to one foot above the 500-year level. Tallman noted that 80% of the homes in this area would already be subject to the elevation requirements. If these regulations went into effect and all of the homes were damaged by 50% or more, then an additional 20% would have to be elevated. Tallman noted that as it stands now any type of damage of 50% or more requires elevation (damage by fire or tornado as well as by flood). Tallman said that while there are some additional costs in having to raise the structure higher, the bulk of the cost is in raising the structure to begin with. Tallman said that staff had done some research on the issue of historic structures. She said she had checked with Cedar Falls, per discussions at the last meeting, and had been told that their new flood standards did not address historic structures. Tallman said that the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) includes a description of "substantial improvement" that excludes an alteration of an historic structure provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure from keeping its historic designation. She said that the state of Iowa approaches the matter through a variance process where a variance or exemption from an elevation requirement must be sought. Eastham asked if the language from the NFIP would make the proposed ordinance apply to a Historic District as defined by the City of Iowa City, and Tallman said she believed that was correct. Kuecker said that Iowa City is a CLG government which gives it some authority to regulate historic structures in town. Howard said that one thing that needs to be clarified concerns Conservation Districts. Howard said that Conservation Districts are not Historic Districts and were created at the local level. Weitzel noted that the language pertained to individual listings, not districts. Eastham said his understanding is that most structures in Historic or Conservation Districts would not be exempted from floodplain regulations. Weitzel said that was his understanding of it as well. Payne said that she did not think discussions had necessarily moved in the direction of exempting properties; rather the idea had been to offer a mechanism for a variance. Tallman said it seemed the choice was to exempt historic properties from the "substantial improvement" definition altogether, which seemed to her somewhat broad in nature, or to create a variance that could be applied for. Koppes said that one would have to be careful in exempting properties. Tallman said that the exemption would only be for the minimum flood- proofing or elevation standards. Payne said that she thought the variance is a good idea because it gives another body a chance to review the issue on a case by case basis. Koppes said that she was not sure someone who wanted to improve their property should be able to get a variance just to avoid elevating their home because of the way it looks. Weitzel pointed out that the motivations would be more than just aesthetics; historic properties that are de-listed lose tax credit options and eligibility for other programs. Tallman said that the concern had been for the property owner that has no control over whether or not to make "substantial improvements" because their home was damaged by fire or natural disaster. Tallman said that the variance or exemption would be for a historic structure that has been damaged to the 50% level and realistically cannot comply with the elevation requirements. Howard noted that many of the structures damaged in the tornado a few years ago were of historic nature and in order to keep the historic designation, they had to rebuild in ways that might have been more expensive Planning and Zoning Commission August 5,2010 - Formal Page 6 of 11 than it would have been for another home. Busard said that most home insurance policies have a rider that say rebuilding and repairs will meet all current code. Freerks said that not all do. Howard pointed out that the NFIP definition recognizes local historic designations. Weitzel said that districts are not covered, rather individual properties. Howard said that a sub-definition makes it clear that the properties do not have to be individually listed. Freerks pointed out that Iowa City's Conservation Districts, however, are not addressed by the federal definition. Plahutnik said that it is important to remember that very few homes in a Historic District will have anything to do with a floodplain, and of those that do, likely the vast majority are already subject to the floodplain standards. Eastham noted that the example Tallman gave was for a specific area, and that the percentages of the homes affected would be different in different areas. Tallman said that was correct, and she was happy to look at any other neighborhoods the Commission might be interested in further exploring. Freerks opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed. Freerks said she felt it would be wise to defer the matter again, given that the press release had not actually gone out to the public. Weitzel motioned to defer the application until the August 19th meeting. Payne seconded. Eastham said that he is still considering whether or not he is going to support this ordinance. He said he likes much of the ordinance; however, he still is wondering if the City should go further and eliminate future development in the 500-year floodplain, at least along the Iowa River. Freerks thanked Tallman for her efforts to get the word out about this ordinance. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process. Kuecker said that these changes to the zoning code are necessary to reflect changes in the Historic Preservation Handbook. One of the changes is language adding the Northside Historic District into the zoning code. A second change revises the wording for the types of review for historic properties. The category "Certificate of No Material Affect" will remain unchanged and includes projects that are replacing "Iike-with-like" and are not changing the historical fabric of the property. The category of "Minor Review" is being expanded to apply to all properties, districts and landmarks and will include a list of pre-approved items that have always gained consensus from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). This list would be created and approved by the HPC and would allow staff to grant approval of items on the list. The "Intermediate Review" will be Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of 11 expanded to apply to all properties in Conservation Districts and the non-contributing or non- historic properties in Historic Districts. Such projects could be reviewed by the Chair of the HPC and Preservation staff and would include anything that meets the guidelines and requires no exceptions to the guidelines. At any time, staff, the Chair, or the applicant can request that the entire Commission review the matter. The "Major Review" would encompass everything not in the first three categories, and would still require review by the full Commission at a normal meeting. Kuecker said that by expanding the "Minor Review" and "Intermediate Review" the Commission is hoping to streamline the process for applicants and avoid delays in their projects. (An ongoing criticism of the HPC process is that it delays projects.) The changes to zoning code regarding a Certificate of Economic Hardship center around actually putting that process into practice, Le., creating an application, etc. The Multi-Family Site Development Standard is being changed to make setback requirements more in keeping with the properties immediately surrounding the subject property. Kuecker offered to answer any questions from the Commission. Eastham asked if it was correct that the changes to the handbook were taken from the changes to the Comprehensive Plan that the Commission had made two or three years ago regarding historic preservation. Kuecker said that was correct. Freerks opened the public hearing. Alicia Trimble, Chair of the HPC, said that these changes had been looked at for well over a year. In coming to these changes, HPC took into account comments from applicants as well as what items had actually been on its agenda. Trimble said that some things were regarded as formalities and were going to be approved almost automatically. These included items on a consent agenda, Trimble said, and were items that she believed would have been overturned even if HPC had not approved them. Trimble said that these changes in the review process do not actually change the requirements for homeowners; rather, they streamline the process. One of the big criticisms HPC hears repeatedly from homeowners is that the current process slows things down. She noted that the changes include a provision that at any time the applicant, staff or the Chair can move the item to full review before the HPC. Freerks asked if these changes put too much on the Chair of HPC. She said it is often difficult enough to get people involved and wondered if these duties were too burdensome for one person. Trimble said that she did not think it would be burdensom, as she cannot think of an instance that would come before the Chair that would not have been approved by the full Commission. Freerks asked if HPC would at some point consider adding contributing structures to the language governing Historic Districts just as it was doing for Conservation Districts. Trimble said that she does not see that happening in the future because of the nature of Historic Districts. Freerks said that she did have some concerns about communication. She said it is easier for Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 8 of 11 people to be at ease with things if they know they are going to happen before they actually do. She said that in terms of public notification, these changes are big changes, as the communication does not occur until after the fact. She asked if Trimble foresaw a problem with that. Trimble said that she does not believe that would be a problem with the types of issues being discussed for addition to the Minor and Intermediate Review processes. Kuecker noted that HPC typically does not receive any public feedback prior to approval; conversation usually occurs once a project has started. She said the items being moved into the Minor and Intermediate Review process typically would not generate any conversation at all in an HPC meeting. Any project that requires an exception to the guidelines or any major project will still go through the Major Review process. Freerks asked if an addition in a Conservation District would require a Major Review. Kuecker said that if the addition met all of the guidelines it would not; however, if any exceptions were required then it would have to go through the Major Review process. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to recommend approval of amendments to the Zoning Code, section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process, as outlined in the July 15, 2010 staff memo. Koppes seconded. Weitzel said that a lot of these recommendations speak to the findings of a consultant who recently re-wrote the Historic Preservation Plan. The consultant interviewed a large number of people throughout the community, both those for and against historic preservation oversight, and many of those comments concerned unnecessary delays. Weitzel said that there was also a large concern that Conservation Districts were becoming "stealth historic preservation districts" and were being regulated in the same way as Historic Districts. Weitzel said that there was a desire to see policy governing Conservation Districts differentiated from that governing Historic Districts. Weitzel said that streamlining is a great way to address a large number of concerns; however, he noted that historic preservation is a very polarizing issue with one side wanting very strict oversight and another side wanting nearly no oversight, therefore, it really is an issue that cannot be "won." Plahutnik said that this should make the approval process much quicker and easier for most cases, but retains a process for those with more complicated issues. Freerks said she believed most of the issues come up when contractors and homeowners do not abide by the rules and regulations. Weitzel said that in some of those cases the parties involved are not from here and do not know about the requirements. Payne said that homeowners will still have an option to go through a formal process. Eastham said that he thinks it is commendable on the part of HPC and staff to follow up so diligently and to make these changes to the code. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 11 Freerks said she had read the handbook and was very impressed with it. She said it could be a good model for other communities. She said she was a little hesitant about the possible lack of public communication that could occur with these changes, but that if problems arose from that changes could be made. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: JUNE 14 AND JUNE 17. 2010: Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. OTHER: Election of Officers: Eastham nominated Freerks as Chair. Payne seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Plahutnik nominated Koppes as Vice-Chair. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Koppes nominated Plahutnik as Secretary. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Greenwood-Hektoen said that the consultant that is carrying out the City Manager search would like to have the chairs of various commissions involved in that search, so Freerks may be contacted for that sometime soon. Eastham noted that the City's Community Development staff has recommended that some CDBG funds be used as partial payment for building a levy on the west side of the Iowa River to Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2010 - Formal Page 10 of 11 protect the manufactured housing parks and industrial areas there. Eastham said that the Comprehensive Plan does not call for continued residential use of the area currently occupied by the manufactured home parks. Eastham said he would like the Commission to consider putting this on the agenda for an informal meeting in the future, to see if there is interest in revising the Comprehensive Plan for continued residential use in that area. Freerks asked which mobile home park was involved and Eastham told her it was Saculis Mobile Home Park. Freerks asked if money has been allotted to that purpose already. Howard said that the City has applied for a grant to build the levy. Eastham explained that there are two sources of funds, a state grant and federal COSG funds. Eastham said that COSG has a requirement that half or more of the people being benefitted by the use of the funds are low-income. Eastham said the City Council has not yet acted on the recommendation to use COSG funds for this purpose. Howard said the grant application to the state for funding was submitted this past week. Freerks asked if anyone knew what the property's future use was slated for. She said she was always in favor of discussion. Freerks asked if there were four or more people who would be interested in discussing this issue. Plahutnik said he would be interested. Weitzel said that if there are land-use changes at issue then it should be discussed. Koppes said she did not think it was a change in use as the land is currently being used in the same way; the Comprehensive Plan outlines a different future use after redevelopment. Freerks said this could be a discussion item on an informal agenda to see if this is something the Commission wished to address. A majority of Commissioners indicated agreement with that idea. Freerks asked staff to prepare something for the next meeting if possible. Howard said staff will take a look at that. Payne said she will likely not be at the August 16th informal meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:10 PM. Z Q en ~ :Ec :En:: 00 uu c)w zn:: -wo ZU- Ozo N<(N CC ZZ <(w C)1- 2:< z z <( ..J a. It) >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - co ..... W 't"" -.. >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 (Q 0 w w ~ -- >< >< >< (5 >< >< 0 (Q >< >< >< >< >< >< >< it; It) W 't"" >< >< >< -- >< >< >< ~ 0 't"" >< >< >< >< >< >< w ~ -- 0 co W 't"" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 M ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N 't"" ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 't"" en ::::IEW ..- ..- M C\I 0 0 M 0:::0::: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- -- -.. -- -- -- -- -- WQ. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W :J: > 0( - I- W ..J ..J W ::J 0::: m ..J ..J :J: 0( Z ~ ..J ~ W en :J: Z :J: ::::IE 0 0 0( ::::i 0 ~ i= .., W c :f en en ::::IE z ...r ~ u.i I- W W 0::: :J: 0::: W ::J j:::! 0( I- W Q. Z :J: ::::IE en ~ W Q. ~ 0( 0( ::J 0::: 0 ..J W Z m W u.. ~ Q. Q. ;: C) z i= W W ::::IE ..J 0( ::::IE 0::: o u.. N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - co (Q W W N >< >< >< -- >< >< -- - 0 0 ..... "'l:t W 't"" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 (Q ..... W 't"" -- >< >< >< >< >< >< it; 0 M >< >< >< >< >< >< w - -- It) 0 N W 't"" >< >< >< >< -- >< >< ~ 0 en W W ~ >< >< >< >< -- >< -- M 0 0 't"" >< >< >< >< >< >< w - -- N 0 en ::::IEW ..- ..- M C\I 0 0 M o:::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- -- -- -.. -- -- -.. -.. WQ. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W :J: > - I- W ..J 0( ..J W ::J 0::: m ..J ..J :J: 0( Z ~ ..J ~ W en :J: z :J: ::::IE 0 0 0( ::::i ~ ~ i= .., W c :f en en ::::IE z ...r 0::: ~ u.i I- W W :J: 0::: W ::J j:::! 0( I- W Q. Z :J: ::::IE en ~ W Q. ~ 0( jjj 0( ::J 0::: 0 ..J Z m W u.. ~ Q. Q. ;: C) z i= W W ::::IE ..J 0( ::::IE 0::: o u.. Z E ::l L.. o ::l -00 0) 0 ~z L.. () -- 0) X g>.o LU:;:;E ':;::l0)0) cO)oo:: c....... 0) E.c::: 0) C en co en 3l .0<( 0 ....... 0).0 zo 0:<(11 IIZ II II LU 00:: II __.c::: I XOOZI ~ LU ~