The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-02-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, September 2, 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 Items: 1. SUB10-00009 / SUB1 0-0001 0: Discussion of an application submitted by Harold John Dane Jr. & Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark Hill 2nd Subdivision, a 2-lot, 36.32-acre subdivision located west at 4082 Dane Road SE. 2. REZ1 0-00007/SUB1 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, 14-4B-2 Variances and 14-8B-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 16 and August 19, 2010 F. Other: G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal Formal October 4 October 7 October 18 October 21 November 1 November 4 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Lorin Ditzler, Planning Intern Item: SUB10-00009/SUB1 0-0001 0 Date: September 2, 2010 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Harold John Dane Jr & Allegra G Dane 4082 Dane Road SE Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone: (319) 354-3630 Contact Person: David Larsen 277 Hickory Street Kalona, Iowa 52247 Phone: (319) 936-0558 Email: larsen@kctc.net Requested Action: Preliminary an Final Plat Purpose: To divide property into 2 lots Location: 4082 Dane Road SE (north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard) Size: 36.32 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Johnson County Residential (R) and Agricultural (AG) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Iowa City, Airport (P-1) Johnson County, Residential (R) Johnson County, Residential (R) Iowa City, Commercial Office (CO-1) Comprehensive Plan: South Central Planning District City Services: Sanitary Sewer Service and water are available upon annexation File Date: August 12, 2010 45-Day Limitation Period: September 26 60 Day Limitation Period: October 11 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting a 2nd subdivision of the Meadowlark Hill Subdivision. The subject property falls under Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement, which permits Iowa City to 2 regulate the subdivision of land within two miles of the City's corporate boundaries. The owner is required to apply to both Johnson County and the City to subdivide the property. The property was previously subdivided by the applicant, without requiring approval from the City of Iowa City, under current provisions in the fringe area agreement which allow a first subdivision of fewer than 3 lots to be regulated by the County only. The previous subdivision created two lots, including the subject property and 4120 Dane Road, which shares its north, east, and south property lines with the subject property. The applicant now wishes to create two additional lots. The proposed lot 1 contains a residence and farm buildings and has street access from Dane Road on the west. The proposed Outlot A fronts onto Mormon Trek Boulevard on the south but has no access to the street. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANAL YSIS: Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan and the South Central District Future Land Use Scenario support either intensive commercial or office uses for the subject property upon annexation. Office and intensive commercial zones are used to attract employers and provide a compatible transition to possible industrial and manufacturing uses identified in the South Central District Plan. The investment of public funds to construct the extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard was done, in part, to create arterial street access to the planned industrial development areas bordered by commercial and office uses. This capital investment was meant to encourage future development in the South Central District that would increase employment opportunities in the community. The proximity of the southern lot (Outlot A) to existing commercial uses and its location along Mormon Trek Boulevard make it attractive as a future space for commercial development upon annexation, as outlined in both the South Central District Plan and the Fringe Area Agreement. Fringe Area Guidelines: The property is located within fringe area C, within the growth area established in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. Land in this area is subject to the following guidelines: Land in Area C, which is presently zoned for residential development and within Iowa City's growth area, may develop in conformance with existing zoning, provided subdivisions and development projects shall conform to City Urban Design standards contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City, including but no limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be served by a package sanitary sewage treatment plant and common wells with sanitary sewer and water collection and distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to municipal systems upon annexation. Upon annexation to Iowa City, commercial and/or industrial development is encouraged south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport. It is consistent with the purpose of this agreement not to approve commercial and/or industrial developments within this area prior to annexation. As stated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, commercial and/or industrial development will be encouraged to locate at the interchanges of paved roads. 3 As applications are received to develop land contiguous to Iowa City and within this portion of the City's growth area, the City will give favorable consideration to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development for uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Under these guidelines, subdivision of the subject property is not advisable unless it is annexed into the city or there are restrictions on its development until such time that it is annexed. If this property is not annexed into the city, staff would only recommend approval of this subdivision if there are legal restrictions in the subdivider's agreement restricting development to agricultural uses and prohibiting access to Mormon Trek Boulevard until such time that Outlot A is annexed into the city. Subdivision Design: The proposed Lot 1 consists of 26.61 acres on the northern portion of the subdivision, with access to Dane Road on the west. It is bordered by the airport to the north, residential to the south, agricultural to the east and commercial to the west. Outlot A is 9.71 acres on the southern portion of the subdivision, with frontage on Mormon Trek Boulevard along the southern property line. Lot 1 connects to Outlot A by a narrow stretch of land in the southeastern portion of Lot 1. Lot 2 of the original Meadowlark Hill subdivision is located between the two proposed lots. It currently contains a residence and is intended to be developed as a park in the future. Access: Lot 1 has access to Dane Road. There currently is no access to this property from Mormon Trek Boulevard. Access points on Mormon Trek Boulevard will be determined at the time the property is annexed into the city. In the interim a temporary easement will need to be established to provide access to Outlot A for agricultural machinery. The easement will need to come from Lot 1 or JJR Davis subdivision via the vacated Dane Road to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies noted below. Upon resolution of these deficiencies, staff recommends that SUB1 0-00009/SUB1 0-0001 0, a 2nd subdivision of the Meadowlark Subdivision, 36.32 2-lot subdivision, be approved subject to legal papers being approved by the City Attorney prior to City Council Consideration. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. An access easement is needed to provide access to Outlot A from JJR Davis subdivision or lot 1 until such time as Outlot A is annexed into the city. 2. There should be a note on the plat stating that there shall be no direct vehicular access to Mormon Trek Boulevard until Outlot A is annexed into the city. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary and Final Plat # d d~ ( Approved by: ~'~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~ G ~ ~ ~ ,... (; ~ en ~ '"0 ~ G 0 = QJ = ~ ,... 0 D.. N 00 0 ~ ~ ,... ~ ,... D.. o ~ o o o I o ~ ~ ;:J 00 ~ 0'\ o o o o I o ~ ~ ;:J 00 z c ~ CflCflCfl~i3 ~ij ~ ~~~ n~n~ ~~< I~~IIJI P::P::O::u~ ~~i~ ~ a.. ~ i:o:Ii:o:Io~ _ J!l ",f!l_ ~~-- rx:>z>-o ~:q,m cn~i1; 25:;ij~:Il~ -~ ~ ~Q~ ~U~i~ u:m~ ~....10::~g, ~t'. ~ ~~e = = rx:>o..:::> :oj I ~!~~5~ ~ 0 ~Q(f)rx:>!;;; ~ E ~~ >-ii!U >jQ~~ ~ ~ c;~ . ~ Uu ~ig - zu - I ~ u <CfJo ~ H~i~~ :::IE 2: ~~~ ~ e ~~~ ~ a.. ...., z o ...... CI'} ...... :> f-...... z <r: Cl " 9 <r: .Jo:::l-VJ~ o...~f->O ~CI'}ga-" ~~~~~ S8~~5 <J:I.lr;;......u CI'}_....z ~...J~~o <r:...JOc.::VJ ~::E~~~ "S VJ~O ~~gao"" ~~<r:~~ o...~ ~ o Cl ~ J:I.l ::E o >n 1\1 I &-< .... rx:> .... rx:> N ~ ~ ~ Z Cfl < ~ l-'~~ !::z~1\18 <3~><;,-; . rx:>::ao!:::: gJ" _cou fil i:o:I < ~::a_ci~ o~~o.;8 Od -- e; ~ ~~ ~g} ~:;iji:o:l >n ~Q:;ij~;; ~~QP::8 ~~0!z];,-; <<l-' gJ90::QU !z]g"~N< ~< CO~ 0::C: ~8 .~o UCfl.... ..25 E--< ~ i;;Cfl&j>n Q!2;~< fil<-'" p::&-<"O <~ - :::>::c: ~fg5;'-; O::oo!:::: P-.U(f)U jg,]S:;~ p-.::E~8 ffi~~~ ~~c~ q~~E ~g;;: ~ ~~~~ ~ZEQ2 ~""'cii 5i=~B ~O~::; 7. ~~~~ ! nn :f. ~~~;s: ~ U~! ~~~~ ~;'E9. ~g~~ Q2ffi~ ~~s~ ~~5~ III ~I~ !"' ~ ;i! ; 0... <<: ~ ::g~ ~ ~U) @ lS:1~~g Zi;l ~~~~~ 81' ji f5~~~~ 0 "'~ !: : 1'-<... ~~ ~~~GQ <<:ji ~~ ~ig~~ u ~ 0 <Cw::.:~:i '"~ Sffi~~~S b ....:l oc_ ,. ~ 5iE.z~(;S~ i~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~:\ "~ ~~ ~~::E~ e i~ ~. <(~g!Q~~ ~~~ g~~:<c~i o' ~~ . - ~.- - ~~~ ffi~~~~~ ~~ a~ "oJ", i!=:>u:>t-o ~ ~~o 0<..><0<(0- k ~ N ~ - - ~ ~~ ji z ~Gr: :J~:::; ,on:n:l M.(O,QI.OOS -' . :l ,Zg'08Z SO,91.00N ~~~ ~.l J ~;~ ~~ $ J ~ ~lj(~ g~ I! ~ :>, ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ u ~V1~ 0 5~e ~~ '" c.. oj !;;J ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ :9 0 i~~ j~: ~~~ o~a c.. 0 ~i~ ~~~ "- .>< ~ j :>, < ~ <00 ~ ~> ~ ~~i ~ c.. U ;~~ ~~g ~ ~ ~~ oC ~~" ~ 5 ~VlJ: ~I;;~ ~ ~~~ 5~~ ~ ~ iJ ~~~ 5i!'S ~ ~~ ~gi u ~z ,~ i ~ ~~ oall! ~ ~ ~.~ ~~()9 Ii ~~ l!:~n: fJ) a..lI!li!a ~.... ~5 ~~ ~ ~ m~;~) u~ ;~~~~d I o "li"d~~1 Hi~~~~~U~ ~ z ~~ dj ~;~'i:l~8o~~~ ~ o mii~~~~!~~~~~i~ ; ~ ' " i . - Ii ".'.~ ! '00 I ~ o Z ~<J.o W (') W .J ;::~;!; ~ g~~:;: Q :5~~~?;: ::z <n ~ z~z ~ ~!;g ~a:5 i15; ~ ii~~ ~ !!! ~~~ LU ~ CfJ!-:I: ~::E~ ~~Q cjo~" _ ?;o"'~~ ~ ~ l ~ z ii'i 1 l ~ . 1l -' ~]~ ~ 8 ~ 8 8 rn :E :E ~~~ ~~~ (.;rA~ .~~;Q ~o::~ g~~ c:~:o ,,:e:il Pg~~ ~~~~ ~;y.~ IIII ~;:;~,:: un 5082 ....Jf-a::< z o rn "" s '" :::> '" ~~ N~ " =l "" :I::~ ~ o :i! ~ ~ ~~ .1..:0:: !nm~ , t;~I;;~i"'~. ~.W. .~z ~ ~ h~ ~ ~ ~ 11) ~Cl> ,,0 0(0 ~g o '" ,Li'LOS ......c/:,Ol.OQS tin ~- ! H~ !~ti . j" hl ~ i ~ I i'! i ~ t I o i <: .l; ;g ~ z ~ .. ~ .Ii ~ '" ~ .. ~ I' "' 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I )..:~ m~ o~ h z 0 '" :l:s ~ ;1 :;0 '" o"~ I U ~ ~ ~~ ~~< ~ ~~" tf ~ii~-~ ~rqp 9' . jjH ~~~2~ _~l~__ I!c... ~ ~ ~. 1\ "I'd rqp ~~ P' ~~ Ii ~r il oj "P.:CNI - ,C:::J ,,~~=~~/-~~i:B i Ir' --~~~~--;~ ~g~: ~/~/'if' 02'" I ;:~/---;i\ ul2. ~~ ~ - -< ~ !~~"E-<;;;r.\ ~ ".4~O.;0! 1,"1 ~ ~~; -J ~ ~ ~~ I ~ " ~ ii~' -<; "A..-'~ _,1 rl: t1J N... 9 1 ~~ ;;, ~_,_.__~-_/~'rS I ~C~tn ~ ~ . -. ~ ~ r i; ~~~ ~~~ ~--~:~{~~.~~N ----- ffi ai ~ <l; I;;~ ~~. ~~- ....'" "' ~o: w ~o . ~! ~ ~~i I ~ ::'; I 1\ /- ffi ~. r::: \' ---\- ~ I~~~ . , W~~~c; \ ' \ \ ~ ~d~ \ \ ~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ <:> "l"""4 <:> <:> <:> I <:> "l"""4 r:Q ~ fJ) ~ 0'\ <:> <:> <:> <:> I <:> "l"""4 r:Q ~ fJ) ~ rn ~ ~ o ~ Q) = ~ Q N ex> o "l:t' 00 Z o 10-004 ~ U o ~ ~ ~ 10-004 rn City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 27, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: REZ10-00007/SUB10-0000410wa City Industrial Campus This item was deferred pending submission of a wetlands mitigation plan that coincided the submitted plat. The City's sensitive areas ordinance requires low quality wetlands to be mitigated at a ratio of 1 :1. Table 3 of the mitigation plan indicates that within Outlot B, the mitigation site designated on the proposed preliminary plat, will consist of a total of 10.27 acres of newly constructed mitigation (including emergent, wetland, and upland buffer) and 1.44 acres of existing wetland that will be enhanced for a total of 11.71 acres of mitigation. Attached is a basic schematic of how the wetland mitigation site will be constructed. As stated in the staff report dated August 5, 2010, this mitigation plan will need to be approved and permits issued by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers prior to approval of the final plat. The City will be responsible for construction, monitoring and long term maintenance of Outlot B, the wetland mitigation site, and these terms will be set forth in the legal papers recorded at the time of final plat. Since the mitigation plan matches the proposed preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan and exceeds the 1:1 wetland mitigation ratio required by the sensitive areas ordinance, staff now recommends approval as follows: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ1 0-00007/SUB1 0-0004, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a preliminary plat and rezoning from Interim Development - Industrial (10- I) and General Industrial (11) to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) zone for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, an 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located on 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. ~ i 0!;,~,,\1 v,."">.;,:;c.-. ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj I ~~~ ",;:,~""~'V\,~,,s ,w'"""'W'~ ~ :"\.""""", ~",'" "':"\.,,"" "",,,"V,;,::;;~ :"\.,' ". ,,'" , , , , , . ,. . -.:l ., ."'~ :"\.'-.::::"\."'.'" """,, """ . ',-'r ,W; "j' ~""" '\:' ,,''\..'\,'"'' '-'-'1" ~'" , ":"\."",",,,,' ,~ }" ~"'""'" "''0-.'-'-'-'''''-'''''\.~' v ..r'.~~ '-..~.~ ~. ~,,":"\.,-' ". , " ."..... ,,,,-) 'J .... ......., .. ,.::':':::..: b ,,,"""~""~,, ,;;""':-'':-'''' " "y I:t: ,,"::"'" ' , '0..","""'0..,\:",,v Cl , ''''~~''''V 1 ::s~' ~"",""-"",""","","",",,,", ~r ::-\"""~'-" ( A~"""'" ..... "~,,. ~~~' .,,-.,,-,. .," ,.J '-,,"":\:' ~~'~. :"\.,," ~"".....'..... .,' " " . '-"" "-","",, .,'" J.." .," "",. :--::--."",-' """ :"\.':"\.", :"\.,-' ,/.",-,., ".'" ",,",' ",,',~~~J 10'-"-"""""""'""" ~~C:.C:.. w "."",,:,,1/- ,,'0.'" ,""',,,-,,,,"', " ~ ~ ,-"."..,." 'J f " , ...., ,,,. ",."""y J.. .,." ., " : ~"" '''-'''''' :"\.'-'-" / 0. 0" ,..... .,,' ~ .,,," .'\#/, "-" ., '-" " 0" ,. ~'~'~~~'~'f ~. ~""" . .......". V I' .,' .,. ~~ " ,,:\ " ,,~"'""'"V' ~ .~~ ,....... ,,' ,'" .,......:--.,...... :"\., ',0" ~ 0: ",,"-Y!' f..""""":--.",,...... ~ " ,...... :"\.,,"~'-"0 #//'X" .,' 0:' .",."....... ",. ~ "...... '''-'",",-"f/~ "",,"-' '-" ~"'"~,'~~~~~ ~0..s :--.""~''/10: "..... .,V "...... t'l ::-...::--.,' '-,,"" '0.."""""""w':l,'j J:'-"-' ,," "",\ ,,,,,,,""-' rt ) " i ~w" w " / ", / '\, il 'r: T ..... ,,\: I I I i i ( " ~. c;; i ,. , ..." i ~~'~...:~ " "..... 0.~ ~. ",,' '1 ",' "...... ...... ' .,,' ., ". ",. "...... ,,,. "...... ' ; .,,' "...... .,' ,...... :--: " ..... ."..... ...... ~,,~"'''''~ :-....: :"\.,,,,' ,..... ." ..... ",,, I ~! I I I "......1 f I I I T'- I ... ...... . ...... ! \ ,.... I -I I l ......., I fn- -- \ \--- __ I"". I ~- -rll) !: -- =-=~ gj 3C I T '1'( (.lr-l-l-- .:---1 -,! , 1~;;-~7'1--O~.V^/,'I>B U:O:lS_:::-~" ----7;:7, .- 0.'" I / ' \""JI ; " I / I "" j I "\ LI , {;.,., / I' I , I I l..... I I I I I "d" o o o o I o ~ ~ :::> en '" t'-- o o o o I o ~ N ~ /,\ +"" Q) Q) t: en 'fl o N ~ -(- I I I I I z o t--ol ~ U o H ~ ~ t--ol en .: ~CJ=':'-::-_'''-'''_''! 1,'\ lZJ-..'~ ,', == ::::~::: :.:~'.:" ,J ---- '~.:I ..#/ .\\<, :1: I il __~I -1..~flr.U:EJ~1.w~::-~=-:.:.:.:.:~:...t PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IOWA CITY INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA Prepared by roth In'rutructure ~ ~nvironmcnt, LLC 4211 GlalS KOlI.d NI\, Suile Il Cedar Rapid!, Iowa 52402 / ;/ '\ --. ..., ".., ,; ;/ ,;=i':::JllA~, .......... ,)::::.:;::; ;.>>../. / "~ "~"~" "~ '" " ~, /<1"; ~ ~~C=;-- I I I '. /<1 __.__ - u_ _ _ _ j i-'~ ---- 1 I I I I /' 1"/ ".t<' .;.$ ""MJfIJ'" .__ _._ "=~.:.~::~;::r=-V;...o:;:,~r~~,"~ m_ .. ~',~~==,""Jr.'r..-":""'':.:''"'.'l'"..~r...::.- .."."I-"'...."fO......'.......UOCI"'''...I<.._..._...folLft.. ""....".._.....c_...... -C-=Il / ''::;,":'::..'I1Il ='::UI.~,=~" -,.. _"K - -I -.. .."',"'.."'.." ,.. ,,,........-.... .. __ _ O'Q: ,""."."..... _... ilIOIOI -... .. T_....... VI 'IOT" ",,"' -'>fl_I~_IIIITK_II'-'JlIl!LIllKI..___ .....__ _______________________ ~, !: . ,~--- J Ii < / .? .,:1!\,il-{ . .,....;;,;,;;i. u ~~.-. -;f-j- ..J: _;r .. ..... --~ - ----- -- -", 0-' .... '.' -~ - I.~'~~' .. .. .. ~--. ................... " -.--,...., ~ -<t- ~"'. I r' I ,...."......".. ,,_.......... ..0........'..."... ,..._'..".... ,....,,,'.,,.,,..... ,..."'''........... ,C'OI__".. ,e,,,,.....,,,,, I -.------------ ,. ='" ~- -_.~.,,- ....-, - ._-, .-.................. ". ~.;wi~~\'=oI'=-..::;':::.::.::":-.:"..:..._". __..... I." _... ... .....,_,_......-....... _ -..... -....-.""............ . .u...._"..""'....,._.. .._Wl,.....~....'... -...........-. ""'-........,......--.....,....... ...... ",,,PIg,,... WLIo. .............. __...""- _.. ~OTII-"'. ''''''A rt~:"= ~~~t ~ . --.;.- -............... -..w>',,,-,,",,,""'" _ ~ ,,_ 0l>0(Il "1'1:_______ -..,.. -- iff~1~~~t~i~~:l:.::::;.~. -"<..... ... C"'_". _ III ..'. _"lOt'" _...."'.......,....'Ul.......'''.._,... ....""'..,...' ..".. ,........." _.......,...._....." e:u::;.5:Jl: Lr:~r.:a:~~ ":.:"I:.:".~;:"':.;..,. - . '""'1" ,_l.fC:.llu ,. ... __It....,u", 1Hl 1If au,... ", _W". 0_',,"'. .................,.....__... :..::: :l'::.nc...~':':~M~':"'" ".....""... ..- _'.,'............, .......l'\1li'_...........,..,........._............. _OUO_..._I_"........"'_.ut_..... '--"--1. I"' I~" .~=-~'~ -~"'c~~...... . ..~.:. ..'."'....... ---.",.. ~ "~ ".- ~ .- · .. "-Jh~-~l .~.. -.,,;:. .~ ..... . '~"= i _~J" ......~ . . "'....... ~ "'>em "";..,, 0-.., .. ... .;l.r~___ ------ APPROVED BY oJlIWllIIlI." 0-......., g-.....- .,...._...... SHE[l~. CLIENT, CITY OF IOWA ellV I 410 E WASHINGTON STREET lOWACITY,rOWA52240 2 PHONE,(J!'1IJ5Ei-514Q X:\Cfl\I[\2008\oe081016.01\CAIJ\Ro...\Plals\Pre11rrll"ary Pia .dgn IOWA ellY INDUSTRIAL CAMf'UI PREUMINARY PLAT +- j I I I I I I I 0, 0 , I I I I /; t ,... ~\IL~O,l,O.I_4;" ---L-~PI R E,,!E'1E ~~, , " /:.~ j --"-,/ I fr-'-:;''' ~-- :;.. .... . --, - o. '- , :/ :: \ - '....... -::_.:-;'~l ti I : I ~~<'_.o :~ :~t~.(:: ~ ~/ - ~~ <;.\>~.'::~:.~':.'. . :~'.< < " v. ,#_", _. " - -, ~ - ; "-';~:: :;: :,?:W:> ." . . .".,'... !.. - --"',:", ,~:-'~.? ~ :<>^~.~ .:~: /.'.' <'/,/ '< '.: '. I ':of ~~~ 00 0 ~ N ~ . U N < r--'T c:<r: r-- .,..... '"0 C ....::s ...... :u ~ ...... C '"0 ~ ~ ~ ~ >.....::s t E ~ 5~ ~ .... ::l o :>-. ~ ...-l bI:) .S '"0 Il.i Il.i VJ C o 'P So :E if) ~ 5- '"0 S C ~ ~ u .... ~ ~ ....~ ~ ---, ~.r:: ~ '"0 ~ g :>-. Il.i ::l...., .... o ~ ~ U 0..."::; .if ~ 8t);;:l:;: ~ Il.i ~ 0 1:;j""O~ r:-: VJ .......... C) I""" ;; 0 ~ ~ ~ C ::l 0 Il.i ..., bI:) <:'1 ::::> 'u u:~:/ ~........ - CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMO TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Julie Tallman DATE: 26 August 2010 RE: Clarifications to floodplain management ordinance amendments At your last meeting, you requested that we provide for your review language related to variances for structures in historic districts and structures on the historic register. You also requested that we provide for your review language regarding substantial improvements. Specifically, you wanted to be able to review language that would both exempt an original structure from the elevation/flood proofing requirement subsequent to a lateral addition, and language that would require an original structure to be elevated or flood proofed subsequent to a lateral addition. I hope this information is sufficient for your review. VARIANCES FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES Language regarding variances in the floodplain management standards would be amended to include a new section in 14-5J-9(B). The entire section is copied below. See factor #5. A. Factors for Consideration When considering applications for variances, the Board of Adjustment will consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Article in addition to the following factors: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood elevation or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other land or downstream to the injury of others. 3. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community, and the risk of losino said services durino a flood event. 4. The risk assumed by emeroency personnel if it is necessary to evacuate the use/structure durinq a flood event. 5. After consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission, a determination of whether compliance with the floodplain reoulations would result in a substantial alteration or destruction of defininq architectural characteristics of landmark properties and properties located within historic or conservation districts. 6. Such other factors that are relevant to the purposes of this Article. Administratively, we will consult with Christina about how to handle this process. Procedurally, a building permit application triggers review by HPC. Their review could incorporate an analysis of what floodproofing or elevation requirements would apply, with the analysis provided to HPC by building department staff. If there is a finding by HPC that the necessary floodproofing/elevation would compromise the historic nature of a structure, the applicant would be informed that s/he will have to apply for a Variance from the BOA. HPC could append a recommendation to the Board on the application. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 14-5J-7 would be amended to include one ofthe two versions of the following language. The first two sections (C and D) reflect our current procedures and clarify their administration. The second two sections (C and D) reflect a more rigorous application of the elevation or flood proofing requirement. C. Residential Structures 1. All new residential structures must have the lowest floor elevated a minimum of one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 2. Where substantial improvements are constructed within the oriqinal structure, the lowest floor of the original structure must be elevated one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 3. Where substantial improvements are attached laterally to the original structure (i.e. "lateral addition"), the lowest floor of the lateral addition shall be elevated one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 4. Where a substantial improvement to a residential structure involves both improvements within the original structure and lateral improvements, the lowest floor of the original structure and the lateral addition must be elevated to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. S. Where existing topography, street grades, or other factors preclude elevating by fill, alternate methods of elevating, such as piers, may be allowed subject to approval by the Building Official. In such a case, a licensed professional shall certify that the methods used will be adequate to support the structure as well as withstand the various forces and hazards associated with flooding. D. Nonresidential Structures 1. All new nonresidential buildings must have the lowest floor elevated a minimum of one foot above the flood hazard elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary systems, be f1oodproofed to such a level. 2. Where substantial improvements are constructed above the oriqinal structure, the lowest floor of the original structure shall be elevated or f1oodproofed to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 3. Where substantial improvements are attached laterallv to the original structure (i.e. "lateral addition"), the lowest floor of the lateral addition shall be elevated one foot above the flood hazard elevation or floodoroofed to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 4. Where a substantial imorovement to a nonresidential structure involves both vertical and lateral imorovements. the lowest floor of the oriqinal structure and the lateral addition must be elevated to one foot above the flood hazard elevation or floodoroofed to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 5. When floodproofing is utilized, a professional engineer registered in the State shall certify that the flood proofing methods used are adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the flood hazard, and that the structure below the flood hazard elevation is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Such certification must also indicate the specific elevation, in relation to National Geodetic Vertical Datum, to which any structures are floodproofed. A record of this certification will be retained in the office of the Building Official. C. Residential Structures 1. All new or substantially improved residential structures must have the lowest floor of the oriqinal structure and any lateral addition elevated a minimum of one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 2. Where existing topography, street grades, or other factors preclude elevating by fill, alternate methods of elevating, such as piers, may be allowed, subject to approval by the Building Official. In such a case, a licensed professional shall certify that the methods used will be adequate to support the structure as well as withstand the various forces and hazards associated with flooding. D. Nonresidential Structures 1. All new or substantially improved nonresidential buildings must have the lowest floor of the original structure and any lateral addition elevated a minimum of one foot above the flood hazard elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary systems, be flood proofed to such a level. 2. When flood proofing is utilized, a professional engineer registered in the State shall certify that the floodproofing methods used are adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the flood hazard, and that the structure below the flood hazard elevation is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Such certification must also indicate the specific elevation, in relation to National Geodetic Vertical Datum, to which any structures are floodproofed. A record of this certification will be retained in the office of the Building Official. Article F. Floodplain Management Definitions As used in Article 14-5J, Floodplain Management Standards, the following definitions shall apply. The General Definitions contained in Article A of this Chapter shall apply to all terms used in Article 14-5J that are not defined below. .lOO-YEAR FLOOD EVENT: A flood, the magnitude of which has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year or which, on the average, will be equaled or exceeded at least once every 100 years. .SOO-YEAR FLOOD EVENT:,A flood, the rnaqnitude of which has a two-tenths percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in anv qiven vear or which, on the averaqe, will be equaled or exceeded at least once every 500 years... 1 % ANNUAL FLOOD EVENT: The predicted level of floodinq with a one percent (1 %) chance of beinq equaled or exceeded in anv qiven vear (formerly known as the 100-vear flood event). 0.2% ANNUAL FLOOD EVENT: The predicted level of floodinq with a two-tenths (0,2%) chance of beinq equaled or exceeded in anv qiven vear (formerlv known as the SOO-vear flood event). BASEMENT: Any enclosed area of a building that has its floor or lowest level below ground level (subgrade) on all sides (see definition of Lowest Floor). CLASS 1 CRITICAL FACILITIES: Facilities that must remain accessible durinq the 0.2% flood event because thev are the base of operations for emerqenev responders, are particularlv difficult to evacuate durinq a flood event. or facilities that provide services essential to the life, health. and safety of the community. Class 1 Critical Facilities include police and fire stations. emerqencv medical centers. communication centers. hospitals. iails. nursinq homes, and other residential uses for persons with limited mobility and/or dependency upon life-sustaininq medical equipment. CRITICAL FACILITIES: Structures that store public records; museums and libraries; schools; and other buildinqs that store rare and/or valuable items and information that sustain the historv and public records of a community. These structures are not expected to remain accessible or functioninq durinq a flood event. thouqh in manv instances their functions must resume as soon as possible after a flood event. Critical Facilities also include public insfrastructure such as water distribution and wastewater treatment facilities. which are expected to remain functioninq durinq a flood event althouqh thev mav be temporarilv inaccessible or accessible onlv by watercraft durinq a flood event. DEVELOPMENT: Any human made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, the placement of manufactured housing, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, streambank erosion control measures, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. l!=ormatted: Not Strikethrough Formatted: Underline. Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Underline, Not Highlight , Formatted: Underline, Not Highlight Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline, Not Strikethrough 1 Formatted: Font: Not Bold FLOOD: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas resulting from the overflow of streams or rivers or from the unusual and rapid runoff of surface waters from any source. FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURAL WORKS: Barriers or storace areas constructed to control floodwater, modify or re-direct a channel. FLOOD ELEVATION: The elevation which floodwaters would reach at a particular site during the occurrence of a specific frequency flood. For instance, the .we- year flood elevJtion is the elevJtion of floodwJters relJted to the occurrence of a 100 yeJr flood event. 1 % flood elevation is the elevation of floodwaters with a 1% likelihood of occurrinq in any qiven year. The 0.2% flood elevation is the elevation of floodwaters with a 0.2% likelihood of occurrinq in any qiven year. In areas of shallow floodinq, there is a 1% or qreater annual chance of floodinq to an elevation specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. FLOOD HAZARD AREA: Land that is shaded and identified as "AE", "X" or "AH" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. FLOOD HAZARD ELEVATION:. The elevation of the 0.2% flood as profiled in the Flood Insurance Study for Johnson County, Iowa. In areas of shallow floodinq, the elevation of the flood as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: The official map prepared as part of (but published separately from) the flood insurance study which delineates both the flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: A study initiated, funded and published by the federal insurance administration for the purpose of evaluating, in detail, the existence and severity of flood hazards, providing the city with the necessary information for adopting a tloodplain management program and establishing actuarial flood insurance rates. FLOODPLAIN: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water as a result of a specific frequency flood. For instJnce, the 100 year Floodplain in the area of land susceptible to being inundJt<:d by J 100 ycar flood event. For instance, the 1% floodplain is the area of land that in any qiven Year, has a 1 % likelihood of floodinq. The 0.2% floodplain is the area of land that in any qiven year, has a 0.2% likelihood of floodinq. In areas of shallow floodinq, there is a 1% or qreater annual chance of floodinq to a specified elevation, but a clearly defined channel does not exist and the path of floodinq is unpredictable. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: An overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damages and for promoting the wise use of Floodplains, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, floodproofing and &Ioodplain management regulation?. FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures, including utility and sanitary facilities, which will reduce or eliminate flood damage to such structures. { Formatted: Font: Not Bold . { Formatted: Font: Not Bold .{ Formatted: Font: Not Bold { Deleted: F { Deleted: F FLOODWAY: The channel of a river or stream and those portions of the Floodplains adjoining the channel which are reasonably required to carry and discharge floodwaters so that confinement of floodwaters to the f100dway area will not result in substantially higher flood elevation. FLOODWAY FRINGE: Those portions of the Floodplain, other than the floodway, which can be filled, leveed or otherwise obstructed without causing substantially higher flood elevations. LOWEST FLOOR: The floor of the lowest enclosed area in a building, including a basement, except when all the following criteria are met: . The enclosed area is designed to flood to equalize hydrostatic pressure during floods with walls or openings that satisfy the provisions of 14-5J-7D of this Title; and . The enclosed area is unfinished (not carpeted, drywalled, etc.) and used solely for low damage potential uses, such as building access, parking or storage; and . Machinery and service facilities (e.g. hot water heater, furnace, electrical service) contained in the enclosed area are located at least one foot above the 100 year flood hazard elevation; and . The area floor is not below grade on all sides. MANUFACTURED HOUSING: Any structure designed for residential use which is wholly or in substantial part, made, fabricated, formed or assembled in manufacturing facilities for installation or assembly and installation on a building site. For the purposes of Article 14-5J, Floodplain Management, manufactured housing includes factory built homes, mobile homes, manufactured homes and modular homes and also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days. MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARK: A parcel or contiguous parcels of land divided into two or more manufactured housing lots for rent or sale. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS, MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARKS: Those structures or development that began construction after January 1, 1978. May 2, 1977. SHALLOW FLOOD HAZARD AREA: Areas of special flood hazards havinq shallow water depths and/or unpredictable flow paths between one (1) and three (3) feet. and with water surface elevations determined. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or installed on the ground or attached to the ground, including, but not limited to buildings, factories, sheds, cabins, manufactured housing, storage tanks and similar. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damaqe of any oriqin sustained by a structure where the cost of restorinq the structure to its pre-damaqed condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the assessed or market value as established by an appraisal paid for at the owner's exoense, whichever is greater.. ( Formatted: Font: Not Bold ( Deleted:" SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any improvement to a structure that satisfies either of the following criteria: . Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the assessed or market value as established by an appraisal paid for at the owner's expense, whichever is qreater, of the structure either before the improvement or repair is started or, if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition, substantial improvement is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe conditions for the existing use. . Any addition which increases the original floor area of a building by 25 percent or more. All additions constructed after June 5, 1985 May 2, 1977 shall be added to any proposed addition in determining whether the total increase in original floor space would exceed 25 percent. Article J. Floodplain Management Standards 14-5J-l Pur ose The purpose of this Article is to protect and preserve the rights and privileges and property of Iowa City and its residents and to protect, preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents by minimizing flood losses. The provisions of this Article are designed to: A. Reserve sufficient Floodplain area for the conveyance of flood flows so that flood heights and velocities will not be increased substantially. B. Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood or that cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities. C. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public utilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage. D. Assure that eligibility is maintained for property owners to purchase flood insurance through the national flood insurance program. 14-5J-2 A Jicabilit and Inter retation A. Application of Provisions The regulations within this article apply to all lands and uses thelt helve significant flood hazelrds. The identified in the "Johnson County, Iowa, pnd Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map", dated February 16, 2007" , shall be used to idcntify such flood helzard elreas. All elreelS shown thereon locat-cd .....ithin the boundelries of the 100 ymr flood e\'ent elrc considered to helve significant flood hazelrds. Where uncertelinty exists with respect to the pr-ccise loceltion of the 100 ymr flood boundelr(, the loceltion will be determined on the belsis of the 100 year flood eleveltion elt the pelrticulelr site in question. It shelll be the r-csponsibility of the propert( O'lmer to obtelin the accurate ground eleveltion informJtioA f{)r comparison with the 100 yeelr flood elevation. The "Johnson County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Study", as amended, is hereby adopted by reference and is made a part of this article for the purpose of administering floodplain management regulations. Where 100 year flood dJta helS not been pr{)vided in the flood insurJnce study, the Io'....a Department of Natural Resources or its Jssignee shall be cont.Jctcd to compute such data, or the city engineer shall compute such d.Jt.J. B. Minimum Requirements The provisions of this Article are considered minimum requirements and will be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and will not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State statutes. C. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions It is not intended by this Article to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions. However, where this Article imposes { Deleted: And greater restrictions, the provisions of this Article shall prevail. Where more specific provisions herein conflict with other provisions of this Title, this Article shall prevail. 14-5J-3 Le al Authorit and Findin s of Fact A. Legal Authority Chapter 455B, Code of Iowa, as amended, gives cities authority to adopt regulations governing development and redevelopment within flood hazard areas, including designation of flood hazard maps. B. Legislative Findings 1. The flood hazard areas of Iowa City are subject to periodic inundation which can result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents. 2. These flood losses, hazards, and related adverse effects are caused by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to flood damages. Such uses create hazardous conditions as a result of being inadequately elevated or otherwise protected from flooding and the cumulative effect of obstructions on the Floodplain causing increases in flood heights and velocities. 3. This Article relies upon engineering methodology for analyzing flood hazards, which is consistent with the standards established by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. 14-5J-4 Com Iiance with Provisions; Nonconformin Situations A. Except as provided in subsection B, below, no structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, enlarged, converted or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this Article. B. If a structure that is not in compliance with the provisions of this Article lawfully existed prior to May 2, 1977 and has existed continuously without abandonment since that time, then improvements may be made to the structure, notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, provided such improvements do not constitute a substantial improvement as defined in Article 14-9F, of this Title, Floodplain Management Definitions. However, structures, uses, or development that are nonconforming with regard to other provisions of this Title must comply with the applicable regulations contained in Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. 14-5J-5 Enforcement A. Enforcement Official Designated The Building Official shall administer and enforce the provisions of this Article. B. Duties and Responsibilities Duties and responsibilities of the Building Official include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Record and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to National Geodetic Vertical Datum) of, the lowest floor of all new or substantially improved buildings or the elevation to which new or substantially improved structures have been flood proofed. 2. Notify adjacent communities or counties and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, or its succcssor assiqnee, prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of a watercourse. 3. Keep a record of all permits, appeals, variances and other such transactions and correspondence pertaining to the administration of this Article. 14-5J-6 Flood lain Develo ment Permit A. Permit Required A Floodplain Development Permit, issued by the Building Official, must be obtained prior to initiation of any development on a parcel of land within thc 100 'fcar Floodplain a flood hazard area according to the applicable review and approval procedures contained in Article 14-8B, Administrative Approval Procedures. B. Compliance Floodplain Development Permits based on approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications. Prior to use or occupancy of any structure, the applicant will be required to submit certification by a professional engineer or land surveyor, registered in the State, that the finished fill, building floor elevations, floodproofing or other flood protection measures were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this Article. Any use, arrangement or construction not in compliance with the uses authorized will be deemed a violation of this Article. 14-5J-7 General Flood lain Mana ement Standards All properties subject to the regulations of this Article must comply with the following applicable performance standards. A. General Construction Requirements All structures shall be: 1. adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure; and 2. constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; and 3. constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. B. Class I Critical Facilities 1. Class I Critical Facilities may not be located within a flood hazard area. 2. Class I Critical Facilities must be located with a means of vehicular access that will remain passable durinq occurrence of the 0.2% flood event. C. Residential Buildings 1. All new or substantially improved residential structures must have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the -we- yeaF flood hazard elevation. 2. Where existing topography, street grades, or other factors preclude elevating by fill, alternate methods of elevating, such as piers, may be allowed, subject to approval of J spcciJI cxception by the Board of Adjustment by the Buildinq Official. In such a case, a licensed orofessional shall certify that the methods used will be adequate to suooort the structure as well as withstand the various forces and hazards associated with floodinq. In such a case, convincing evidence must be presentcd to the BoarD of Mjustmcnt that the methods used will be Jdequate to support the structur-c JS ....e11 as withstand the various forces and hazards Jssociated with flooding. D. Nonresidential Buildings 1. All new or substantially improved nonresidential buildings must have the first floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the -we- yeaF flood hazard elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary systems, be floodproofed to such a level. 2. When floodproofing is utilized, a professional engineer registered in the State shall certify that the floodproofing methods used are adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the 100 '(car flood hazard eYeAt:, and that the structure below the 100 ycar flood hazard elevation is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Such certification must also indicate the specific elevation, in relation to National Geodetic Vertical Datum, to which any structures are flood proofed. A record of this certification will be retained in the office of the Building Official. E. All New and Substantially Improved Structures 1. Fully enclosed areas below the "lowest floor" that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer to meet or exceed the following minimum approval criteria: a. There must be a minimum of 2 openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The ooeninqs shall not be located on the same wall. b. The ooeninqs shall be located on exterior walls such that the 1% flood elevation, or shallow flood elevation, is above the bottom of the ooeninq, and in all cases the bottom of all ooeninqs shall be no hiqher than one foot above qrade. Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Underline ( Formatted: Font: Not Bold ( Formatted: Font: Not Bold c. Openings shall m;:lY be equipped with screens, louvers, v;:Ilves or other coverings Ocor dC'~;iccs~pro'iidcd fhc openirigspermittheclutol11afic entry - -- and exit of floodwaters. 2. New and substantially improved structures must be designed or modified and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. 3. New and substantially improved structures must be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities elevated or flood proofed to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. that ;:Ire designcd and located so ;:IS to pre/CAt .....ater from entering or accuffiul;:lting within the components during conditions of flooding. F. Manufactured Housing Manufactured housing, including those placed in existing manufactured housing parks, planned developments, or subdivisions, must be: 1. Anchored to resist flotation, collapse or lateral movement. 2. Elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the structure is a minimum of one foot above the 100 '(c;:Ir flood hazard elevation. G. Utility and Sanitary Systems 1. All new or replacement on-site sewage waste disposal systems must be located or designed to avoid impairment to the system or contamination from the system during flooding. 2. New or replacement water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system. Water supply facilities must be provided with a level of protection equal to or greater than one foot above the 100 YC;:Ir flood hazard elevation. 3. Utilities, such as gas or electrical systems, must be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage to the system and the risk associated with such flood damage or impaired systems. H. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Injurious Materials Storage of materials and equipment that are flammable, explosive or injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited unless elevated a minimum of one foot above the 100 YC;:Ir flood hazard elevation. Other material and equipment must either be similarly elevated or: 1. not be subject to major flood damage and be anchored to prevent movement due to flood waters or; 2. be readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. I. Flood Control Structural Works Flood control structural works, including but not limited to levees and flood walls, must provide, at a minimum, protection from a 0.2% 100 '(cor flood event with a minimum of 3 feet of design freeboard and must provide for adequate interior -{ Formatted: Font: Not Bold drainage. In addition, flood control structural works must be approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its succcssor assiqnee. J. Inhibiting Floodways and Drainage Facilities No use shall affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or floodway of any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch or other drainage facility or system. K. Subdivisions Subdivisions and Planned Developments, including manufactured housing parks, must be designed to minimize flood damage and must have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage, and must meet the applicable performance standards established by the City Engineer. Any subdivision, planned development, or manufactured housing park intended for residential development must provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will remain passable during occurrence of the .100 '(car J.?(QJlood event. L. Residential Accessory Structures The exemption of detached garages, sheds and similar structures from the-!OO- yea!' flood elevation requirements may result in increased premium rates for insurance coverage of the structure and contents; however, said detached garages, sheds and similar accessory type structures are exempt from the 100 '(car flood elevation requirements when all of the following conditions exist: 1. The structure is not used for human habitation. 2. The structure is designed so as to have low flood damage potential. 3. The structure is constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer minimum resistance to the flow of flood waters. 4. The structure is firmly anchored to prevent flotation, which may result in damage to other structures. 5. The service facilities for the structure, such as electrical and heating equipment, are elevated or floodproofed to at least one foot above the -!OO- yea!' flood hazard elevation. 6. There shall be a minimum of 2 ooeninqs havinq a total net area of not less than one SQuare inch for every square foot of enclosed area subiect to floodinq. The ooeninqs shall not be located on the same wall. 7. The ooeninqs .shall be located on exterior walls such that the 1% flood elevation, or shallow flood elevation, is above the bottom of the ooeninq, and in all cases the bottom of all ooeninqs shall be no hiqher than one foot above qrade. 8. Ooeninqs shall permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. 14-SJ-8 5 ecial Floodwa Provisions In addition to the general Floodplain standards listed above, uses within the floodway must meet the following applicable standards. Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Underline Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold -( Formatted: Font: Not Bold I A. No use is permitted in the floodway that would increase the 100 YCJr 1% flood hazard elevation, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Naturar Resources or ,ts succcssor assiqnee. B. All uses within the floodway must: 1. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; and 2. Use construction methods and practices that will minimize flood damage; and 3. Use construction materials and utility equipment that are resistant to flood damage. C. No use is permitted that would affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or floodway or any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system. D. Structures, buildings and sanitary and utility systems, if permitted, must meet the applicable general Floodplain management standards and must be constructed 6f and aligned to present the minimum possible resistance to flood flows. E. Buildings, if permitted, must have low flood damage potential and must not be used for human habitation. F. Storage of materials or equipment that are buoyant, flammable, explosive or injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited. Storage of other material may be allowed if readily removable from the flood way within the time available after flood warning. G. Watercourse alterations or relocations, including channel changes and modifications, must be designed to maintain the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion. In addition, such alterations or relocations must be approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its 3UCCC3sor assiqnee. H. Any fill or stream bank erosion control projects allowed in the floodway must have some beneficial purpose and will be limited to the minimum amount necessary. I. pipelines that cross rivers or streams must be buried in the streambed and banks or otherwise sufficiently protected to prevent rupture due to channel deqradation and meanderinq or due to action of flood flows. Where floodway data has been provided in the flood insurance study, such data shall be used to define the floodway limits. J. Where no floodway data has been provided, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its succcssor .assiqnee shall be contacted to provide a floodway delineation. Where floodway data is not available, it shall be the responsibility of the permittee to produce enqineered data delineatinq the floodway. 14-5J-9 Variances The Board of Adjustment may authorize, upon request, in specific cases, such variances from the terms of this Article that will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Article will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done, no variance to the strict application of any Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Not Bold provision of this Article shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following approval criteria are met. In addition, the applicant must meet all the provisions and general approval criteria for variances as stated in Article 14-46, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses. except 14-4B- 2a4. A. Approval Criteria 1. No variance shall be granted for any development within the floodway that would result in any increase in flood elevation .during the occurrence of the 100 year flood event, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. 2. Variances shall only be granted upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, and a determination that the granting of the variance will not result in increased flood elevation, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances or cause fraud on or victimization of the public. 3. Variances shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4. In cases where the variance involves a lower level of flood protection for buildings than what is ordinarily required by this Article, the applicant shall be notified, in writing, over the signature of the Building Official, that the issuance of a variance will likely result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. 5. All variances granted shall have the concurrence or approval of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. B. Factors for Consideration When considering applications for variances, the Board of Adjustment will consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Article in addition to the following factors: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood elevation or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other land or downstream to the injury of others. 3. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. and the risk of losinq said services durinq a flood event. 4. The risk assumed by emerqency personnel if it is necessary to evacuate the use/structure durinq a flood event., 5. ,After consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission, a determination . of whether compliance with the floodplain requlations would result in a substantial alteration or destruction of defininq architectural characteristics of landmark properties and properties located within historic or conservation districts.. Q,-_ .Such other factqrs that,.\ire relevant to the purposes of this Article. ( Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: No underline . Formatted: Underline Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Underline . Formatted: Underline I, c. .,conditions of Approval Upon consideration of the factors and approval criteria listed above, the Board of Adjustment may attach such conditions and safeguards to the granting of a variance as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes and intent of the provisions of this Article. 14-5J-10 Amendments The regulations and standards set forth in this Article may, from time to time, be amended, supplemented, changed or repealed. No amendment, supplement, change or modification shall be undertaken without prior approval of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. 14-5J-11 Warnin and Disclaimer of Liabilit The degree of flood protection required by this Article is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on engineering and scientific methods of study, Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by human-made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This Article does not imply that areas outside the regulated areas, including flood hJzard maps, or thJt uses permitted ',A.'ithin the regulated areas will be free from flooding or flood damages, This Article does not imply that uses permitted within the requlated areas will be free from floodinq or flood damaqes, This Article shall not create liability on the part of Iowa City or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Article or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. Formatted: Font: (Default) Tahoma, 11 pt Deleted: <#>Such other factors that are relevant to the purposes of this Article,~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2010 - 6:00 PM - INFORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Julie Tallman, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning f~om 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, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo said this item was in order for approval pending an updated mitigation plan. He said he was hoping the Commission would have the updated mitigation plan by the formal meeting so that it can be voted on. Miklo said that there are roughly 700 acres zoned for industrial development in Iowa City, almost all of which is developed. For this reason, Miklo said, staff feels it is very important to add to the stock of industrial land in Iowa City. Miklo said that in looking for suitable industrial land, the city looks for large, flat areas with potential for rail and interstate access. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 6 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). Miklo said that the most significant change that results from the proposed amendment is that the city would be regulating to the 500-year floodplain, rather than the 1 OO-year floodplain. Miklo said that if this ordinance had been in place prior to the development of Idyllwild and Parkview Terrace it could have been effective in mitigating flood damage. Miklo said that the current standards require elevation of the lowest floor of the building to one foot above the floodplain if a home is improved by more than 50% of its value or 25% of its square footage. Miklo said that this language is based on the FEMA model, and is interpreted differently by different communities. He said the Iowa City interpretation is rather generous, and has, to date, required only the addition to be elevated if the existing structure is not substantially changed. He said the Commission will need to decide if they prefer a strict interpretation wherein the entire structure must be elevated or a more generous one in which only the addition must be elevated. Miklo said that the Commission also needs to decide if they wish to exempt historic properties from the floodplain regulations or if they want to add in a variance process for review on a case by case basis. Miklo said that it did make sense to provide some avenue of relief for historic properties. Miklo said that as the proposed ordinance is written, a property damaged by fire, tornado or other disaster would be required to rebuild to the floodplain standards. He said that is the case under the current floodplain ordinance as well. He noted that the whole point of floodplain regulation is to minimize future damage by flood. Greenwood Hektoen said that keeping in mind the purpose of the regulations should help guide the Commission in its decisions. Weitzel said he would like to see language for a variance for historic properties. Miklo said that in his view a variance would be a more appropriate option than an exemption as two bodies would review the matter (the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)) and a variance would be granted on a case by case basis. Miklo noted that Tallman's memo of July 9th has helpful analysis of the impact of the floodplain regulations on those making substantial improvements. He said that in the vast majority of cases the homeowners were able to meet the floodplain regulations. Miklo said that the language for a variance could be fairly easily modeled after the language used by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). He said the issue is more about how the Commission wishes to interpret the language through its policies. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission did not necessarily need to approve specific language; rather they could approve a concept to give guidance to City Council. Plahutnik and Busard urged Commissioners to think long-term in considering whether the stricter interpretation should be applied to the elevation requirements. Miklo noted that staff intends to ask City Council to put aside some funds in the Capital Improvements Plan to continue the purchase of properties in Parkview Terrace that had been flooded in 2008. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16,2010 - Formal Page 3 of 6 Busard said that requiring homeowners to come into compliance with floodplain regulations at some point in the future, even if it comes at some expense to the homeowner, is not necessarily a bad or punitive thing. Eastham asked if there were similar issues in the zoning code that could be compared to the issue with the interpretation of the floodplain elevation requirements. Miklo said that the source of destruction -flood, fire, tornado-- is not separated out in the current code either Koppes pointed out that the language appears to indicate that damage of 50% or more by flood events is not addressed by the code. Greenwood Hektoen said she would double-check, but her understanding is that flood damaged is included and that the point being made is simply that non-flood related damage is also a factor. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission would have to balance the risks versus the benefits and decide where to draw the line. Koppes advised caution in assuming that flooding only occurs in a floodplain, pointing out that many areas that had never seen flooding before were submerged in 2008. Eastham noted that there are areas in the Ralston CreeklWillow Creek areas that are now in the 500-year floodplain that were never in the 1 OO-year floodplain. Plahutnik said that flash flooding is caused by upstream overflow in creeks. Miklo said that there is a common misperception that the floodplains of creeks in Iowa City will not flood due to dams built in the 1970's and 1980's. Miklo said that the floodplain maps had been updated to take into account the dams. Eastham asked if there would be specific language to be approved and Miklo said that it was possible there would be specific language but that the idea was more to get direction from the Commission. Freerks said she would feel more comfortable voting if there was specific language. Miklo said staff would attempt to have language for the Commission by the formal meeting, but could not guarantee it. Greenwood Hektoen said that essentially all of this is just a conceptual recommendation for language they would like to see in the City Council ordinances. OTHER: Discussion of the Work Program: 1) Review CB-2 standards: Miklo said that originally staff had planned on looking into eliminating the CB-2 zone altogether; however, property owner objections prompted City Council to direct the Commission to review the standards instead. 2) Review of CB-1 0 standards: Miklo said this arose from issues surrounding Heironymous Square. He said some of the issues were addressed through a CZA, but the desire was to have the same requirements apply to everyone. Miklo said work has not yet been finalized on setbacks and height limitations. 3) Southeast District Plan: A draft should be before the commission in September. 4) Landmark trees: Miklo said this is a very difficult thing to regulate, but has been tackled by some communities. It concerns trees on private property. 5) Open Space Plan: Miklo said staff had hoped the Parks and Recreation Commission would examine this as part of its Master Plan process; however, it was beyond their scope. He said the questions are: Are the current standards sufficient? Should credit be given to private open space so as not to further burden the Parks and Recreation Department with added maintenance? Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 6 6) Review floodplain development regulations: Miklo said this should be completed soon. 7) North Corridor: This includes the Moss Green Urban Village. He said that there is a lot of residential development that would need to be annexed or somehow worked around in that area, and there would likely be opposition from county residents. 8) Northwest District Plan: This area includes Manville Heights, University of Iowa properties, and the Camp Cardinal Boulevard area. Miklo said that has not been a real priority for because so much of it is already developed, owned by the University or covered by the Camp Cardinal Boulevard concept plans, but it does need to be looked at eventually. 9) Entryway standards: Miklo said he believed this came about as the result of some of the Wal-Mart controversies. He said that this work would include defining what exactly an entranceway to the city is. Miklo said that one item that should be looked at soon concerns alternative energy sources. He said that though it sounds ideal on the surface, our initial research showed that local wind patterns would require wind turbines that were 300 feet tall in order to be cost effective. Miklo said staff questions whether that would be appropriate anywhere within city limits. Miklo said there are some questions as to whether there are public health issues related to these turbines such as long-term insomnia caused by the background buzz of the turbines, and the flickering light effect. Miklo said that staff would be comfortable with turbines in industrial areas that were of the same height as cell towers (120 foot maximum). Miklo said that residential solar collectors also need to be addressed. He cited an example of a solar panel in Galway Hills that was a source of concern for neighbors. Miklo said that this particular example was built two feet from the property line and is designed to follow the sun, so it causes glare for neighbors. Miklo said that there should be some regulation of these beyond what is currently in place to assure that there is an adequate setback from property lines. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adiacent to the Iowa River: Miklo said that the City has applied for some funds to build a levee from the railroad tracks down to McCollister Boulevard. Miklo said that this levee would protect two mobile home parks and a commercial area. He said that this was one of the sandbag levees built in 2008 that actually worked to protect the area. He explained that if a permanent levee is built there will be a trail built on top of it. Miklo said that the South Central District Plan discourages the long-term use of that area for mobile home parks. Miklo said that there is some conflict in that area between the industrial and residential uses. Miklo said that discussion of this matter should probably be put off until a determination is made about funding. Eastham said that his understanding is that the CDBG portion of the funds would not be available if the low-income residential housing was not there. Miklo noted that it has been over ten years since the Comprehensive Plan was looked at as a whole and at some point that should probably be reviewed. Miklo said that while the plan is still on track for the most part, some of it may be dated. Miklo said that the Work Program list is something that will be worked on over the course of the two years. There was a brief discussion of the landmark trees item and whether or not that was something that the Commission should pursue. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 6 Eastham asked if the open space requirements were still quite contentious and Miklo said that they are now generally accepted by developers. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Payne excused) vote at 6:56 PM. z o en en ::2c ::20:: 00 UU C)w zO:: -wo zU~ Ozo NctN CC ZZ ctw C)I- Zl- _ct Z Z ct ...J a. C) z i= W W :E ...J <( :E IX: o LL 10 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - ClO oo;t W W or- - >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 0 <0 0 W W N - >< >< >< - >< >< - 0 0 10 <0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - 10 10 W or- >< >< >< - >< >< >< ~ 0 or- >< >< >< >< >< >< w - - oo;t 0 ClO W 0r- a >< >< >< >< >< >< - M oo;t >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - N or- N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - or- en :EW T""" T""" C") N LO LO C") IX: IX: T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" - - - - - - - WOo LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > - I- W ...J <( ...J W ::) IX: In ...J ...J J: <( Z <( ...J ~ W en J: z N J: :E 0 0 <( :J 0 ~ i= ..., W C :E u; :E z .J' <( ~ en I- W IX: J: IX: W W ::) ~ W <( I- W 0. Z J: :E en en W 0. ~ <( <( ::) <( IX: 0 ...J W Z In W LL ~ 0. 0. ~ C) z i= W W :E ...J <( :E IX: o LL Z <0 W or- >< >< >< >< - >< >< - 0 ClO N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - ClO <0 W W N >< >< >< - >< >< - - 0 0 ...... ...... w or- - >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 <0 ...... W W or- - >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 0 10 M >< >< >< >< >< >< w - - 10 0 N W W W or- - >< >< - - >< >< - 0 0 0 oo;t 0') w W N >< >< >< >< - >< - - 0 0 M or- or- - N en :EW T""" T""" C") N 0 0 C") IX: IX: T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" - - - - - - - WOo LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > - I- W ...J <( ...J W ::) IX: In ...J ...J J: <( z i:5 ...J <( W ~ en J: z J: :E 0 0 <( :J 0 ~ i= ..., W c :E u; :E z .J' <( ~ en w- I- W IX: J: IX: W ::) ~ W <( I- W 0. Z J: :E en en W 0. ~ <( iii <( ::) <( IX: 0 ...J Z In W LL ~ 0. 0. ~ E :::l ..... o :::l ,,0 Q) 0 ~z ..... u--Q) >< C>.o W:.5E ,+>Q)Q) CQ)O:::: "E-Q)E"::: Q)ClI) ro lI)~::9o- Q).o.....Z 0 0:<(11 IIZ II II !!:!::2: ': XOOZI > W ~ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19,2010 -7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Julie Tallman, Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Clark, Jim Kerr RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: 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, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo said that staff is still awaiting a revised wetland mitigation plan so this item should be deferred until the September 2nd meeting. Freerks opened public hearing on the matter. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to defer REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004 until the September 2nd meeting. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 11 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 noted that at the last meeting questions had remained about the possible unintended impact these regulations might have, particularly on historic structures in Conservation Districts. Tallman said that Greenwood Hektoen had come up with some language that could be incorporated into the variance procedures to address those properties. Greenwood Hektoen suggested amending 14-5-J9, subparagraph B, "Factors for Consideration," to read: "Upon recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment will make a determination as to whether compliance with the floodplain regulations would result in a substantial alteration or destruction of defining architectural characteristics of landmark properties and properties located within Historic or Conservation Districts." Greenwood Hektoen said that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would make the determination as to whether a change was architecturally appropriate. She said that the intent of the language is to require homeowners to comply with floodplain regulations if HPC does not object to the changes to the structure on historic preservation grounds. She said that HPC's decision on the floodplain regulations would be the equivalent of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness. Payne asked if the determinations would be made on a case by case basis, and Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the above language would not be the only factor for the Board to consider in a request for a variance. She said there are a number of other factors already set forth in the variance section and this would be an additional consideration that the Board could use to make their decision. The variance section is 14-5-J9; the additional language would be inserted as B5. Eastham said that it seemed to him that the suggested language would allow any structure within a Historic or Conservation District to obtain a variance, whether it was a "contributing" structure or not. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not the case; HPC's process analyzes the historic value of a property when considering the requested variance. Greenwood Hektoen said that structures of no historic value would not be granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by HPC, and as a result would not meet the standards for the Board of Adjustment. Weitzel said that it is foreseeable that there could be alterations required by the floodplain regulations that would not necessarily reduce the historic value of a property. Koppes asked if it was correct that those seeking variances would have to first go before the HPC and then go to the Board of Adjustment for the actual variance. Greenwood Hektoen said that was essentially correct, though the language did not spell out the exact path that would take. She said there had been some discussions that perhaps a homeowner would apply for a variance to the Board of Adjustment which would then trigger a review by HPC, which would then be used to help the Board of Adjustment make its determination. Tallman said that administratively what triggers this process is an application for a building permit; at that time the determination will be made as to whether the project meets the two criteria for the possible elevation of the structure: 1) the value of the property in relation to the improvements or repairs and 2) the amount of the property that is being altered. Once those two thresholds are met, Tallman said, consultations with HPC and the Board of Adjustment would take place. Tallman said that the goal is to make it as simple as possible administratively and for the applicant. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 11 Eastham said he wished to review again the number of structures this proposal might apply to. Tallman said she had initially done a quick analysis of the Jefferson Street area and used that to extrapolate. She said that she had since done another analysis in an area near Sheridan and Court Street and had come up with roughly the same general findings. In both cases, 80% of the homes that were in the 1 OO-year floodplain were also in the 500-year floodplain and therefore would be subject to elevation standards for substantial improvements under both the new and the old floodplain ordinances. She said that the primary changes in going from 100- year to 500-year floodplain levels is that the elevation requirements increase by one foot, and there is a 20% increase in the number of structures effected. Eastham asked how the current ordinance handles historic structures. Tallman said historic structures are not addressed at all under the current ordinance. Tallman said that the 1977 language had addressed historic properties, however at some point that language disappeared and no exemptions were allowed for. Plahutnik said that the way he understands the proposed ordinance is that non-contributing structures in a historic district have no access to this exemption. Freerks said that the contributing historic structures are all already mapped out and accounted for. Miklo said that in most cases a structure that is not currently considered a contributing structure would not be eligible for this variance; he noted that there have been times when a property has been improved by taking off vinyl. siding or adding back a porch that had been removed, and because of those improvements a non-contributing structure became a contributing structure. In those cases HPC could consider the home for an exemption; however, for the most part it is pretty clear which homes such an exemption would apply to. Payne asked if historic structures that were not in Historic or Conservation Districts would also be eligible for this exemption and Greenwood Hektoen said that historic landmarks as defined by city code would be eligible. Payne noted that when Tallman said the difference in elevation standards for the 100 and 500- year floodplains was one foot, she was speaking only to those particular areas of town that she had analyzed. Payne said that in other areas of town the difference between 100 and 500 year floodplain elevation standards could range from six inches to six feet. Tallman said that was correct. Freerks said that there had also been some discussion about stricter regulations and whether entire structures should be elevated or just additions. Greenwood Hektoen said the language currently applied to horizontal additions. Miklo noted that the issue was not about stricter language, but interpretation. Miklo said that current language says that the lowest floor has to be elevated. He said there have been some instances where the existing building has been excluded from the elevation requirements if a common wall remained between the two structures. Tallman said that either way the matter needs to be discussed because clarification is needed on how the standard is going to be applied. She said the state and federal regulations include language that says as long as the original structure is not changed, the common wall remains, the original structure has a basement and the lateral addition is elevated, than no change is required for the existing structure. Tallman said this is also the way the City has historically applied this provision. If a homeowner put up an addition and removed the common wall and/or made improvements to the original structure, then the existing structure was also subject to the elevation standards. Tallman said the question is how the City wished to handle lateral additions moving forward. Tallman said that if the City wished to change their interpretation then language should be added to clarify that. Eastham asked if Tallman had any idea how many structures such a change would have effected in recent years. Tallman said that had been examined in the discussions on the subject in July, and briefly reviewed those findings. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 11 Freerks opened the public hearing. Dave Clark, address not given, asked if the changes to the flood ordinance strictly concerned historic properties. Freerks said that the changes governing historic properties were being discussed, but that the ordinance dealt with other changes as well. Clark said he is involved in two buildings in the GilberUStevens area that have slab construction. Clark said that he had owned one of the buildings for almost forty years and never had water in it until 2008. Clark said he had some reservations about an ordinance that would require properties to be raised to one foot above the 500-year floodplain. Clark said he did not know what the elevation of his buildings is, but that if they were required to be raised to one foot above the flood level then his buildings would have to be raised eight feet. Clark said that it would be economically infeasible to raise a building eight feet. Miklo noted that there were alternatives to elevating buildings available to commercial properties. Tallman said that commercial properties could be flood- proofed instead. Tallman said that a combination of water resistant materials and adhesives can be used to get structural certification of flood-proofing. Tallman said that if a property owner carries flood insurance they may be eligible, in th event of a flood, for additional funding to be put toward flood-proofing. Clark asked how insurance companies are dealing with this ordinance. He said that an insurance company will pay to rebuild a property as it was; it will not pay to elevate a building six feet. Clark said that his buildings are not located there because he is a thrill-seeking entrepreneur; rather, his building was built there because previous Commissions had zoned the area for that type of business. He said that the same body would now be requiring him to take a half-million dollar building and turn it into a one and a half million dollar building. Tallman asked how much damage his property had sustained in 2008. Clark said it had sustained $150,000 in damages and had not had flood insurance. Tallman said that in order for the elevation/flood-proofing standards to apply the building would have had to have sustained $250,000 worth of damage. Clark said that these regulations are encumbering him with undue financial hardship. Tallman said that only the property owner can ultimately decide whether they wish to continue in a given location. Clark said there would definitely be an exacerbation of the floodplain area. He said that if all of the buildings had to be raised, then a new floodplain would be created. Clark said that the water would have to go somewhere and the elevation of those properties would worsen the flooding for more people. Tallman said that she did not know that to be true. Freerks said that scenario had been discussed in Commission deliberations. She said that it is not just about what Iowa City does, but also about what communities all down the river decide to do, and factors such as rainfall that are beyond the control of the City. Greenwood Hektoen asked Tallman to talk a little bit about the No-Rise Certification as a way of addressing Clark's concerns. Clark said he thinks answers to those questions must be determined before going forward, as currently there is no guarantee that elevation won't ultimately make the flooding worse. Eastham said that he agrees that the No-Rise Certification could bear some deeper explanation. Tallman said the No-Rise Certification concerns the f1oodway, the Iowa River channel, rather than the floodplain being discussed presently. Tallman said that development is assumed up to the floodway with the understanding that full build-out along both sides of the floodway will result in a one foot increase in a flood. Tallman said that a No-Rise Certificate is something that would be necessary if a person proposed putting anything other than a floating dock in the floodway (which Iowa City prohibits). Plahutnik said that the massive amount of water that was flowing through the entire floodplain could have filled all the basements in Iowa City in a matter of minutes during the 2008 flood. He said that the additional fill required by this ordinance would not likely result an appreciable increase in future floods due to the displacement of floodwater. Clark said that raising the floodplain will increase the spread of floods. Eastham asked Clark how he felt flood damages to his buildings in the future should be Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 11 handled. Clark said that he believed damages would be his responsibility. He said that it was his place to repair the property because it was his decision to locate there. However, he said that he did feel that if measures were to be taken toward flood control then he thinks building in the area should probably stop. He said that the best solution would be no more construction there. Jim Kerr, 1335 Oaklawn, asked if there has been a change in the floodplain designations. He asked if the 100 and 500 year floodplains have changed. Tallman said the designations have not changed but that staff is trying to change the frame of reference for them. She said that when one hears "1 OO-year" or "500-year" floods, then it is natural to think that if a 100-year event happened in 1993 than it would not happen again until 2093. Tallman said the designations are statistical constructs whose likelihood increases over time. Tallman said that statistically speaking, there is a 26% chance of experiencing a 1 OO-year flood if you live in that floodplain for the life of a 30-year mortgage. Tallman said that the likelihood increases each year. Kerr said the definitions in Tallman's memo were helpful. Kerr said that he has two buildings constructed prior to 1977. He said that it appears that there is a bit of an exemption for buildings older than 1977 and asked if he was correct in that understanding. Tallman said that 1977 was the first year that Iowa City participated in the national Flood Insurance Program. Buildings prior to 1977 are grandfathered in their current state. Tallman said that there are two tests the City looks at in applying the new floodplain regulation. First the City looks at the floor area of the 1977 building to see if the floor area has increased cumulatively by 25%. If that is the case then the building has been substantially improved and needs to come into compliance with current standards. Tallman noted that Kerr's building is already subject to these standards; the question becomes whether or not the building must be elevated if the floor area has increased by 25%. Tallman said these regulations would change the flood hazard elevation. The flood hazard zone is larger and requires a higher elevation. She said that given the nature of Kerr's building she would advise flood-proofing rather than elevating the building. Kerr said that a substantial improvement occurs when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, or floor commences. He asked if he would still be subject to the new standards if he did not increase the footprint of his building but altered a wall. Tallman said that would only be the case if the wall alteration is very expensive because the second elevation requirement is that the improvement exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the property. Kerr said that property owners in the floodplain are sometimes saddled with their properties because they are difficult to sell or rent. He said that going forward it would be helpful if the City kept in mind that restrictions and requirement such as these could hinder or restrict property owners from selling or improving their properties. Kerr said that he did not think any properties in his area had been sold in a couple of years and a few of them had not even been successfully rented in several years. Kerr suggested that before more stringent regulations are put in place there should be some thought put in to relieving the property tax burden placed on such properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is the City's position that such regulation would not be considered a "taking," and therefore there would be no compensatory rights for property owners. No one else wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to defer the matter until the next meeting. Plahutnik seconded. Eastham said his rational for deferral is that while he feels like he understands all of the issues, Planning and Zoning Commission August 19/2010 - Formal Page 6 of 11 he is not at all comfortable voting on an ordinance of this importance and complexity without having a written outline of what he is being asked to vote on. Miklo asked if the variance was the only concern that Eastham had. Freerks said she thought there might also be a question of how the variance would be enforced administratively as that did not yet seem to be fleshed out. Eastham said that the interpretation of "improvement" needs to be defined. Tallman asked if two examples of how the provisions would be administered would be helpful in fleshing that out for Commissioners and Eastham said it would satisfy him. Freerks noted that this was the first meeting in which members of the public were present and spoke to the issue. She said she would like to take what those people have said and absorb it a little bit. She noted that the topic has been discussed extensively and acknowledged the enormous amount of work staff has put into it, saying that at some point a vote would have to be taken whether they were entirely comfortable with it or not. Weitzel said that he is not sure the Commission has a handle on the unintended consequences of the enforcement aspects of this ordinance. He asked if it would be worse to have half a building elevated as it is under the current ordinance or none of it elevated because additions and renovations were so cost prohibitive that they were not undertaken. Plahutnik noted that when a member of the public asked if the federal government would pay the difference in rebuilding that resulted from the floodplain ordinance, the answer was an unequivocal "no." He said that he feels very clearly guided by the goals of the floodplain ordinance. Freerks said that the Commission does not yet have the language nailed down. She said that if the vote was to go forward at this meeting then they would need to either vote for the language as presently stated or vote for language that they did not have before them. Freerks said it makes her a little bit uncomfortable to vote on something that does not have specific language at this appoint. Weitzel asked if the Commission would be passing specific language with a vote or approving a concept for recommendation. Payne said she would much rather see the specifics of what she is voting on then vote for a concept. Busard said that he believed the Commission should move forward. He noted that the Commission is always voting for a concept only as the City Council can change language and approve whatever they want. He said the issue had been sat on long enough. Plahutnik said that he is perfectly comfortable holding the matter for one more meeting; however, he said the Commission should be very clear on what is left unresolved in its mind. To Plahutnik's understanding, the outstanding issues are: 1) the variance language for historical properties, 2) whether the existing structure in a lateral addition should be subject to elevation standards, and the language to go with that, and 3) whether new construction residential properties should be allowed in the floodplain. Eastham noted that while he may be in favor of a prohibition of residential development in the floodplain, he is not insisting that staff provide language for that option. Miklo said that an outright prohibition on any residential development in a flood hazard area would take a lot more research by staff before they would be comfortable with the legal ramifications of that action. Miklo said that Cedar Falls has prohibited subdivisions in the flood hazard area; people who own a given lot in a flood hazard area can build on it, however, they could not subdivide it to create additional building lots to be sold. Eastham said that the Cedar Falls provision is the kind of prohibition he had been thinking about. Miklo said that if a majority of the Commission wished to explore the option of residential prohibitions in the floodplain then staff would research Planning and Zoning Commission August 19,2010 - Formal Page 7 of 11 it. Miklo said he would advise that the current ordinance be passed and, if the Commission so directs, staff can research the other issue at a later date. Freerks said that it may make sense to discuss the prohibition as a work item for the future rather than directing staff to look into into it now. Miklo said that his concern would be that adding the residential prohibition to the ordinance would slow it down considerably and would allow more buildings to be built to the current standards while waiting for word on the prohibition. Miklo noted that Eastham's question is a perfectly legitimate one, but that staff cannot make an informed determination on it without looking into it in a much more in depth way. Eastham said that Miklo's point was well taken and Weitzel agreed that it is better to do something now rather than wait for the next flood. Plahutnik said that there are still misunderstandings between the residential standards and the commercial standards. Plahutnik said that it needs to be communicated that commercial structures have flood-proofing options available to them in addition to the option of elevating out of the floodplain. He said more education and information dissemination was needed. Tallman discussed some technical aspects of flood-proofing commercial buildings. Greenwood Hektoen said that some discussion about the horizontal and vertical additions would be good so that staff can have an idea of the direction the Commission wishes to take that. Freerks said that her understanding is that the Commission is not yet sure which direction they want to go on that, but that they wish to see what it might look like to go one direction or the other on the issue. Tallman said that the language on enforcement does needs to be clearer. Miklo asked if the Commission had a sense on whether they wished to see the stricter or more lenient interpretation of the lateral/vertical addition issue. Plahutnik said he was going to offer a motion to include the language that would require the entire structure to be elevated in order to vote it up, down, or defer. Freerks said that the language has not yet been set for that discussion. Miklo said that the language as written says that the lowest floor has to be elevated. Miklo said this is a policy issue of whether the Commission wishes to have the entire structure elevated or just the addition. Koppes said she thought staff had changed the language. Miklo said staff would clarify the language in whichever direction the Commission directed. Greenwood Hektoen said that her reading of the language is that the entire structure would have to be elevated whether it is a lateral or vertical addition. However, historically staff has only applied the requirement to lateral improvements; thus, the need for guidance from the Commission. Busard said that it seems pretty contradictory to him to require the elevation of new construction but to allow non-conforming substantial improvements in the floodplain for existing structures. Eastham said that his preference is for bringing the entire structure into compliance. Tallman said that the fact that she found relatively few examples in her research indicates that such substantial investment is not common. Weitzel said that he leans toward requiring elevation of the whole structure. Freerks said she is inclined to disagree with requiring the whole structure to be raised. She noted that there appeared to be at least four Commission members that wish to direct staff to tighten up the language regarding the variance and the lateral improvement. Weitzel noted that requiring homes in Historic and Conservation Districts to go before HPC and the Board of Adjustment is a valuable way of consulting on the projects. Weitzel said that while a homeowner might have to add a step by going before the Board of Adjustment it is for their own potential benefit; they would have had to go before HPC regardless. Weitzel said there are examples of historic structures that cannot be moved or elevated so the mechanism for allowing an exemption is an important one. Busard noted that he is not a big fan of deferring this matter, but would vote in favor of it since it was clearly a foregone conclusion. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 8 of 11 A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: JULY 26, AUGUST 2. AND AUGUST 5.2010: Payne noted that the attendance record needed to be updated to reflect the new expiration dates for her term and Plahutnik's term. She also made note of a typographical error. Eastham motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Payne seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard not present at time of vote). OTHER: Discussion of the Work Program: Freerks noted that Miklo had given an overview of these items at the informal works session. She said the idea is to keep the list down to nine or ten items. She said the Southeast district Plan and the Floodplain would soon be completed and taken off the list. Miklo said staff's suggestion on the west-side levee would be that it need not even be discussed until a funding decision is received. Greenwood Hektoen noted that at the Commission's direction she had learned that the grant to fund the west-side levee did not require the protection of residential structures as a condition of funding. Eastham said that the current Work Program included as an item the protection of landmark trees. He said that he personally would be in favor of removing that from the Work Program. Freerks said she could understand why this was a work item and the history behind its placement on the list, but that she was not sure that it was the most effective use of staff resources at this time. Freerks said the idea was to protect special trees that were not part of a protected grove. Weitzel asked if that was not a function of subdivision design rather than a zoning issue. Miklo said that this would apply to existing lots and individual trees and would go above and beyond the sensitive areas ordinance. The Commission indicated a consensus desire to remove this item from the list. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is looking into how to deal with the emerald ash borer, and that might be somewhat related to this item. Freerks said she would not be interested in bringing the Open Space Ordinance up high on the list. Eastham said that he agreed. Koppes said she agreed but felt that the issue was going to have to be dealt with eventually. Freerks said she believed the item should stay on the list, but not high on the list. Plahutnik said that there is something in place for this issue now that seems to be working. Koppes asked Miklo if developers had expressed an opinion as to whether current open space standards were working. Miklo said that his general impression is that developers are mostly satisfied, though a couple of concerns have been raised. One of these concerned largely unusable leftover land from a development and whether or not a developer should receive open space credit for that. Miklo said that another issue is whether or not the ratios of open space to development are adequate. Miklo said this issue does need to be discussed, but that it will likely be a controversial issue when that time comes. The Commission reached a consensus to put this item lower on the list. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 11 Freerks asked Miklo if he had a preference for which order the North Corridor District Plan and the Northwest District Plan were worked on, and he indicated that he did not. Freerks said that she believed the CB-2 standards and the review of the CB-10 zone requirements were both important issues that needed to be examined. Miklo said that in thinking about the Riverfront Crossings development plan staff noted that the City currently has a Mixed Use zone that allows for commercial development on the first floor and residential above. Miklo said that areas such as Riverfront Crossings probably would not have a market for commercial/office space for the ground floor of every building in the neighborhood. Miklo said that staff would like to consider an Urban Mixed Use zone for some of those ground floor spaces, which would allow commercial or residential on the first floor and would have some of the same standards as the CB-10 zone. Miklo said that the timing for adding an Urban Mixed Use zone to the zoning code is probably right. Freerks said that this had been discussed quite a bit in discussions of the Moss Green development. Miklo said he would recommend grouping that issue in with the CB-2 and CB-10 standards reviews. A consensus was reached to have those three items at the top of the list: CB-2, CB-10 and Urban Mixed Use. Freerks said that whenever there is development in the entryways to the City the issue of entryway standards comes up and it would be nice to be able to point developers to a specific set of standards rather than always having the standards as a part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Koppes noted that part of that process would include clearly defining which areas are entryways to the city. Koppes said she would be in favor of moving it up if the definition of entryways was included. A consensus was reached to place this item above the northern district plans and below the review of the downtown zones. Freerks asked the Commission where on the list they would like to add the issue of alternative forms of energy. Eastham asked Miklo how pressing the issue was. Eastham said that his understanding is that the large tower windmills are not presently allowed. Miklo said that there is some interest in exploring them. Miklo said that based on the research staff has done it seems unlikely that they would recommend allowing towers taller than 100-120 feet. He said that staff's initial research indicated that given the wind patterns in our area towers of 300 feet would be necessary to make them cost-effective; however, that height does not seem appropriate for placement within city limits. Miklo noted that dealing with the issue earlier and proactively would alleviate the pressure to go to 300 foot towers in town. Eastham asked if Coralville was going to beat Iowa City to something with these towers and Weitzel joked that if Coralville wanted 300-foot towers in town they were welcome to them. Miklo noted that there had been one significant complaint in the Galway Hills subdivision regarding a solar panel that had disturbed the neighbors. Freerks asked what the solution was and Miklo said that fill was brought in to make it so that the solar panel did not exceed the height standards. Miklo said staff feels that it is probably reasonable to allow a certain size of solar panel in a residential zone, but that there should be reasonable setback from the property line. Freerks asked if that was an issue that could be researched and examined fairly quickly by staff, or where he felt it should fall on the list. Miklo advised putting the district plans fairly low on the list and putting this item just beneath the entryway overlay plan. Payne asked if the Commission wanted to add the study of a prohibition on residential building in the floodplain to the Work Program. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks it is pretty clear that an outright prohibition on building in a floodplain is problematic. She said that Cedar Falls has passed an ordinance prohibiting subdivision in a floodplain, but property owners can still build homes on their own lots. Miklo said the Cedar Falls ordinance also limits the amount of filii Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 - Formal Page 10 of 11 that can be brought into elevate a property. He said that they only allow three feet of fill to be brought in for elevation and only 30% of the property can be elevated. Freerks said she would like to see how the new floodplain ordinance works before pursuing this item. Payne said she is just in favor of learning more about it and having staff investigate it. Four Commissioners agreed to place the item at the bottom of the list. The Work Program list was prioritized as follows: 1) Review CB-2 standards. 2) Review of CB-1 0 zone requirements - setbacks, height limits. 3) Urban Mixed Use zone. 4) Entryway overlay zone or standards. 5) Alternative energy. 6) North Corridor District Plan. 7) Northwest District Plan. 8) Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance. 9) Research options for prohibiting/limiting residential comstruction in the flood hazard area. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adiacent to the Iowa River: Per discussion of this item at the informal work session, the Commission opted to table discussion of this item until it is determined if a grant will be awarded to fund the item. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Busard not present at time of vote) at 8:28 PM. Z Q en en :lEe :lE~ 00 UU C)w z~ -wc ZU"'" OZc N<(N ee ZZ <(W C).... Z.... -<( Z Z <( ...J D. 0) ..... x x x x x x x - co It) X X X X X X X - co 'lit UJ UJ ..... - x x x x x - - 0 0 c.o 0 UJ UJ N - X X X - X X - 0 0 It) c.o X X X X X X X - It) It) UJ ..... X X X - X X X - 0 'lit ..... X X X X X X UJ - - 'lit 0 co UJ ..... - x x x x x x - 0 M 'lit X X X X X X X - N ..... N X X X X X X x - ..... en :eW ..- ..- ("') N L(') L(') ("') c:::C::: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - wa.. L(') L(') L(') L(') L(') L(') L(') 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > I- <C ::::i W W ..J ::::J c::: m ..J ..J J: <C z ~ ..J <C W 3: en J: Z J: :e 0 u <C ::::i ~ ~ i= .., W c :e en :e z .J' <C ~ en I- W c::: J: c::: W W ::::J N W <C I- W a.. Z J: !:: :e en en W a.. ~ <C <C ::::J <C c::: 0 ..J W Z m W L1. ~ a.. a.. 3: C) z i= W W :e ..J <C :e c::: o LL c.o UJ ..... X X X X - X X - 0 co N X X X X X X X - co c.o UJ UJ ~ X X X - X X - ,... 0 0 ,... UJ ..... - x x x x x x - 0 c.o ,... UJ UJ ..... - x x x x x - - 0 0 It) M X X X X X X UJ - - It) 0 N UJ UJ UJ ..... - x x - - x x ~ 0 0 0 0) UJ UJ N X X X X - X - - 0 0 M ..... ..... - N en :eW ..- ..- ("') N 0 0 ("') c:::C::: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - wa.. L(') L(') L(') L(') L(') L(') L(') 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J: > I- <C ::::i W W ..J ::::J c::: m ..J ..J J: <C z ~ ..J <C W 3: en J: Z J: :e 0 u <C ::::i u ~ i= .., W c ::E en en ::E z .J' <C ~ W I- W c::: J: c::: W ::::J N W <C I- W a.. Z J: I- ::E en en W a.. ~ <C W <C ::::J <C c::: 0 ..J Z m W L1. ~ a.. a.. 3: C) z i= W W ::E ..J <C :e c::: o L1. Z E ::l L.. o ::l -00 Q) 0 ~Z L.. () -- Q) x C>.n UJ~E ':;::lQ)Q) CQ)"'" "E-Q)E"':: Q) C en C1l en~90- Q).n.......ZO C:<(III1Z II IIUJ::211 XOOZI :>: UJ ~