The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-16-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, September 16, 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/Rezoning Item REZ1 0-00004/SUB1 0-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 2, 2010 E. Other Discussion of Capital Improvements Program F. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal Formal October 4 October 7 October 18 October 21 November 1 November 4 November 15 November 18 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 10,2010 To: From: RE: The applicant for REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005, Moss Green Development Corporation, has submitted a revised sensitive areas development plan for your review and approval because additional wetlands were identified within the stream corridor during the delineation process. If you recall, when the Commission initially reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP), it was too early in the spring for the applicant to fully investigate the site for wetland features. Based on early field investigations, the applicant did not believe that any additional wetlands would be found beyond what was identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The proposed Oakdale Boulevard alignment was designed to avoid this NWI wetland, which was shown on the original Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The Commission voted to approve the original submittal provided that a final wetland delineation report was accepted by the U.S. Corp of Engineers prior to City Council approval. During subsequent field investigations, which were conducted by a wetland specialist from Stanley Consultants, Inc. with direction from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, several additional wetlands were delineated within the Rapid Creek stream corridor. As a consequence the City Council deferred consideration of the rezoning and plat of Moss Green Urban Villlage to provide the applicant time to revise the SADP and plat accordingly. The applicant has now received correspondence from the Corp accepting the revised wetlands delineation. The Corp has made a jurisdictional determination that any disturbance of Wetland B or D as shown on the attached SADP will require compensatory mitigation. The applicant has revised the SADP accordingly and now re-submits it for your review and approval. The revised SADP shows that two of the wetlands located in the stream corridor will be avoided (identified as Wetland B and the NWI wetland on the attached SADP). Note that the 100-foot buffer of Wetland B will be disturbed during construction of the bridge on Oakdale Boulevard. The sensitive areas ordinance allows disturbance of a buffer area for necessary stream crossings, provided that necessary state and federal permits are secured. The applicant has indicated that measures will be taken to prevent erosion and disturbance of Wetland B during bridge and roadway construction. The smallest wetland (identified as Wetland D on the attached SADP), which is located in the western section of the proposed development where Moss Place crosses the stream, will be eliminated when the road and bridge is constructed. The developer has submitted a mitigation plan indicating that they will compensate for September 10, 2010 Page 2 the loss of this wetland (0.08 acres) by constructing a new 2-acre wetland in Outlot C. The City requires that wetlands located in a stream corridor be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the loss of Wetland 0 on the revised Sensitive Areas Plan at a 25:1 ratio. They have submitted a mitigation plan to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for their review and approval. The Corp has begun its review of the mitigation plan, but final approval has yet to be received. Corp approval of the mitigation plan and associated federal permits will be required prior to commencement of any development activity. Evidence of said approval must be submitted at the time application is made for a final plat. Attached is the revised sensitive areas development plan for your review. Staff finds this revised SADP complies with the City's sensitive areas ordinance for the reasons stated above and therefore recommends approval. Attachments: . Revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan . Wetlands Delineation Report Addendum dd. July 3, 2010 <~ 0, H % '181 hI tV 1 ~ ! 1;0 I r l'if'i, Bf~: i ~~::ii ,,~_ p ,lJ.i!1 ~;l! U - c li~~i ~n ~li i~i~~;i 'H II jhlizj iH Ii lW,H ,II it '..iUt 5.1 ~ji iB~I.6~ F; m !~H,~l II.~. JI' ;It.H.i ~l: iRe hiWH ;t" i.f! i ,ptiKf .' Ii' Pf"'!l ;I! 'Ii :' Hi.~- ~~I ' t 10 0'<( "1. ! " ~!ilHil ',~ ~16.", l! hi~ Ii i~ "I .~_' j,I .n .1,jI i ~,;. ,]i HI .il~" I Ii'! i~i !l! iUdh! ii~!~ d! Hi !iHit'lh .1' 06' , ,><". 'II ml HI h~ ;~fP!!' !z;~ :~i .gl.~ tlr~B il ~ iH' Hi iJ I~hth -;;: Ii'i Ih ill ~lltlPI ".3. Ii< ..' I! .Hz ~ i"o HI "H ,-'~p'! g 1m Hi :liiJ HIHih (.) g>iJi-e ~.& i"~ .H.-v....ii 2 J.jj -It !!" h:lll1~ ~ H'il I'i' IF; lj"ti'!]i o .... .I.i ~il! ! i!~p' u . " l.i,H i! Ii ~ l~ ~~ , .~ ~.. I' i~ ~ ti '-l~ i.!;!, 2J~ hi Ig~;. ~i -I~ l d! ~11'; iI-a- ~~ J -"'1>. ;~:' ;:i):' ~ I ~~H !~i~ :iI':I:l: im~ ti::!r>lIldl ....... {l.~~iol ~I.~' ~ll ~i~~ ~m ~~1i! ~~n U ~i111 ~m ~ nil ~mi ~!! Ij~~, Hi! '" -Hd "u,. "-II H' Il'j '" '" ~ ~nn C".... .9 u UI '" j' 'g - V> gHH 8HH ~} ml ~ n i V> ~ ~ ~m~ E~~li .!l d m! <{ Htig t ~ t .01 -,srn.. :il~H- 3i~{!/!{!;' ~~!iZ I-g.i OCi ~,f oJ .... OIi,S1II "'C Z Q.l2 cuI en Q):'!. 0(11 >- --=: <0 ~ ~L.U & .~ -Q a. <{ ~~- ~,. . ..~,~~4l "'f.. ",' -- i i I j i I \ \ \ ! \ I \ j i I "I i i j i ! I I ! i -1--1 i i 1$ Iii Ll.J I+- ~ I+- c.n ~ ! i i i i i I i i i i i i i i I i , ! ~ ~ iU !5~E ;i:!::u l:J~~ &Ill~ ~ ... ~ ." ,., ~ IH ';1: lJj a ~ ; "' ! ~ ! . j a , ~ I, q Ji '- J ~ ~ ~ . li .,.j o Ei frl~ a~ ~ ~~~ g~ ~~8~~ ~~a: ~;~~~ ~~~~~<~~ffi~ d.::I:>alllt;~li(j I ~r'O""m ~~ ~ff ;- >Z .. .< - III ~~~ 2ws ~~<~~ ~A ~~~~1Il ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ::iLLli:IIlt;~II)~~ +o:.~~~ ~g o 0< ~ ::~ ~ffi~~ ~~~~ ii:8~~ a: ~ ~o::i:S'" 8 i ~~88!~~ ~ :zo...:...:~~% .. ~ ~5~~ Q~ ffi~ ~u. 0< ~t; .o<l<l~'~ II !" II d II !- II ~~! i' "~i -I ~~Q I 1\ i~: I 1, I.! n ~ii !i ~h i! Iii ~i 5~E '1 !~~ Ii ;:1 i'l i~~ ~~ ..1'- 51 !l' " la! ~:Io lU ,_I .u' i~i! Iii I 5!! ,-, l~; il~; ,g'l ,i~' ,~:. mi e Stanley Consultants INC. A Stanley Group Company Engineering. ErNiIOOllf!l'ltaI am Construction SeMces . Wlrtlwide July 23, 2010 Gene Walsh Project Manager, Enforcement Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District Clock Tower Building P.O. Box 2004 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 Dear Mr. Walsh: Subject: Report Addendum Moss Green Urban Village Pelds Engineering Company Executive Summary As a follow up to our meeting on June 17tl1 and the subsequent July 1 site visit to the proposed Moss Green Urban Village development by Stanley Consultants (Stanley) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (CaE), Stanley is submitting this letter as an addendum to the report titled "Wetlands Delineation - Moss Green Urban Village, Pelds Engineering Company, Johnson County, Iowa" dated May 2010 as prepared by Stanley on behalf of Pelds Engineering Company (pelds). Following submittal of that report to the CaE as an attachment to the Joint Application dated June 7, 2010, a site visit was conducted and a request made by the CaE that portions of the riparian corridor along Rapid Creek be reevaluated for the presence of wetlands and that the boundary of identified Wetland 2 be reevaluated. The requested field investigation took place on July 1. Based on the information provided in the May 2010 wetland delineation report and collected during conversations with the CaE on the June 17 site visit, development plans were revised to reduce the construction footprint of the project to reduce or avoid impacts to existing wetlands. The site was reinvestigated using this information and the updated construction limits are depicted on Figure 1-1: New Construction Extents. July 1 Site Visit Ms. Megan Dusing and Mr. Ed Slattery of Stanley Consultants arrived on site at 6:30 AM and the CaE arrived at 8:00 AM. Weather at the time of the site visit was pleasant with mostly sunny skies and highs in the upper 70s. Heavy rains had passed through the area during the prior weeks, but not within 3-4 days of the field investigation. Because the original wetland delineation was performed in May, site conditions were significantly different in those areas being farmed. Vegetation not present during the original This document was sent electronically Oakdale Research Park' 2658 Crosspark Road. Suite 100' Coralville,lA 52241.3212 . phone 319.626.3990 . fax 319.626.3993 internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 2 delineation had time to develop, within the farm field. Hydrological conditions were more visible due to the amount of rainfall in the preceeding weeks. Wetlands identified during the July 1 site visit as well as those wetlands included in the original delineation report are depicted on Figure 1-2: Addendum Wetlands. Upon arrival Stanley staff proceeded north along North Dodge Street to the proposed intersection with Oakdale Boulevard. From this point Stanley staff headed west into an agricultural field within the new construction boundaries. In this area three isolated wetlands were identified, two located within construction boundaries (Wetland A and Wetland C). These wetlands were also observed by CaE staff who confirmed that both wetlands are isolated. Both areas are described in more detail below and their corresponding data forms are included in Attachment A. Photos taken during the site visit are included in Attachment B. The third isolated wetland was found to be outside the area of proposed construction and was therefore, not field investigated as it will not be impacted. The wetland boundary however, was documented using a handheld GPS for reference. Stanley staff proceeded to the area designated Wetland 4 in the original delineation report. At the request of the CaE, the wetland boundary was reevaluated based on the amount of precipitation that had fallen in the preceeding weeks. The boundary was identified by following a change in topography and vegetation, Basswood (Tilia american) being the prime identifier. The new wetland boundary is identified as Wetland B, and is described in more detail in the following paragraphs. Data forms for this location can be found in the original delineation report. Stanley staff investigated a small wetland along the southern banks of the creek (Wetland D) in the western portion of the site. This area and the area to the north of the creek are discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs and their corresponding data forms attached. Because heavy rains had passed through the area prior to both the June 17 and July 1 site visits, problematic hydrology and soils were present on site. Per the instructions outlined in the CaE Midwest Regional Supplement stream gauge data recorded at Rapid Creek was evaluated. It was found that flooding of the creek has not occurred for a consecutive 14 days in 5 or more years out of the past 10 years. Therefore, evaluated soils in problematic areas are likely not hydric. In addition, sediment deposits observed during the site visit were likely the result of flash flooding, not ponding. Gauge data for Rapid Creek is included in Attachment C. Findings of Wetlands Evaluation During the July 1 site visit, the CaE performed a spot check of several wetland and non-wetland areas that had been included in the original report. It was the finding of the CaE that all locations had been identified properly and that the findings outlined in the May 2010 report were correct. Data Point 02 and 10 were confirmed as non-wetland locations and Wetlands 1 and 2 were found to be isolated. This was confirmed during conversations between Stanley and the CaE during the July 1 site visit. In addition to those confirmed areas, Stanley was asked to reevaluate the agricultural field through which the proposed Oakdale Boulevard with cross and the riparian corridor near the western portion of the. Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 3 Findings resulting from the July 1 site visit are detailed in the following: Wetland A This wetland is an isolated wetland within an agricultural field (See Figure 1-3: Wetlands A, B, C) and is approximately 0.28 acres in size. A drainage swale flows in a southerly direction from the hill north of the wetland. This feature directs water into the low-lying concave area allowing water to pool. Data point DPOla was taken at this location. The vegetation in this area is a near monoculture of yellow nut sedge (Cyperus esculentus) with some field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), red-root pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), and soy beans (Glycine max) interspersed. The soil exhibits a low-chroma color with evidence of redox features below 2 inches of the surface. Standing water was noted within the lowest point of the wetland and the wetland boundary was determined following the change in topography and vegetation. Wetland B Wetland B is the updated boundary of Wetland 4 as detailed in the original delineation report. At the request of the COE, Stanley staff reevaluated the wetland boundary. The boundary was determined based on a change in vegetation and topography. Basswood (Tilia americana), a tree with an indicator status of FACU was the primary indicator. The new wetland boundary was found to be approximately 0.28 acres in size, a difference of 0.06 acres from the original delineation. Data point DP02a was taken in an area just north of the identified wetland (Photo 1). No wetlands were found to exist at this data point as the vegetation is comprised of primarily FACU and UPL species. In addition, the soil at this location is not hydric. Wetland hydrology was evidenced by sediment deposits however, this is likely due to flash flooding that had occurred in the weeks prior to site evaluation (See attached gauge data). Originally, a portion of this delineated wetland was proposed for construction activities however, based on the initial findings outlined in the May report, site development plans were reconfigured to avoid this area, and it will not be impacted (See Figure 1-3). Wetland C This wetland is an isolated wetland approximately 0.77 acres in size located at the edge an agricultural field at the base of a hill slope with wooded areas to the south and west (See Figure 1-3). It appears that this area was recently farmed, but currently is abandoned due to wet conditions (Photos 2 and 3). The vegetation at this data point, DP03a, is a near monoculture of yellow nut sedge (Cyperus esculentus) with various other vegetation scattered throughout. This includes field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), red-root pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), soy beans (Glycine max), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), yellow cress (Rorippa islandica), slender rush (funcus tenuis), dotted St. John's-Wort (Hypericum punctatum), and red clover (Trifolium pretense). The soil exhibits a low-chroma Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 4 color with evidence of redox features below 3 inches of the surface. The soil was saturated and a think much surface was observed. The wetland boundary was determined by a change in topography and vegetation as noted on the form for data point DP04a (Photo 4). Wetland D This identified Riverine wetland is located in the western portion of the site along the southern bank of Rapid Creek and is approximately 0.08 acres in size (See Figure 1-4). The area is a low- lying riparian wetland that accumulates runoff from the neighboring farm field and from the creek itself during times of high water elevation. The vegetation in the area consists of box elder (Acer negundo), silky dogwood (Comus amomum), wood nettles (Laportea canadensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), stinging nettles (Urtica dioica), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), and spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis). The soil at this location has a chroma of IOYR3/l to a depth of 12 inches and IOYR2/1 for an additional 8 inches. Hydrology was indicated by the presence of sediment deposits, drift lines, and a thin muck surface (Photo 5). The wetlands discussed above are listed in the Table I and have been identified on the attached drawings. Two (2) isolated wetland areas and one (1) wetland with the potential for jurisdictional regulation were identified during the delineation process. In addition, the boundary of Wetland 4, designated as Wetland B for the purposes of this addendum, was re-evaluated upon COE request. Table 1 - Areas Aerially Investigated for the Presence of Potential Wetlands Isolated Potential Wetland ID Wetland Acres Latitude Longitude (Y IN) Disturbed A Y NA 41041' 44.13" N 91030' 10.79" W B* Y 0.00 41041' 40.40" N 910 30' 10.06" W C Y NA 41041' 44.10" N 91030' 5.834" W D N 0.08 41041' 33.76" N 91030' 35.89" W Total = 0.08 *Located outSide construction limits. Findings of Stream Crossing Evaluation The site was evaluated for the presence of intermittent and perennial streams using the 1985 7.5-Minute Series United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map. Features were identified as streams if they appeared on the USGS topographic map with a blue line symbol; a dashed blue line representing an intermittent stream and a solid blue line representing a perennial stream. The areas proposed for development were cross-referenced with the topographic map to determine the number of stream Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 5 crossings that would result from construction activities. A total of four (4) locations were identified and are detailed below. Four (4) stream crossings were identified during the site drawing/topographic map cross-referencing. All recognized areas are listed in Table 2 and stream crossings where temporary impacts are anticipated are discussed in the paragraphs below. Without additional mitigation, it is anticipated that a total of approximately 2.94 acres of streams will be temporarily impacted by construction activity. Impacted area at stream crossings was determined by multiplying the bridge width of 94 feet by an assumed 140 foot length of the stream crossing or 32,000 square feet (0.73 acre) of disturbed area per crossing. All area impacts are along Rapid Creek. It is the intention of Pelds to use the information outlined below to aide in minimization of stream impacts by construction activities. Refer to Figure 1-3 for a graphic depiction of stream crossing locations. Table 2 - Stream Crossings and Impacts ID Latitude Longitude Stream Acres Type Impacted Crossing 1 41041' 43.20" N 91029' 42.31" W Perennial 0.73 Crossing 2 41041' 40.94"N 91030' 12.90" W Perennial 0.73 Crossing 3 41041' 38.72" N 91030' 20.13" W Perennial 0.73 Crossing 4 41041' 31.14" N 910 30' 35.55" W Perennial 0.73 Conclusion Development information outlined in this addendum is based on construction extents and boundaries received by Stanley from Pelds Engineering Company on June 22, 2010. This information was used by Stanley for the July 1 site visit with the COE. All identified streams were taken from the USGS 7.5- Minute Series topographic map of Johnson County as provided by the IDNR Geographic Information Systems Library, May 2010. Where possible, it is the intention of Pelds to use the information outlined in this report to minimize wetland impacts by relocating construction boundaries to areas where wetlands were not found to exist or to areas that would reduce the wetland area impacted. This will minimize the number of acres of wetlands potentially impacted by construction activities. Using the updated construction limits included in this addendum report (Figure 1-1), two (2) isolated wetlands were identified and one (1) wetland with the potential for regulation was identified. The boundary of a third isolated wetland was determined and found to be outside of the proposed construction boundaries and was therefore, not field investigated. Also, the boundary of Wetland 4, as recorded in the Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 6 original delineation report, was reevaluated and is noted as Wetland B in this addendum. Based on the information provided in the original report, construction limits were reconfigured and it is not anticipated that this wetland will be impacted. With respect to stream crossings, four were identified within the proposed development. By copy of this letter, the addendum package is also being sent to the Floodplain Permits Section and Sovereign Lands at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments in regards to the addendum. I look forward to your final decision in the permitting process for Moss Green Urban Village. Sincerely, Stanley Consultants, Inc. ~I"tr Megan Dusing Environmental Scientist Enclosures cc: IDNR - Floodplain Permits Section IDNR - Sovereign Lands V oldemars Pelds - Pelds Engineering Company Ed Slattery - Stanley Consultants z ~~ 'C C Q) O'l Q) ..J Q) c ~ Q) C C 0 ~ n c 2 o iil Cl. n c ~ ::::l 0 w .::: (.) ::!: en C ~ 5 0 iom 8 i 2 . c .0 -0_ !o~ ~"i~,.: m Hl-S ~,Q..., ~i~a "/(U ~]i! - c ~c ~.2iii .::tt~~ 1i.6~ .E "Ii ~w c ~8~1l ll.fr! -:~{l .~ 1;" 08 :Hi : ~.t ~~ l"":N M a; g~ "!. ~ ~ fl 8~ ~ "2 ~ o o '" >- ~ (J) al g>:$ I- g>"C .z:. m53lu ~C:.~ca wt'llc~ z-EW.2 o~~ f=5ia; ()alQ. ~.... 0::" 1-'" (J)~ a~ () ~ W Z ..... I ..... z_~ c ,g ~ .e .E . d 8~2 ,.:.iN . .;~~ ~:5~ ~ii~ 151!-e !::!g~ gOj,g .:::tf.~ ~HB BSUJc 111!:llJ:l l.~~ ! e.t'i lih _gal'; i ~ ~ ~~ a; o '" ""u- "! C/) G) Cl<( o Cl.<:- z~lii~ :55:gc:s I- <:.- '" L!,l '" g> ;t :>€wo :E::>"'- ::>lii~ OeD- z(!) ~l:l 00 <(:E ~ ~ o ;; '" .J:- -'l " c: Q) Cl Q) ..J -c <: '" ~ c: -c '0 c: G) D- '0 m co 0.. G) c;; '" .5: 0 c;; a; E o 0 ::::l -c <: G) -c ~ 10 o '" G) <: o -g G) N .!!! 55G):g ~ ~ ~ ~~ g Q. :B ~ 6~ -c ~ 2 0 -g2 ; s: en ~ ~~ -c :> <: <: G)- ~ z 8 ~ ~8 11011 o '" IX> ~ II> 1: J:!l ,] a;- "E ~ (ij (ij <: <: .0, '0, "t: "C o 0 o~o o :;;: w a:: ::> (!) u: o S.LNVllnSNCY.> A31NV1Sct pllW~"^,,u..nPU.PPV-l:'L-~ne.,r.lJod.~ UO!I'~~S~_!P"JS~."!PW'\~~"'^-~"OW-U9ZN-q:M(O.ld\~"...brA z ~ c () Gl 01 <( - j OlC- ~ Qj " 01 -C . '" 0 C=Glb 2 0 LL C; 01. 5 :g () " ~g~ ;;; N C >- IX) C .0, 01 .!!! ON ~ . 01 C :it ~ ei"!..: <(€W.2 "E CIl ~~~~ c/)=:J1Il C OC" .0 0 ~=~c: "E " " N ZGl"Qi Gl a.. C CIl "ii~ 0 5ea.. .0 .!!! C C Gl i6 01 0 0 GlC ~h~ ;:l; ~ f-C!> a.. Gl i6 ~ N 'is "CO ~~ "e>" J!I 01 .5 0 C 2 .iijN - C Ii i6 "Qi 0 -c ~tii'll l:: ";i::E E E 1ii ::l 0 ~ 0 0 0.. 'is 0.- -i:!~ ::l ::l Cll C ,,'0 !!~CD "5 ~ (ij (ij " " 2 0 C C ~ ~ c2 "awE 0 ,~ w C .5 1ii 21!:li; .0, Gl Q) ~~ ::: a:: " 01 " " ~ C C {.~~ ::l .C .C " ~ 0 0 ~8 c 0 0 <( z () z .. =!,1l ~ C!> Q) p.,,~ "' u: C) ~ I 101 I ~gH! co "2 Q) 0 e a; .J i~,,: a.,,! 0 _N .., S.1NYllnSNQO A31N.....1S ~ pXW.:)SVSJelVI-t.~-~ne,,wod.l:l UOMnY!l-cnH!Pf1S-..o.~-9()l..~tpUlp~-ue&IO"OW-llilZ\.r~OJd\~ fI-kJm c o CI) Ol<( Olc:- z Ql . o Ill'C - - i a; 0 Z=CI)~ '" 0 5 CI)'- .e 0 LL ~ c:'~~ " .= .0 it; N c: g~o >- ~IllC~ .!!! ON ~ €Wo '"iN . ~ CI) ;-;~i :JOl- t: c: .a..,. .. c: " '0 0 ~i~5 'tCl)Q; t: " " N ~CI)a.. .!l D- c: CI) c: (5 "-!i 0 w'" '0 .!!! c: CI) ~li~ ~ ~ o::(!) III .fl 0 0 Ol c: D- CI) III ~ N 'fi ,,0 ~ :J~ Ctl .5 0 'iijN - c ~ g (!)O c: 2 g~i'" (;j Q; 0 -co .B u::::E E E Ui => 0 ~s~~ 0 0 'fi 0.- => => a. c: ,,0 .~~. "'5 Iii Iii " " III 2 0 !8w~ 8i c: c: :::E ~ c: 2 0 c: .5 CI) CI) Ui !2(;i Jl1!:Sll r- 'C '0, Cl " " ~ c: c: -co {.ct~ 'C 'C ~ " 0 0 Olo C 0 0 <( Z U z ;S:U 'ii :!'t) .i ii~~ '" Q) ~ I 101 I CD C) $ ;;81~.! ra Q) 0 I~~ a.~ ~ ..I _N .., 0 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Robert Miklo September 9,2010 Capital Improvements Program Staff is beginning the process of updating the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for consideration by the City Council in January. I have attached a list of items that staff had identified last year as priorities to be considered. At this point the Commission should consider if there are any projects that are not on the list that you would like to have considered for funding in the next 5 years. Please note that this is not a complete list of items included in the CIP, the complete CIP can be found at: www.icgov.org/default/?id=1509 As the process continues and these projects are considered along with the priorities of other City departments, there will be additional opportunities for Commission to comment. FY11 PCD/JCCOG Capital Improvements Program Priority List For the most part, projects should be required to meet one or both of the following criteria: 1. Match state or federal funding sources, especially for flood recovery 2. Grow the commercial/industrial tax base Southeast Area Commercial/Industrial Development Plan . Reconstruct 420th Street . Water, sewer, rail, and communications systems infrastructure . City Carton relocation o Taft Avenue can be delayed o Parks/Stormwater management buffer concept should be fully concept planned, but implementation can be delayed Streets . Elevate Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge . First Avenue railroad overpass o Burlington Street median should be coordinated with UI Rec Center and HancherlVoxman/Clapp projects o Sycamore Street, U.S. 6 to Lehman Avenue should be extended just to the south city limits o Mormon Trek Boulevard left-turn lane, Melrose Avenue to Abbey Lane can be delayed Pedestrian/Bicycle o Rocky Shore Drive to Peninsula pedestrian bridge: implement only if STP or Transportation Enhancement funds are awarded o Highway 6/Highway 1 trail, Gilbert Street to Mormon Trek Boulevard: implement only if STP or Transportation Enhancement funds are awarded Downtown Enhancement . Gilbert Street streetscape, Railroad to College Street . Northside Marketplac.e streetscape o Near Southside multiuse parking facility: complete schematic design and funding analysis 1.80 . Aesthetics project: implement in conjunction with 1-80 six lane project . Pedestrian bridge and urbanization of Dubuque Street interchange: implement with 1-80 six lane project Concept/Design Plans . South Gilbert/Riverfront Crossings/North Wastewater urban neighborhood redevelopment plan . Towncrest Pending/On the Radar o GIS o South Riverside Drive streetscape plan o Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien Road: construct if needed for Dubuque Street elevation detour route o Downtown ice skating rink - delay o Brick street reconstruction in historic areas - commit to annual maintenance amount; large brick street implementation projects can be delayed pddir/fy11 CIP priorities10-20-09.doc MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONI_NG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Lorin Ditzler, Julie Tallman, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard and Koppes absent) to recommend approval of SUB10-00009/SUB1 0-0001 0, an application submitted by Harold John Dane, Jr., and Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark Hill 2nd Subdivision, a 2-lot, 363.2 acre subdivision located at 4082 Dane Road SE. The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes absent) to recommend approval of REZ10- 00007/SUB10-00004 an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development - Industrial (10-1) Zone to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. The Commission voted 5-1 (Payne opposed; Koppes absent) to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, including Article J, Chapter 5, Substantial Improvements, containing the more restrictive language; Article J, Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplains and associated changes located in 14-9F, Definitions, 14-4B-2, Variances, and 14-8B-5, Administrative Approval Procedures. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 10 DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB10-00009/SUB10-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Harold John Dane, Jr., and Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark Hill 2nd Subdivision, a 2-lot, 36.2 acre subdivision located at 4082 Dane Road SE. Miklo introduced Lorin Ditzler, a graduate student in the University of Iowa's Urban and Regional Planning Department, who will be working in the Planning Department as an intern over the next year. Ditzler noted that the subject property is southwest of Iowa City, and falls under the Johnson Countyllowa City Fringe Area Agreement. The applicant wants to divide the property into two lots, with Lot 1 in the north and the second lot serving as Outlot A. Ditzler said this is the second subdivision of Meadowlark, which had previously been divided into two tracts. Ditzler said that the first subdivision had no requirement for a review by the City. Ditzler explained that the Comprehensive Plan supports commercial and office uses in this area upon annexation by the City. The recent improvements to Mormon Trek had been done in part to provide access to planned industrial development in that area. Ditzler said that the Fringe Area Agreement states that subdivision in that area is not advisable unless it is either annexed by the City or restrictions on its development are put in place until such time as it is annexed. Ditzler said that the Fringe Area Agreement advises that the property be restricted to agricultural uses if it is subdivided prior to annexation, and that its access to Mormon Trek Boulevard be prohibited until Outlot A is annexed. Ditzler stated that the subdivision design calls for a northern lot of 26.6 acres, and a southern outlot of 9.7 acres with a frontage, but no access, to Mormon Trek Boulevard. Ditzler explained that the deficiencies and discrepancies outlined in the staff report have actually been resolved and a revised plat has been received. She noted that the County is currently looking at a rezoning of this property from a combination of R-1 and A-1 to R-20. She said that staff does not object to that. Freerks asked what R-20 zoning meant. Ditzler said that it means that 20 acres per lot are required by zoning. Miklo said that would prevent the property from being developed further under County jurisdiction. Ditzler said that staff recommends approval of the application subject to the approval of legal papers by the City Attorney. Freerks invited questions for staff. Eastham asked Ditzler to show him where the access easement currently is for Outlot A. Payne said that on the plat it looks as though the easement is on the property to the west. Miklo said that the easement is indeed on the property to the west; the owners of that property had granted an easement to get to Dane Road. Miklo said that if the property is subdivided he believes that it is actually the owners to the west who intend to buy the subject property. Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 10 Payne motioned to approve SUB10-00009/SUB10-00010, an application submitted by Harold John Dane, Jr., and Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark Hill 2nd Subdivision, a 2-lot, 363.2 acre subdivision located at 4082 Dane Road SE. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Payne asked if the reason behind the subdivision was so that the property owner could sell Outlot A. Miklo said that was correct. Freerks said that usually when the Commission sees a subdivision it means that building occurs, but that is not the intent here. Miklo said that with the purchase of Outlot A, the buyers will have three lots in the same vicinity and that they have agreed to refrain from developing Outlot A until it is annexed by the City. Miklo noted that the draft legal papers prohibit further development of the property prior to annexation for anything other than agricultural uses. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Busard and Koppes absent). Busard joined the meeting (he had excused himself from participating in discussion of Meadowlark Hill 2nd addition due to his review of this property as a County Planner). 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 explained that the staff report had been covered in some detail at the Commission's August 5th meeting so he would just summarize the issue. The City annexed the property last year and purchased it with the intent of encouraging industrial uses in the area and increasing the tax base. Miklo said that the property has good access to 420th Street which leads to Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard, and ultimately to Interstate-80. Miklo said that the City is currently in the process of rebuilding 420th Street to arterial street standards, thereby making it suitable for industrial uses. Miklo said the long term Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) calls for Taft Avenue to be built to arterial street standards as well. The property is being subdivided into some fairly large tracts with local roads and a railroad spur to provide access to those tracts. Miklo said that there are wetlands on the property, some of which are being restored and enhanced, others of which are being mitigated. Miklo said that staff had been waiting on an acceptable mitigation plan, which they have now received. Miklo said that the plat is now in order for approval and staff recommends approval of the plat and the Sensitive Areas rezoning that is necessary for the mitigation. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Freerks asked if it was correct that the mitigation plan still needs to be approved by the Army Corp of Engineers. Miklo said that was correct. He said that no additional stipulations would be required for the plat as the City cannot proceed without the Corp's approval. Eastham said that the staff memo indicates that the City will be responsible for the long-term Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 10 maintenance of the wetlands mitigation area. He asked if there was any estimate as to what the costs of such maintenance would be. Miklo said he did not believe there was an estimate at present. He said it is their intent to work with the Parks and Recreation Department for maintenance of the wetland mitigation. He said the Parks and Recreation Department currently maintains the wetland park at Whispering Meadow, just south and west of the subject property. Miklo said it was possible that consulting services would be brought in at times to ensure that it is a successful wetland. There were no further questions and Freerks opened the public hearing. There was no comment from the public and the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ1 0-00007/SU81 0-00004, 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. Weitzel seconded. Weitzel said that he believed this was a sensitive approach to increasing the City's tax base and industrial zones. Eastham said that consolidation of the wetlands in that area will hopefully decrease their overall long-term maintenance costs and provide better quality wetlands. Freerks said this is a good project and she looks forward to seeing it take off and hopefully bring some good jobs into the community. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent). CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Tallman said that after the last meeting there were three discussion items remaining, and the Commission had asked to see more specific language about how these issues might be addressed in ordinances. Tallman said that in a memo dated August 26th language can be found that outlines specific language for variances imported into the floodplain management standards. She noted that #5 was the new language. Tallman said that there are still some administrative details to work out in order to make the process run as smoothly as possible. She said that Weitzel had correctly noted at the last meeting that there is already a requirement in place for properties in historic or conservation districts to go before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and these requirements do not add much to that process. Tallman said that there will need to be some cooperation and collaboration between staff. She asked if there were comments or questions about the language for the variance. Freerks asked if there would be a written, formalized process for whatever administrative path is Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 10 decided on so that it is a standardized treatment for each party involved in this type of situation. Tallman said that was possible; she said that there are a number of internal policies within the Building Department, and it may be advisable to have something written down to share between the different departments involved. Freerks asked if it would be possible for staff to share with with the Commission once it is drafted. Eastham asked if the act of elevating a structure would of necessity alter its historic nature. Greenwood Hektoen said it would not necessarily alter its historic nature, and that is why a variance to be reviewed on a case by case basis was included rather than a blanket exemption for historic properties. Miklo said the goal would be to retain the appearance as much as possible. He said that raising a property one foot would likely not affect the appearance, whereas raising it ten feet, likely would. Tallman noted that there are also issues of structural integrity at playas well. Tallman said that the second outstanding issue concerned the language dealing with "substantial improvements." Tallman said that she had noticed a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the proposed language as she was reviewing it earlier in the day. She said the language issues she found were not substantive and would simply clean the language up. Tallman said that the choice before the Commission really is one of what they want to do concerning elevating additions or entire homes when substantial improvements are made. She noted that commercial structures are somewhat different and would have the option of flood proofing to one foot above flood hazard elevation, an option which is not available to residential structures. Tallman said that it does bear repeating that of the 280 floodplain permits between 2000 and 2008 only four permits would have required an existing structure to be elevated along with a lateral addition. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the options outlined in the memo were between two versions of C and D. Payne asked for clarification as to whether the wording would be "within" or if "above" would be used, and Payne said she believed both would be used. Tallman agreed. There were no further questions for staff and the public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Payne asked if the Commission should vote on each of the provisions of the code amendments separately or if they should all be voted on together. Freerks said she thought it should be one vote though she thought there could be some discussion if there are questions on how to word the motions. Greenwood Hektoen said that it was up to the Commission if they wished to vote on the provisions separately. Freerks said that this issue has been discussed in a lot of meetings and staff has put a lot of work into it, so she would like to see the matter put to a vote, and not deferred again. Payne clarified that she had not intended for anything to be deferred by suggesting that the matters might be voted on separately. Miklo said that there seemed to be some consensus on the variance so a motion could be made to approve the language, including the language concerning historic preservation. He said the second issue is whether to go with the stricter interpretation regarding lateral additions or continue with the current practice. Freerks said she felt it would be simpler to have one vote but to discuss the issues separately. Greenwood Hektoen advised the Commission to make a motion so that they could have discussion; amendments can always be added to the motion if need be. -----~_.~-~----------......._--- Planning and Zoning Commission September 2,2010 - Formal Page 6 of 10 Plahutnik motioned to approve 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). Greenwood asked what language the motion intended to adopt regarding lateral additions. She noted that 14-5J-7 was not listed in the motion. Miklo said that that section would be incorporated into Article J. Plahutnik amended his motion to include the more restrictive definition, Items C and D, concerning residential structures. Greenwood Hektoen said that a reference should be made in the motion to each of the sections being changed. Miklo said that he believed that all of the items being changed under Article J would be included with the reference to Article J. Greenwood Hektoen said she felt there should be a 5 in there somewhere. Miklo said that if all of Article J is being amended then referencing Article J should be sufficient. Miklo said that all of Article J and all of its Section numbers are being changed. There was some discussion as to whether Chapter 5 was in Article J or Article J was in Chapter 5. Plahutnik restated his motion. Plahutnik motioned to recommend approval to amendments to Title 14, including Article J, Chapter 5, Substantial Improvements, containing the more restrictive language; Article J, Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplains and associated changes located in 14-9F, Definitions, 14-48-2, Variances, and 14-88-5, Administrative Approval Procedures. Eastham seconded. Plahutnik said he likes the variance for the historic structures, as the value of such structures is pretty widely recognized in the community. He said there has been some discussion about how the more restrictive lateral addition language might impose hardships on those who suffer damage to their homes - whatever the cause: flood, tornado, fire. He said that he views the more restrictive language as a sort of reverse "spot-zoning." He said that it seems to him that everyone on the Commission believes that the intent behind the more restrictive language is a good thing, and that by voting against it Commissioners would be voting to shield the very few people who might be placed in a position where the stricter standards would cause additional expense. Plahutnik said that for him, every time he sees the river rise it makes it easier for him to see that whatever regulations can be put on building in the floodplain will ultimately result in savings for the community. Busard said he agrees with Plahutnik's sentiments. He said that as he sees it that the intent of the ordinance is to eventually ensure that in Iowa City there are no more structures in the flood hazard zone, and that in the meantime those structures that do remain the floodplain will at least be flood-proofed and/or elevated. Busard said he believes the standards should be more rigorous. He said failure to implement more rigorous standards will actually encourage people to continue building and residing in the floodplain as they have in the past. Busard said that he is glad to see the variance included that gives historic structures the opportunity for further review. Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of 10 Weitzel noted that the variance for historic structures is actually a process of consideration, not a de facto exemption. Payne said that she agrees with creating a variance for the historic structures; however, regarding the restrictive language she said she sees a distinction between protecting people and over-regulating. She said that she views the more restrictive language for lateral additions as over-regulating, and thinks that it is asking way too much of people. She said that this is why she had wanted to vote on the changes separately; some parts of the regulations she agrees with, but others she thinks are simply too much. Freerks noted that the possibility of voting separately could still be discussed and motions amended if the Commission chooses to go that route. She said that she feels much the same way as Payne regarding the more restrictive language. Freerks said that she feels the ordinance should be looked at as how it can best serve the community, and she does not see the possibility of potentially leaving homeowners homeless because losses incurred by fire or tornado require them to update to expensive floodplain standards as "spot -zoning" so much as over-reaching. She said she knows that she is in the minority with these sentiments, and acknowledged that sometimes you have to compromise to get the most good for the community. She said she just sees potential for hardship in some cases, and that continues to concern her. Freerks said she likes the variances for historic structures and the idea of having case by case reviews is a wise one. Payne said that flood forecasting is at best an approximation, and in the 2008 floods water sometimes rose four or eight feet higher than had been projected. She said that for people to spend so much money to elevate their homes and still to be flooded out would be terrible. She said she simply feels this is over-regulating. Busard noted that the intention was not to make it easy to build in the floodplain. Plahutnik said he agrees with Busard that the regulations serve as a disincentive to double the size a structure that it is in a floodplain. He said that at some point people will stop building and expanding in a flood hazard way if it becomes cost prohibitive. Freerks noted that 25% of 600 square feet is not a large structure, which would be the case for some of the homes that could be affected by these regulations. Plahutnik said that his concerns are for future owners, the ones who did not make the decision to expand the property but are left holding the bag when a flood occurs down the line. He said that it is not a question of if there will be another flood, but when, and zoning is a forward-looking activity. Payne said that nothing stops somebody from going above and beyond the requirements; she said that if the requirement was to elevate to one foot above the 1 DO-year flood level, a homeowner could still build to one foot beyond the SOD-year flood level. Busard said that it is the same people who would build to the minimum possible requirements that would then be the first to look for a FEMA buy-out in a flood event. Freerks said that was not necessarily the case. Weitzel said that this brings up an ancillary issue which is that if a whole home is elevated, rather than just an addition, there will be an insurance benefit to the homeowner. Weitzel said that the idea is to regulate to that place where it is fairly safe for homeowners but remains reasonable, as it is impossible to know the extent of the next big flood event. Weitzel said these changes allow continued use of properties in the floodplain with some caveats and restrictions. Weitzel said that if there is a fire or tornado at a smaller structure, such as Freerks was concerned with, the damage will very quickly become a total loss and the homeowner may wish to move at that point. Weitzel said these regulations might cause a homeowner to --~-_.~-~....~_._----------"- Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 8 of 10 consider relocating over rebuilding in a floodplain, and that is not necessarily a bad thing to consider. Eastham said that he has tried to keep in his mind two overriding purposes in considering these floodplain regulations: 1) to provide a reasonable protection against personal injury and loss of life, and 2) to provide some way of reducing the amount of public expenditures that floods lead to. Eastham said that at an informal meeting there was some discussion about the amount of public money used to restore or buyout private homes in Iowa City as a result of the 2008 floods and that figure was above $15 million. Eastham noted that the total amount for the community was much, much greater than that. He said he also kept in mind the great uncertainty of predicting future flooding level; Eastham said that flood predictions have come back to haunt Iowa City in the past and he is certain they will again in the future. He said another aspect of this is that there is not a good mechanism to encourage people to assume the risk on their own and insure against future losses as opposed to the public having to step in when losses do occur. Eastham said that to him it makes sense to adopt a flood hazard elevation that is as high as can be supported and he thinks staff has done a very good job of doing that. He said that he also feels that reducing the number of residential structures in the floodplain is critical. While there is no mechanism for going back and undoing past zoning, the Commission can require elevation when individual property owners are expanding their structures or repairing them from losses. Eastham said that he finds the expectations placed on the property owners with these regulations to be reasonable and feasible. He said he supports the restrictive language and the variance for historic properties. Eastham said that the problem is not actually regulations, but the river, rainfall and nature. He said that in the case of commercial property owners there may be flood-proofing options that are more financially feasible for commercial property owners. Freerks said that unfortunately time will tell how well these regulations will work because flooding is going to happen in the future. She said she will vote in favor of it, but she is torn by some of the language in the ordinance and what is being asked of certain residents. She said that her concern is for people in the floodplain who may have small homes and low incomes, but she said these are concerns she is simply going to have to deal with. She said that staff has done an excellent job and has answered all of the Commission's questions, going above and beyond the call of duty. Freerks said she did see this as something that could be worked with in the future if it is found that some tweaks are needed. Eastham asked if any Commission member that wished to support less restrictive language would like to offer a motion so that their position was clear to the City Council. Freerks said that she feels the discussion has clearly indicated Commission member's positions, but she would not deny anyone the ability to make a motion if they so wished. Greenwood Hektoen said that the record is pretty clear at this point. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Payne opposed; Koppes absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: AUGUST 16th AND AUGUST 19th 2010: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent). Payne noted that the Attendance Record for informal meetings still needed to have her and Plahutnik's terms updated. ..--------- Planning and Zoning Commission September 2, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 10 OTHER: Miklo thanked the Commission for their hard work on the floodplain regulations, saying that the ordinance was improved based on their input. He said staff appreciated their very thorough discussion of a very difficult project. Miklo noted that Plahutnik was scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting; however, he said he saw no reason for Plahutnik to attend as the only agenda item was the second reading of the Historic Preservation guidebook. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Koppes absent). z o en ~ :Ec :EO::: 00 00 C)~ !:WO zo- OZO N<(N CC ZZ <(W <:)1- Zl- -<( Z Z <( ..J Q. N X X X w X X X - - en 0 en - X X X X X X X - co U') X X X X X X X co 'lit W W 'I"" - X X X X X - - 0 0 (D 0 W W N - X X X - X X in 0 0 (D X X X X X X X in U') W 'I"" X X X - X X X ~ 0 'I"" X X X X X X w ~ - 0 co W 'I"" - X X X X X X C;; 0 ~ X X X X X X X N 'I"" ~ X X X X X X >< 'I"" en :l!!iW T"'" T"'" C") N 1.0 1.0 C") a:::~ T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" - - - - - - - Wa.. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ~X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ~ >- - ~ W ..J <C ..J W =:) a::: m ..J ..J ~ <C z <C ..J ~ W en ~ z N ~ :l!!i 0 (.) <C ::i ~ ~ i= .., :i W C en en~ :l!!i z J <C ::.::: u.i ~ W a::: ~ a::: W =:) ~ W <C ~ W a.. z ~ :l!!i en en W a.. >- <C jjj <C =:) <C a::: 0 <C ..J Z m W LL ::.::: a.. a.. ~ C) z i= W W :l!!i ..J <C :l!!i a::: o LL (D W 'I"" X X X X 0 X X - co N X X X X X X X - co (D W W ~ X X X - X X 0 0 ..... W 'I"" 0 X X X X X X - (D ..... W W 'I"" - X X X X X - in 0 0 C") X X X X X X w in 0 N W W W 'I"" - X X 0 - X X ~ 0 0 en W W N X X X X - X - C;; 0 0 'I"" 'I"" - N en :l!!iW T"'" T"'" C") N 1.0 1.0 C") a:::~ T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" - - - - - - - Wa.. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ~X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ~ >- - ~ W ..J <C ..J W =:) a::: m ..J ..J ~ <C z <C ..J ~ en ~ z N W 0 (.) <C ::i ~ ~ :l!!i .., W (.) i= C~ :l!!i en en~ :l!!i z ..J~ <C ::.::: ~ a::: ~ a::: W u.i =:) W W <C ~ W a.. z ~ ~ :l!!i en en W a.. >- <C jjj <C =:) <C a::: 0 <C ..J Z m W LL ::.::: a.. a.. ~ C) z i= W W :l!!i ..J <C :t a::: o LL Z E ::J .... o ::J ,,0 al 0 ~z .... u..... al >< O>..c w~E ~alal CalOO:= c....alE..::: alc(/) CO (/)~..c<(o.... al..c ZO O:<(III1Z II II!:!:!~ II ><OOZ ;>.: W ~