HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-2011 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, January 31, 2011 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, February 3, 2011 - 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. Rezoning I Development Item
REZ11-00001/SUB10-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Rochester Ridge LLC for a
rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay - Low
Density Single Family (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary plat for Rochester Ridge, a 55-lot, 23.22 acre
residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue.
D. Annexation I Rezoning Item
ANN11-00001/REZ11-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by ILJ Investments for
annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for
approximately 9.71 acres of property located on the north side of Mormon Trek Blvd, northeast of its
intersection with Dane Road.
E. Comprehensive Plan Item
Set a public hearing for February 17 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Southeast
District Plan for property generally located south of Court Street, east of Sycamore Street & First
Avenue, north of Highway 6 and west of the city's eastern growth boundary.
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 13 & December 16, 2010
G. Other
H. Adjournment
Infonnal
Fonnal
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB10-00016/REZ11-00001
Rochester Ridge
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Christina Kuecker
Date: February 3, 2011
Rochester Ridge, LLC
PO Box 3474
Iowa City, IA 52244
Jesse Allen
(319)530-8238
Rezoning from RS-5 to OPD-5 and Preliminary
Plat for a 55-lot residential subdivision on 23.22
acres of land
Development of Rochester Ridge subdivision
2949 Rochester Avenue
approximately 23.22 acres
RS-5 Undeveloped
North:
South:
East:
West:
Undeveloped, ID-RS
Single Family Residential, RS-5
Single Family Residential, RS-5
Undeveloped, RS-5
Northeast District Plan: Single-family residential
similar to the surrounding housing patterns.
Potential location for open space in southeast
corner.
NE-2 Pleasant Hill/Lemme
January 4, 2011 (a complete wetland mitigation
plan is required in order to be a complete
application)
NA until a complete application is received
Sanitary Sewer can be extended from previous
development in the area
The City will provide Police and Fire protection
and refuse and recycling collection services.
2
Several Transit routes serve this area including
Rochester with stops on Rochester Avenue and
Amhurst Street, Eastside Express with stops on
Rochester Avenue, and Eastside Loop with stops
on Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The land under consideration consists of relatively flat land on the northern portion that has
been used for agricultural purposes. The southern portion consists of steeper terrain, a
wooded area, wetlands, and a USGS blue line stream. The area is currently zoned Low
Density Single Family Residential (RS-5). The applicant, Rochester Ridge LLC, is requesting
approval for the rezoning of the 23.22 acres from RS-5 to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) in order to disturb the sensitive
areas on the site, as described below. The applicant is also requesting approval for a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the preliminary plat of a 55-lot residential
subdivision with two outlots.
The Commission reviewed a previous proposal for this property, Terra Verde, in May
2010. The applicant at that time decided to withdraw the application and pursue a
development elsewhere in town.
The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have held a
neighborhood meeting.
ANAL YSIS:
Current and Proposed Zoning
The current zoning is RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential. This allows for single-
family development with minimum lot sizes of 8000 square feet. The proposed rezoning to
OPD-5, Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single Family Residential, does not
change the underlying zoning, but does provide for a Level II Sensitive Areas Review.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The land is located within the Pheasant Hill quadrant of the Northeast District Plan. The
Northeast District Plan identifies this land as appropriate for single-family residential,
similar to the housing patterns that surround it, with the possibility of cluster style
development for a portion of the property. The Northeast District Plan also makes note of
the shortage of neighborhood open space in the Pheasant Hill quadrant and identifies this
property as a good potential location for a three to five acre park that would provide
recreation opportunities and preservation of natural areas. While not public open space,
Outlot A in the proposed subdivision will provide open space for the area and maintain a
natural area.
Compatibility with neighborhood
The proposed zoning, Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family Residential
(OPD-5), will allow for a residential development with a maximum density of five dwelling
units per acre. Most of the surrounding land is zoned RS-5 and contains single-family
dwellings. Staff believes the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Subdivision Design
The applicant is also seeking approval for a 55-lot residential subdivision on this property.
The proposed subdivision includes two outlots. Outlot A contains most of the
3
environmentally sensitive features including a USGS blue line stream, drainage way, steep
and critical slopes, wooded areas, and jurisdictional wetlands. These features are also
present on some of the individual lots (39-43 and 47-55). The applicant is proposing to
use Outlot A as a storm water management basin. The applicant plans to utilize the
existing wetlands as the storm water management, creating a combined system.
However, this does not satisfy the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineering, thus
the applicant proposes to mitigate the wetlands off site to meet the Corps requirements.
A portion of the wooded area will be retained and replacement trees will be planted to
compensate for portions of the wooded areas being removed.
The block length between Amhurst Street and Tetons Circle is longer than 600'. The
subdivision regulations require a pedestrian connection when shorter block lengths cannot
be created. To this end, Outlot B contains a trail connection from the subdivision to the
newly constructed sidewalk along Rochester Avenue. A trail is also located within Outlot
A connecting Westminster Street with Lake Forest Avenue in order to break up the block
length of Westminster Street.
The applicant has proposed a subdivision with varied lot sizes. The proposed lot areas
range from approximately 8,000 square feet to approximately 18,000 square feet, with
most of the lots being in the 8,000-12,000 square feet range. The street pattern is laid
out in a manner to provide good connectivity within the subdivision, as well as provide
connectivity to future development to the west. Two of the corner lots (Lots 6 & 25) are
sized appropriately to allow duplexes to be constructed. The subdivision design generally
complies with the neighborhood principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Design
Standards and Required Improvements of the Subdivision Code.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The property contains a stream corridor, critical slopes, steep slopes, regulated wetlands,
and wooded areas. The applicant is requesting to disturb 48% of the steep slopes, 57%
of the critical slopes, 100% of the wetlands, and 89% of the wooded areas. A Level II
Sensitive Areas Review is required prior to development due to the extent of disturbance
of the environmentally sensitive features. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is considered
a type of planned development and as such must comply with the applicable approval
criteria for Planned Development Overlay.
The applicant has submitted a letter that explains the reasoning behind the impacts and
the evolution of the sensitive areas on the property. This letter is included in your packet
for review.
The applicant is trying to balance the sensitive areas with the required public
improvements. The extension of Westminster Street, the construction of the hammerhead
on Lake Forest Avenue and the Stormwater Basin construction impact the sensitive areas
greatly. In staff's belief, the applicant has attempted to minimize the amount of
disturbance, while still providing functional systems. The percentages of impact show the
total impact to the sensitive features, but a portion of this impact is due to the storage of
the stormwater basin, not necessarily construction. The table below was provided by the
applicant and shows the impact to the sensitive features due to the specific public
improvement. The percentages shown in the table are as if only one of the improvements
was constructed. For example, if only Westminster Street was constructed, 31 % of the
woodlands and 50% of the wetlands would be disturbed.
4
Woodlands
w/stormwater storage
Wetlands
w/stormwater storage
Westminster Street
Extension
2.40. acres = 31 %
Lake Forest Ave
Hammerhead
0..55 acres = 7%
Stormwater Basin
Construction
1.62 acres = 21 %
1.36 acres = 18%
0..95 acres = 47%
0..87 acres = 43%
1.0.1 acres = 50.%
0..20. acres = 10.%
Wetlands
For a property containing a regulated wetland, a Wetland Mitigation Plan is required to be
submitted along with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The mitigation plan should
delineate the wetlands and the required natural buffer area, and delineate a construction
area limit. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) strongly encourages avoiding delineated
wetland areas and minimizing the impact of development on the wetlands, and therefore
requires thorough investigation and consideration of alternative development design before
compensatory mitigation is considered. The SAO requires an undisturbed, 1DD-foot
natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland unless said
development activity is exempted.
The applicant is proposing to disturb 10.0.% of the wetlands. The applicant is proposing to
mitigate the wetlands off site, but within the Iowa River watershed. The exact location of
the wetland mitigation has not been determined. The SAO does not require that the
mitigation be provided on site, but it does require submission to and approval by the Army
Corps of Engineers for any development activity within a wetland area and any proposed
mitigation. It is staffs understanding that the Corps is no longer accepting storm water
detention combined with wetlands and that the Corps is also trying to promote larger,
regional wetlands with long term professional management rather than small wetlands
with short term amateur management. Thus, it is believed that if stormwater
management is combined with the wetlands, the Corps will require the wetlands to be
mitigated off site and any mitigation done onsite will not satisfy the Corps requirements.
The applicant has provided the Army Corps of Engineers with the wetland delineation
report and has indicated that the Corps has accepted the delineation. The applicant must
still submit the proposed mitigation to the Corps. A location and plan for the offsite
mitigation will need to be determined and approved by the Corps and the City prior to the
final plat and should be a condition of the rezoning.
Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone
and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected
sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the
protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. Given the topography of this property, it
would be difficult to provide storm water management on this property without disturbing
the wetlands.
The applicant is proposing to create a combined stormwater basin and wetland area. A
detailed maintenance plan for the area will need to be approved by the City and included
in the legal papers of the final plat. Considerable detail will need to be outlined on the
responsibilities of the developer and of the Homeowner's Association and a fee schedule
will need to be determined in order to carry out the required maintenance.
The mitigation plan is a requirement before the Sensitive Areas Development Plan can be
approved. Section 14-51-6G of the Zoning Code outlines the requirements for
Compensatory Mitigation. Any of the wetlands associated with the stream corridor are
5
required to be mitigated at a replacement ratio of 3:1 (replacement to original), the
wooded wetlands at a ratio of 2: 1, and all others at a ratio of 1: 1. These areas need to
be addressed in the Mitigation Plan. As stated in Section 14-51-6G, the Wetland
Mitigation Plan must also include:
· An assessment of the value of the wetland being replaced to determine the
appropriate replacement ratio;
· A clear statement of the goals of the mitigation plan, including specific statements
regarding the expected rate of establishment of a vegetative cover over specified
periods of time;
· Analysis of the soils, substrate, and hydrology of the proposed site of the
constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitability to provide a proper
growing medium for the proposed vegetation;
· A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native,
noninvasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as much of the
native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as well as the upper 6 to
12 inches of the soil is encouraged; and
· Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced wetland area for a
period of 5 years, and identification of the party responsible for replanting in the
event of poor initial growth or predation resulting in a failure of over 30% of the
planted stock. Information collected during the monitoring process must be
submitted to the City annually and include the following:
o Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover established in
the new or enhanced wetland;
o Wildlife presence;
o Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions, and ground and
surface water interactions; and
o Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficiencies identified
in the created or enhanced wetland, such as a failure to establish a
vegetative cover or the presence of invasive or foreign species.
The wetland mitigation plan needs to be submitted before the rezoning can be approved
and Staff recommends that our wetland consultant review the plan prior to the Planning
and Zoning Commission vote. Once the City and the Corps approve the mitigation plan,
then the mitigation and development can occur.
Stream Corridor
Currently the site includes a blue line stream on the USGS maps. The applicant proposes
essentially to eliminate the blue line stream. South of the proposed development, the
stream was buried in a culvert under Westminster Street. Approximately 150' of the
stream is located on the subject property.
Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone
and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted within protected
sensitive areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the
protected sensitive areas and associated buffers. Stream crossings, such as bridges,
roads, and culverts, are also allowed within the protected sensitive areas provided they
are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying capacity of the stream. In
Staff's view, extending Westminster Street is an essential public facility that would be
allowed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Staff also believes the piping of this portion of
the stream will have minimal impact on the flood carrying capacity of the stream since the
southern portion of this stream has already been placed in a culvert under Westminster
Street.
6
Steep and Critical Slopes
There are both steep and critical slopes located on the subject property. There are no
protected (greater than 40%) slopes on the property. The applicant is proposing to
disturb 48% of the steep slopes and 57% of the critical slopes. The grading is being
proposed to address the on-site storm water management and the construction of
Westminster Street to city street standards. In Staff's opinion the level of disturbance is
necessary to allow the construction of Westminster Street and to allow for a reasonable
level of development on this property.
Wooded Areas
There is 7.26-acre wooded area on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to
disturb 6.42 acres (88%) of this wooded area. In the RS-5 zone the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance requires that 50% of the wooded area be retained. If it is determined that the
required woodland cannot be retained, replacement trees must be planted. The
replacement tree requirement is one tree for every 200 square feet of required retention
area to be removed. Replacement trees must be approved by the City and should be of
the same or equivalent species as the trees being removed. When it is not feasible to
replace trees on-site, replacement trees may be planted to supplement reforestation of off-
site woodlands as approved by the City.
According to the SAO the applicant is required to retain 3.63 acres (122,193 square feet)
of wooded area, along with a 50' buffer or provide replacement trees. The proposed
disturbance of the wooded area is being caused by the construction and grading of the
streets and storm water management facility. The applicant is proposing to retain .84
acres (35,206 sq ft) of wooded area, along with a 50' buffer. Based on the tree
replacement calculation of one new tree for every 200 square feet of required retention
area to be removed the application is required to replant 611 trees. The applicant
proposes to do this by providing two tiers of evergreen trees as a landscape buffer along
Rochester Avenue (70 trees) and providing at least five trees on every lot (275 trees).
119 trees will be planted in Outlots A. A location for the remaining trees 147 trees will
need to be determined and could possibly be fit on the rear lotlines of the lots or on an
off-site City owned woodland area. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the
City Forester to find a suitable location for the remaining 147 replacement trees. The
applicant has submitted a tree replacement plan that shows approximately where the
replacement trees noted above will be planted.
There is also a grove of trees along Rochester Avenue. The City Forester has identified
several of the trees that he recommended be protected and saved. The applicant has
provided a tree protection plan that shows these trees being protected during
construction.
Traffic implications, access, and street design:
The proposed subdivision will be accessed from the north off Rochester Avenue by Tetons
Circle, from the east by an extension of Lower West Branch Road, and from the south by
an extension of Westminster Street. Westminster Street has been extended to the west
property line to provide connectivity to the property to the west when it develops.
Lower West Branch Road is currently not constructed west of Amhurst Street. The
developer will be responsible for constructing this portion of the Lower West Branch Road.
The Fire Department has also requested that the developer construct a turn around at the
end of Lake Forest Avenue, which is being shown on the plat.
7
Some of the proposed lots along Rochester Avenue (1-7 and 26-31) are double fronting
lots. The subdivision regulations discourage such lots. If such lots cannot be avoided the
following standards apply:
1 Lots with multiple frontages shall be 125% of the required lot area for the zone.
Corner lots with only two frontages are exempt from this requirement. In this
case, the minimum lot area in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet. Double frontage
lots are required to be 10,000 square feet.
· Lots 1-6 and 32-27 meet this requirement.
2 Double and triple frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear-building
facades oriented toward an arterial street shall provide a minimum 20-foot wide
landscaped buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall be
planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation and shall be required
along with other public improvements for the property. No solid fences are allowed
within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement
and on the plat.
· All the lots along Rochester Avenue (1-7 and 26-31) must meet this
requirement
· A landscape buffer is shown along Rochester Avenue on the plat.
Two cul-de-sacs are being shown on the plat. Cul-de-sacs are discouraged unless
topography or surrounding development prohibits the roads from going through. The
development south of the proposed subdivision also features cul-de-sacs and back lot lines
currently abut the southern boundary of Rochester Ridge. In addition, the topography in
Outlot A is quite steep and the feasibility of constructing a road through this area is
questionable. Both cul-de-sacs are designed as low volume cul-de-sacs, providing access
to only 10 lots. Although 11 lots are shown abutting the cul-de-sac at Tetons Circle,
there is a note on the plat that requires lot 33 to access Westminster Street, so only 10
are being provided driveway access to the cul-de-sac. A low volume cul-de-sac features a
22' wide pavement width, 50' ROW, and parking on only one side.
At Amhurst Street the ROW width for Lower West Branch Road is 68' and the proposed
ROW width within Rochester Ridge is 60'. As the developer will be responsible for
constructing Lower West Branch Road from Amhurst Street through the subdivision, staff
recommends it be constructed as if there was a 60' ROW for the entire length. This
provides for a consistent distance between the road paving and the sidewalk the entire
length of the road from Amhurst Street to Tetons Circle. This has been shown on the
plat.
In addition, the City recently undertook a sidewalk infill project in the area and constructed
the sidewalk along Rochester Ave abutting this property.
Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of
Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to
dedicate 0.5 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The Parks and
Recreation Commission reviewed the plat, determined that there is not property within the
subdivision that is suitable for neighborhood open space, and decided to accept fees in
lieu of parkland dedication.
Storm water management
The plan shows a stormwater management basin located within proposed Outlot A, which
also includes the existing wetland area. The City Engineer has identified a larger
8
stormwater problem in this area because of the lack of stormwater management
requirements with previous subdivision. It is believed that the construction of the
stormwater basin in this location will help alleviate some of the existing stormwater
problems by redirecting and slowing down the flow of stormwater.
As noted above the Army Corps of Engineers will need to approve the wetland mitigation
plan. In the absence of Corps approval, the wetland and storm water management will
need to be redesigned. Because of the more complicated nature of a combined wetland
and stormwater basin, a detailed maintenance plan and fee schedule will need to be
developed and included in the legal papers for the Homeowner's Association to allow for
future maintenance of Outlot A.
Infrastructure fees: sanitary sewer and water main
Water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required. The applicant will also be required
to construct Lower West Branch Road and the adjacent sidewalks from Amhurst Street to
the proposed subdivision and to provide an emergency vehicle turn around at the end of
Lake Forest Avenue.
Summary
Given the topography and surrounding development, Staff believes that the general design
of the subdivision is appropriate and is compatible with the neighborhood. However, the
wetlands and other sensitive areas present a challenge. Staff believes that the overall
benefit of improved stormwater management for the neighborhood, street connectivity, and
infill development justifies the level of disturbance proposed. By the developer delicately
balancing the infrastructure needs with the sensitive areas, this subdivision could be a good
fit into the neighborhood.
In the absence of a complete Wetland Mitigation Plan, it is premature to approve the
subdivision and rezoning. Based on the initial review and observations, it is likely reasonable
for the storm water management to be handled in the location of the wetlands, but without
the Mitigation Plan a final determination can not be made.
In addition, a detailed maintenance plan and fee schedule will need to be developed and
included in the legal papers for the Homeowner's Association to allow for future
maintenance of Outlot A. The applicant also needs to determine a location for the remaining
147 replacement trees
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ11-00001, rezoning of approximately 23.22 acres located at
2949 Rochester Avenue from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development
Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) and SUB1 0-00016, a preliminary plat of
Rochester Ridge, a 55-lot, approximately 23.22-acre residential subdivision with two
outlots, located at 2949 Rochester Avenue, be deferred pending a wetland mitigation plan
being submitted.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1) Wetland Mitigation Plan
2) Lots width on Lots 12-14, 21-23, 26-27, 32, 36-39, 41, 43-44, 46-50 need to be
shown on the plat.
3) Outlot B needs to be included in Phase 1 note on the plat
4) The proposed tree replacement calculations are incorrect and need to be corrected
9
5) City Engineer is reviewing the revised plat and any comments will need to be
addressed
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Plat
3. Correspondence from Applicant
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~~
\0
....
o
o
o
I
o
....
m
::)
U)
-.....
....
o
o
o
o
I
....
....
N
W
~
~
Cj
~
~
~
~
Cj
CD-
c::: c- 0
CD l:: 0'-
Q3E-c:::D.
:::r::: CD (j
-.JV)
en
a:
I
C
0)
Cl
"'C
~
It)
C
C.
o
<\\ ~c0--nr=
/~-~~)
'-' (Il~
::Jo...
o
::J
<(
r,..-- -- -...,'
\'- ?
--=--1(
"\ \
"
s-
O)
..,
Vl
0)
..c
u
~
..
Z
o
....
8
o
....
w
I-
....
U)
-
i i I i
i 'r i ~
1'1 II!-I
, d III
'Pilp Ii i
I. IIII I I q
Z I i"'l i i I
~ i' IiI! I~ II 9
...:l II '!I! !I . . !
0-. S:I!!!!~i~~~
E--<
Z
~:;+* ~:!
0-. l .a!
o ;1
...:l~
g;: '" .~~
~ t"'\ lIE
~ ";e
~ ~ ~ ~Iu
o::~;s::
~~B ~
g;~ ~ ~h ~ ~
>-<~ E--< 81= ~t~
E--< >-<U. · II~t
>-< "Ii it
~ ~ ~ ~hE ~~
~~;S::
(/)~O I;
Qt-!-4>-< q R
~ u ili~ I;~
O 8.5 o.
E--< a!E ~~~
j~
0-.
>-< II,
0::,
~i:i
2:i I!!
::::s Iii
am
0:: ~I~~
O-.nf
JM I
,- ~
'7'~ ~L
- ~ '~~~
~' ~,...~~-
(ffi~,...,..:'s.'" .,:,
<1J .....'
.._J
I ____
'~~
ij1'.~~~.~
E-<
Z
~
~ ".l:i~
~ ~ T ~~I
~c.)
Q r'\ ~Ii
rnl--4 I~=
~ ':"1 .~~
~~ ~ Ili~
~~2 I
b~~
........ L"""" E-<
rnr"........
Z'-'..JU
~~<
rnl-T-4~
Q~O
~U""""
E-<O
~~
>-< lis ,1=;
~ III ·
<it:
Z.!I
........ ui
5 iii
~ ll!l
0.. !:II .j
Ii.: II
~i~
~~ffi
_z~
E--<
Z
~~~'I
p., ..
o 'Il!
.....:1 r . ., :.
g:~ .
1::il0 ~M~
~ I~~
rn Q .~~
rj ':'1 <:r: ~~.=
~ ~ ~ ~b.
<:r:~B I
~ ~ >-<-
E--<~t:
U3 V".J U
Zr.., <:r:
I::il~~
rn I-T-4 0
~~.....
~U
E--<O
~~
~ III II~I
;2 i:; .I
..... I!I
;:21"
~In
~ II!~
p., Iii! '
1M I
,n m__/-nn______._ ~I
I:: ( ,./ ,/ :,!'j ~
, " ,. i-4jt
!: in (~i' 'I
I;, " , , I; i-
1"1"; ~
~ ~ ~ Mg ~
~. 'i .~~;
;; b~ !B~!
~ a '~e :Iii
i Ih d~.
Ii ~ m ii;~1
I; ., "11h
illlIlbl -'
~ I ~~I .,i:~
~ " ; ~ ;:::
. ~ "1
l ~.i
! ~ ',i;~
. a J 8,
r~i~g..
5~~~nh
d.~~II~
~.bi. ..
;~Il~' ..
~nli~l~
n~~ !Ii~i
z u!
-0::
-1
P-.
e-
z
"'"
:::s
P-.
o
-1
g:
"'"
~
..~ \
I
~rl" ",1111 \\'-
-, ~ ~\ .I11l.! \'\,'" - ' ""\'1
~ l'J ~~~ ,'-"\'. '. ,'-- ii!;----'" ,
,-, ,......., si=. IIIIII1I1 !Ii \, III ''\\ "" ',' "0 ','
~ 1--04 ~a" I I ji;" \ \', ,": :
~ ~ <I:: ~I~~ a.. q I "I \\... :' ,:
fg~~ u !~II~III~1 \:'1-:\'~wm-'Y('"
~ ~ 8 I ~ i'DtEJi@@@ ~i t"2J--ly}i{-tt~~l~~~,~,"-'^ '
~ ~ __ ~I i :1, \\\'>tit7M~~t)-::1l[ll--l -- ,
~ ~ t; H q ~ I e, - \:\1)irr "'~~,,: m 'i
-1 ~ u .h Bsi ~ t I I I III \ j , '\ l-'-' ~
o v:J -If;' llif;' il I I iii 'f --, (~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ lIu B~i I I iI II ! Ul \ '. ~~J
8 ::c: 8 q Ii' 11111 III!! -----,~\ -\\ L.' ff~~f
~ U !Iii ;;i llt]~..~li f>.#lir;l~JlLr__, c~t
o 0 ~.f;' l.fl --,-1/ I, ~-,
0:: ~ ni ~gi ! I II h ~r
"'" ~ ~ i! ~ I I I' i~ i.
g ~ lb' I! m L I I U .! I ~ II ; I II rnTI.'.':. ~
..... ~ lliill I ,. I ~~; LlliJ ~
~ ~~ .1 ~ '" "'" "~ m~!~~~~, ",' " , '" , ! ~ ~ ~ ~ lill !? ;
" t~:i! ;; III I I! ,tmt.oM<<o.'UIIII! \ i "II,', ~
"'" ~:I ~ '1" : II' ..'j'. " m I
~ - ~ illll: l~tm'o"'o'r I1II ! ! 0
'i
': II
II ~ rl<<i
II I 'I:!! '1m:" 1& i
I ,. !!! ;!!, ,~
.". .". .,-; II
& J . ;
" ',. Is. Ii' Ii .1 ,
I! > .; > .11 .PHI
I , "i" ; ~, ; " j! I
III ~:tll : tll ' II .: j>
Ii ! :1111 ;ilill;l~ ;~ II
! II ! I"t,! i! '~I
UI~ !ll~i; II !!il
~ !I!:~ II ~Iill ~i ~h;
~ II' II =Hi 'I ill
! !iI!i lli ili;~llj! illl
1,111 1111'1" 1'1/;11
III,' II' 111'1 I II'
~lhl ! I .iI!! !.l ~.h
I~' I" IM5i I. I III I
!;l Ii ;!! III ~i iii' I
,d "', ""I ~ ill '" i
Ig, I' ",J- ~ I'll"
~ I~I '1'1:; 1!lii ill .: i~!1 t
",I I "ll'"~' d, ' ,.
II !ll Ii' 11111.'1>1 AI 'll~ 'ft
,~l Ii: !:II.: i~ jl lih Ii
llil Il'l N'! l!;'i ~! hI' U
!!!, ~ h :"I.!d ~. ~ll!:,
M
M
~
L'
>
z
o
<Zl
c:::
;.l
<
tI1
-<
o
;.l
<Zl
L'
>
z
o
'""
L'
>
~
tI1
;>:l
<Zl
L'
>
z
o
<Zl
n
>
'""
tI1
>
;>:l
n
:r:
~
...,
<Zl
~
<
;a
o
z
i:::
~
~
L'
<Zl
'""
tI1
n
;;
L'
1i'.i
...,
<Zl
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
I
IOWA CITY IOWA
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
Your Vision + Our Innovation = I1lspired Results
January 4,2011
Project # 7596-038
n
:;:
t=
~
o
Z
tI1
tI1
;>:l
<Zl
City of Iowa City
Attn: Christina Kuecker
410 E Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Rochester Ridge - located at 2949 Rochester Ave. Iowa City
Dear Christina:
MMS Consultants, Inc., on behalf of our client, Rochester Ridge LLC, has conducted a Level II
Sensitive Areas Review on the 23.22 acres ofland located at 2949 Rochester Avenue. It is our client's
intent to develop the land into a residential subdivision. The subdivision will be composed of 55 lots and
one 4.53 acre outlot. The proposed development is a logical "in fill" development and existing zoning and
lot sizes are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The northern boundary ofthe site is
Rochester Avenue.
The acreage's use dating back to the 1930's (see left image)
had been predominantly agricultural. The northern and
southwestern areas of the property were tilled for crops while the
southeast area was used for livestock pasture. During the early
1970's a residential subdivision, Oakwoods Addition, was built
just to the east of this ground At the time, the City ofIowa City did
not have a Stormwater Management plan in place. When building
Amhurst St, a portion of Oakwoods Addition, the developers
placed one of two stormwater drainage pipes at the end of Lake
Forest A venue. The other drainage pipe was placed approximately
170' north of the pipe on Lake Forest Avenue. Prior to this
residential development there was no prevalent evidence of
1930's aerial of 2949 Rochester Ave wetlands or woodlands on the acreage based on aerial photography
and soils maps.
After the development of Amhurst Street, the area which was once pasture, was allowed to become
overgrown with invasive species of trees. Stormwater from the two drainage pipes off of Amhurst and
Lake Forest created runoff problems along Hastings Avenue. A small berm was built in the 1970's across
the waterway to help with the runoff problems. This helped create a manmade wetland area. Over the next
30 years invasive species of wetland vegetation began to flourish on the former pasture land. Reed canary
grass and cattails became the dominant wetland species. Both species of grasses being known for their
abilities to dominate and create monocultures were few plant species can grow. They provide little use to
wildlife and reduce over all habitat value.
Over the past 30 years fast growing and aggressive trees such as box elder, osage orange and black
cherry have grown around the wetland as well as in the upland portion of the property. Although these
trees are native, they are most commonly known for their ability to grow quickly and reproduce, often
competing with more desirable and vulnerable woodland species of oak, hickory and walnut. In essence
allowing these invasive trees to flourish does not promote plant diversity in a woodland setting.
1917 S. GILBERT ST.' IOWA CITY' IOWA 52240
WEBSlTE: WWW.MMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET
1
As mentioned earlier, the property is surrounded on three sides by large residential developments.
These developments in effect limit the quality and reproduction of any valuable woodlands or wetlands on
the property. The majority of storm water from the Oakwoods development goes directly into the wetland
area and can cause flash flooding. This in turn creates an ideal setup for flooding issues for the residences
along the north side of Hastings Avenue.
The intention of our client, as stated earlier, is to develop a residential subdivision. According to
City ordinance a stormwater management plan must be approved prior to the approval and development of
this site. Since the surrounding subdivisions were developed prior to the municipal design standards
requiring storm water management, the location and design for the Rochester Ridge storm water
management is very critical. The basin would not only have capacity for the new development, but it
would also hold runoff from Amhurst Drive as well, in turn discouraging any further flooding issues for
residents of Hastings Avenue and Westminster Street. In accordance with City standards, a stormwater
basin of approximately 1.4 acres would have to be constructed due to the fact that the basin will not only
be collecting stormwater for Rochester Ridge but the surrounding subdivisions as well. The customary
position to locate the proposed storm water basin is in the natural low area located in the southeast comer
of the proposed subdivision. As a result, the required storm water storage volume and location of the basin
will impact a majority of the woodlands as well as the wetlands. Any additional wetlands will be impacted
during large storm events when the basin stores and releases stormwater runoff, per city design standards.
During the conceptual design phase of Rochester Ridge, a City staff review was conducted as well
as various meetings with the staff. It was determined by staff that the existing Westminster Street must be
extended north through the proposed Rochester Ridge Subdivision. Currently located at the northern end
of Westminster Street are numerous utilities; municipal water main, sanitary sewer, storm sewer etc. All of
which have been stubbed out for the future northern extension of Westminster into a proposed subdivision.
With the required extension of not only Westminster Street but the public utilities as well, several sensitive
features will be impacted. The construction and extension of the street and public improvements will in
particular impact the existing stream corridor not to mention the existing wooded area and wetlands.
Our client will mitigate to address the impact on the sensitive areas. The ideal situation
would be to mitigate off site for the woodland and wetland areas. This would in turn provide an area large
enough to accommodate native plant and tree populations which could sustain biological diversity and
wildlife habitat.
The proposed Rochester Ridge subdivision will be located in an area surrounded by residential
subdivisions on three sides, all within City limits. Placement of the surrounding subdivisions as well as
City comments stating the future intent of the extension of Westminster Street to the north leads one to
believe that the City would like this area to be developed residentially, to essentially fill in the gap.
Allowing the development to move forward would allow the City to combat flooding issues that has
occurred in the residences located along Hastings Avenue. Adequate city services including, sanitary
sewer, water main, public transportation and public sidewalks are all readily available for extension into
the parcel in turn making Rochester Ridge a is very desirable and logical location for a new development
in the City of Iowa City.
Enclosure: Impact table
Historical Aerials
Contours Exhibit
cc: Mayor
City Council
Planning & Zoning
T:\7596\ 7596-038-\7596038L2.DOC
2
Impact Table
Westminster Lake Forest Stormwater Basin
Street Avenue Construction
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Trees impacted bv grading 1.47 = 19% 0.16 = 2% 0.77 = 10%
Trees with 50' buffer area 0.93 = 12% 0.39 = 5% 0.85 = 11%
Total 2.4= 31% 0.55 = 7% 1.62 = 21%
Wetland Impacts with grading 0.57 = 28% 0.05 = 2% 0.41 = 20%
Wetlands with 100' buffer 0.44 = 22% 0.15 = 7% 0.54 = 27%
Total 1.01 = 50% 0.20 = 9% 0.95 = 47%
Trees impacted with storage N/A N/A 0.55 = 7%
Trees with 50' buffer area N/A N/A 0.81 = 10%
Total 1.36 = 17%
Wetlands impacted with storage N/A N/A 0.67 = 33%
Wetlands within 100' buffer N/A N/A 0.20 = 10%
Total 0.87 = 43%
3
r~
[
CIl
Q)
......
U
Q)
~
CIl
:j
o
~ ......
1C':l ~
Q) >
1-<.......
~ 0
.....c::
bl ~
'0\ 0
0\ I-<
,..... bJ:)
~
I-<
bJ:)
o
I-<
0..
.....
5
s
Q)
bJ:)
C':l
~
S
~
~
.....
~
u
""C:l
g
CIl
CIl
ell
l-<
b.O
~
g
u
""C:l
il)
il)
l-<
vi
il)
il)
l-<
.....
l-<
il) vi
""C:l il)
- ....
il) U
~ il)
o 0..
2:l':;';
ell 0 g
@~~
o 0 ~
...... l-< il)
V) b.O >
I QJ.;...oj
lI'll....c: CIl
= ..... ell
= 0 ~
M .........
il)
....c:
.....
o
.....
""C:l
ell
o
l-<
::l""C:l
CIl il)
>-~
~
l-<
.....
]
ell
....c:
.....
.~
b.O
q
o
Cil
CIl
il)
""C:l
....
CIl
il)
il)
l-<
....c:
.....
q
o
1.\'f'V
wtr;-"fj'~
, ,.
'"\' r-'(1....--.f. ""'31t:F-. . ~ i'" ':C ~'::O:
\ : I" ,"'--~...:;. ;.;"... ~ r;=-...,,"', ~./ ,J~ ~ \ ~ ., -'..
.. I ? I ~....- ..._~_l1.:'i" . . ii' t \ .. . ;:. E ..
.. I /'i~/ "'~ _~:~ -",' \' '. I \. ......_~I . ~....
~' ,..>~~\\ -.~::::;tJt;. \\\\\;~W;!\!{*t~~\~:~
~ '/.~::: ~ : \ : /'\\\\\\ \\:<\:'.\\ >..:-:..:::.''': (~..
t :\(.~:t:1'Y J/ \~it~~~(~~~:~::~~~~\~!~,~~~<-/~~~~~~~~{ ~~~~
= ,,'.. " "''''.'~' _ 0"... ,---- ~
o '" I,'.'.',. I '. J \~~:\~:"::--:/:./_) i \ \ " ", '~i~'
~ I ii~,:;t. / / '.::~:~i\~~~~~~:~;;~;~1~~~:j~;:),~ A
'1 ;U, " . ',' ---.---' , r1l~
, .
o
o
...
o
"0
,.e
" ...
.. 0
,.- u
><: ~
'I</>'~
:~~~~~"~&j
.. ,......
.. " \0
',I 0'1
,,' ,.......oj
.....::.......-
~ ,.. n_.__' , " _ _ __ '" _ _' _ I ij
<\..... ,,>"-'~~:>:-:)~4.%~~~{fl%P~~:---'-~~"-~::~~: :~::~ ~~~~~~~~~:~~:: f~
I Cl)
1573
u 1::
~o
e ~
;::l ;::l
CIl CIl
""Ij .....
....... 0
Cl) ~
<..::: 0 '"'
;>"""Ij 0
.0 CIl ""Ij
.....
""Ij I-< I-<
Cl) ;::l I-<
I-< 0 0
Cl) -s u
~ ~
..... 0
gbu Cl)
~ ~ I-<
.....
O""lj CIl
..... -s Cl)
~ .5
S Cl)
I-< .......
I-< I-< Cl)
..a ;::l .E
~u .0
...... u:i ~
CIl P. ......
I-< Cl 0
;::l Cl)
0 ~ u
-s ..... ~
.~ Cl)
0 .....
u ""Ij CIl
Cl) '><
0 ..... Cl)
.-l U Cl)
0 ;::l 73
N ""Ij
I CIl
Ol'.l~
o ~.~
0.. I-< ~
o Ol'.l ~
.:: .8 0
o 0 ~
tt::~CIl
o 0.. Cl)
""Ij til .5
<U ....... I""""""l
CIl I-< Cl)
~ Cl) ;::l
.o~""'"
~ S ~
.S 8 Lt'l
.....4-i\O
~ CIl 0\
S ""Ij .-l
I-< 0 ~
..a ~ .....
,sti""lj
S~
,...., u u
ca-'..... Cl)
'<:::' I-< ~
,.,:; ti u
u S ""Ij
;E ~ ~ '"'
~ I-< p., 0
5b~~:g
o ..... \0 I-<
,...., 0 0\ 0
o~ .-l U
8 0...5
~ Z 5 ~
u:l 0.. ~ ~
~ r:.s 05
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Lorin Ditzler, Planning Intern
Item: ANN 11-00001 /REZ11-00004
Date: February 3, 2011
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
ILJ Investments, Inc.
1085 Ginkgo Avenue
P.O. Box 545
Wellman, Iowa 52356
319-646-6093
Contact:
Dave Larsen
277 Hickory Street
Kalona, Iowa 52247
319-656-5271
Requested Action:
Annexation and Rezoning
Purpose:
To allow the property to be incorporated into the city
and rezone it to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
Location:
On the north side of Mormon Trek Boulevard east of
Dane Road
Size:
9.71 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
County Rural (A)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
West: Undeveloped - (CI-1)
North: Residential and agricultural - County (R) and (A)
East: Agricultural - County (A)
South: Residential and agricultural - County (R) an (A)
Comprehensive Plan:
Commercial Office or Intensive Commercial
File Date:
January 13, 2011
45 Day Limitation Period:
No limitation with annexation
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant has requested annexation to Iowa City. The land consists of 9.71 acres on the north
side of Mormon Trek Boulevard, just east of Dane Road. The property shares its western border
with the Iowa City corporate limit. The land is currently used for agriculture. The outlot was
created during the second subdivision of Meadowlark Hill in 2010, and was designated for
development after annexation.
2
ANAL YSIS:
Annexation
The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide the decisions regarding
annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary
petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be reviewed
under the following three criteria:
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
The City's long range planning boundary is defined as the area for which sanitary sewer
service can be provided. The subject property is located adjacent to the City's corporate limit
and within the City's long-range planning boundary. A general growth area limit is illustrated
in the Comprehensive Plan and on the zoning map.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without
imposing an undue burden on the City.
There is an identified need for additional land to provide for future commercial growth. The
land under consideration for annexation is a logical extension of the existing commercial
area, and its location along Mormon Trek Boulevard makes it a reasonable site for
development.
3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest.
The South Central district plan has identified a need for additional land for commercial
development. Under County jurisdiction, development is limited by lack of sewer and water
services. Annexation will allow the land to be developed in a manner consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and will ensure adequate traffic circulation and efficient provision of
public services, such as water and sewer. Therefore, control of this property's development
is in the City's best interest. .
The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively
when the above conditions exist. In staff's view, these conditions have been met for this voluntary
annexation request.
Rezoning
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The South Central District Future Land Use Scenario (as amended in 2003) supports intensive
commercial or office park use (CI-1 or CO-1) for the subject property upon annexation. The property
to the east is designated for future industrial development. The CI1 or C01 zone are intended to
serve as a transition from the future industrial area. 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 encourage future development and employment opportunities in
the district. The proximity of the subject property to existing commercial uses and its location along
Mormon Trek Boulevard make it attractive as a space for commercial development, as outlined in the
South Central District Plan.
Requested Zonina
The Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) is designed to provide areas for businesses that are land-
intensive or light industrial in nature. These businesses characteristically require space for
outdoor storage and display of merchandise. Typical uses in the CI-1 zone include vehicle sales
and repair; small scale manufacturing operations; warehousing and industrial service uses. CI-1
3
zone uses are generally not compatible with residential and less-intensive zones. Consequently, CI-
1 zones are typically located within major commercial areas to provide adequate vehicular access,
but are ideally shielded visually, geographically, or topographically from less-intensive zones.
The proposed CI1 zone is intended to provide areas for sales and service functions and businesses
whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor storage of merchandise, by repair and sales
of large equipment or motor vehicles.
ComlJatibilitv with Neiqhborhood
The subject property is situated near undeveloped CI1 property to the west (this adjacent property
was rezoned from C01 to CI1 in 2010). The property to the east is zoned County A. As noted
above the Comprehensive Plan designates it for industrial development after annexation.
The properties to the south are zoned County Residential (R) and Agricultural (A). The
commercial site development standards contained in the zoning code will require that any surface
parking lots or out door storage areas be screened to at least the S3 standard (5 to 6' high hedge
at least 50% evergreen) if they abut residential zoned properties.
The property to the north is zoned County Agricultural (A) and Residential (R). It contains a
residence and is intended to be dedicated as park land in the future. When the property to the
west was rezoned from C01 to CI1 a conditional zoning agreement was put in place to require a
20 foot wide landscape buffer and a 30 foot high limitation on outdoor lighting to help provide an
appropriate transition to the existing residence and potential park. Staff recommends that similar
conditions be place on this proposed CI1 zone.
Streets and Traffic Circulation
Mormon Trek Boulevard is an arterial street and is appropriate to handle traffic generated from
intensive commercial uses. However, it is important to minimize access points on arterial streets. To
assure adequate spacing between intersections a maximum of 3 curb cuts would be appropriate for
this property. One should align with Dane Road. Another location for a curb cut or a future street
would be along the east property line. One additional curb cut may be appropriate between these two
locations. If this property is subdivided into multiple properties a cross access easement will be
required to allow shared access to Mormon Trek Boulevard. The locations of streets, drives and
easements will be addressed in more detail if this property is subdivided or when a site plan is
reviewed.
Infrastructure:
Adequate infrastructure exists for development of this property into intensive commercial uses.
Sanitary sewer and water lines are located in Mormon Trek Boulevard. Due to the size and
importance of the water and sanitary sewer lines in the vicinity of this project, at the time of
subdivision, the developer will need to construct lateral water and sanitary sewer mains. The
individual lot taps will be made off of these laterals. There will be a standard water main extension
fee of $395 per acre.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that ANN11-0001 / REZ11-00004, an application to annex and rezone
approximately 9.71 acres of land on Mormon Trek Boulevard east of Dane Road be approved
subject to a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the north property line that at a minimum meets S3
screening standards and a 30 foot high limitation on outdoor lighting.
4
ATTACHMENT:
Location Map ~~
Approved by: ~~~
Robert Miklo, ~enior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
llIlt
o
o
o
o
I
PI
PI
N
LLI
~
.......
PI
o
o
o
o
I
PI
PI
Z
Z
c(
a
,..
Q.
c:
o
.u)
:>
\:J
.0
::J
U')
\:J
c:
o
u
Q)
U')
....
o
o
,..
-
o
"f()
'}..
~~
~~'<'
J:
~
~
co
::
o
\:J
co
Q)
~
...
<C
..,
o
P
::J
o
..
z
o
5
o
...
LLI
I-
....
~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL
CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Tim
Weitzel, Wally Plahutnik, Josh Busard, Michelle Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Walz
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ10-00013/ SUB10-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Casey Boyd,
LLC for a preliminary plat and a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay-
Medium Density Single Family (OPD-8) plan for Hickory Pointe, 2nd Addition, a 1-lot, 2.97
acre residential subdivision located on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue.
Walz explained that this property had been rezoned to OPD-RS8 in 2008. At that time the plan
was for three sets of townhouses with six units each. The grading required for that project
turned out to be more extensive than originally thought. The previous plan would have required
grading all along the lot and as well as for a rear access road coming in off of Hickory Trail and
then back out First Avenue.
The new plan is for one building with 16 units. This plan calls for one access point off of Hickory
Trail with parking primarily underground. There is still a considerable amount of grading
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 13, 2010 - Informal
Page 2 of 3
involved, but the grading is confined to a smaller portion of the lot. Walz said that a large
retaining wall will be required to run along Hickory Trail and the First Avenue right-of-way. Walz
said that the application is to rezone the 2.97 acres from three lots into one combined lot in
order to build only one building. Walz said that the project does comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan as it provides a mix of housing and multi-
family development along First Avenue, an arterial street.
Walz said that the density of this project maxes-out what would be allowed in an RS-8 zone.
She said that the massive scale of the building has been broken up with the design of the
fac;ade.
Miklo said that staff had been concerned about the size and height of the retaining wall required
for the project; however, they feel that if the materials are carefully selected it could blend into
the neighborhood. Staff shared photos of examples of retaining walls in town that are natural
and attractive in appearance. Miklo said that the staff recommendations are for staff and/or
Commission approval for the design and materials of the wall.
Plahutnik asked if the project was on the bus route. Walz said she believed it was.
Payne asked if the rear entrance would pose a problem for fire protection. Walz said the
application has been reviewed by the Fire Department several times and no concerns have
been expressed; however, staff indicated that they would review the matter prior to the formal
meeting. Payne said that the retaining wall could pose a problem for fire-fighting even if the
building was within the required distance of a street.
Koppes asked if the building was condominiums or apartments and Miklo replied that there is no
distinction between the two for zoning purposes.
Eastham asked what the retaining wall was actually retaining. Walz said that the land will be
built up behind the building and the retaining '^fC/I!1 will hold back the additional dirt. Eastham
asked if there were examples of similar buildings/sites in the city. Freerks said that Walden
Place could be considered similar.
Eastham asked about the proposal for maintenance of a natural prairie on the site and whether
the City had experience with that at other sites. Miklo said that he did not know that there were
many prairies that were overseen by homeowner's associations, but that there have been a
number of wetlands that were maintained in that way. Miklo said that staff would suggest
attempting to blend the prairie area into the neighboring ACT prairie restoration project. Walz
said that there is an expectation that the area will be managed and not be allowed to turn into
weeds. Walz said that the area of the property adjacent to Hickory Hill is fairly wooded and the
planned prairie area is further north.
Plahutnik said that as he recalled the previous plan there had been an outdoor recreational area
for tenants that seems to have disappeared from this plan. Walz said that was correct. She
said that the trade-off is that there is a greater amount of natural-looking open space in this
plan.
Eastham asked if the number of parking spaces being provided was the minimum required by
code. Miklo said there were a few extra spaces in the plan, and Walz noted there would be
off-street parking on Hickory Hill Trail.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 13, 2010 - Informal
Page 3 of 3
Freerks asked if there had been neighborhood meetings and Walz said that some had taken
place quite a while ago. The applicant noted that there had been 20 units proposed at the time
of the neighborhood meetings and now there were only 16 proposed. Freerks said that her
understanding was that the primary concern at that time had been the traffic on Hickory Trail.
The applicant said the primary concern had been the appearance of the units and whether they
would detract aesthetically from Hickory Hill Park; secondarily, there had been some traffic
concerns.
OTHER:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes moved to adjourn.
Weitzel seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote.
z
Q
en
en
:\!:c
:\!:~
00
UU
C)w
z~
-wo
zU't"'"
Ozo
N<(N
CC
ZZ
<(w
C)1-
~~
Z
Z
:5
D.
co
't"'"
-
N
't"'"
I
N
N XXXXXXX
't"'"
ClO
;: XXXXXXX
't"'"
't"'"
~ XX~XXXX
't"'"
~ XXXX~XX
co w
ai XOXXXXX
N W
a; XXXOXXX
en
:!: XXXXXXX
ClO
~ XXXXXXX
C)
Z
i=
W
W
:E
...I
<
:E
D::
o
u..
~ ~XXXXX~
~ ~XXX~XX
co
i:n XXXXXXX
I/) W
~ XXXOXXX
~ XXXXXX~
ClO W
~ OXXXXXX
~ XXXXXXX
't"'"
~ XXXXXX X
't"'"
en
:EW
D::D::
WD..
1-><
W
..........MC\lLOLOM
.,- ~ .,- .,- or- .,- .,-
"""- ........ -... -..... ........ -.... -....
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
0000000
W J: >
<...I tuW::l
::J~ m::l<
~J:~~~3::E
O(.)<..J(.)~-
.., ~w-_I-
e:Een ~:EZJ
a:::<~en ~I-w
W <J:a:::WW::JN
:E enl-w8:ZJ:1-
< ~~~o~~~
Z .... W u.. ~ D.. D.. >
M
:!:X XX XX XX
N
't"'"
en
~X XX xl:!:! XX
't"'" 0
't"'"
~w xl:!:! xx l:!:!x
--
't"'"O 0 0
't"'"
:!w xl:!:! xl:!:! x
o- X
't"'"O 0 0
co W
't"'" X X X X - X X
- 0
ClO
N X X X X X
- X X
ClO
co W W
~ X X X - X X -
r-.. 0 0
r-.. W
't"'" -- X X X X X X
co 0
r-.. W W
't"'" - X X X X X -
i:n 0 0
M X X X X X X W
- --
I/) 0
N W W W
't"'" - X X - -- X X
~ 0 0 0
en w w
~ X X X X -- X --
M 0 0
't"'"
't"'"
-
N
en
:EW ..... ..... M C\l LO LOM
D::~ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
wD.. -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LO LO LO LO LO LOLO
1->< 0 0 0 0 0 00
W
W J: >
- I-
< ...I W W ...I
::J D:: m ...I ...I
J: < Z ~ ...I <
en J: Z W ~:E
0 (.) < ::i J:
~ ~-
.., en W -l-
e ~ en :E Z ~
~ 1-...1
W a::: J: a::: W u.i ::JW
< I- W D.. Z J:~
:E en en W D.. ~ <-
< ::J < a::: 0 ..JW
Z m W u.. ~ D.. D..3:
C)
Z
i=
W
W
:E
...I
<
:E
D::
o
u..
Z
E
::J
....
o
::J
-00
0) 0
~ z....
(.) -- 0)
x g'..o
L.U:;::;E
:;:'0)0)
_ co)"'"
C-O)E":::
0) C en co
en~:90-
O)..o.....z 0
0: <( II II Z
II II L.U::2 II
xoozi
;;..:
L.U
~
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 16, 2010 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA HARV AT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT:
Casey Boyd, Ron Amelon, Scott Rude
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of REZ10-00013 & SUB10-00012, an
application submitted by Casey Boyd to amend the current Overlay Planned
Development Medium-Density Single-Family Housing (OPD-RS8) zone and approve a
preliminary plat 'of Hickory Pointe for approximately 2.97 acres of property located on the
east side of First Avenue at the intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail subject to
the following:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted;
2. An accessible pedestrian route be provided between the Hickory Trail right-of-way
and the rear (west) entrance to the building;
3. Detailed plan for establishing and maintaining portions of the site to be planted in
native prairie;
4. All landscaping (trees and shrubs) to comply with the species list provided by
Johnson County Heritage Trust or similar list from the Iowa State Extension;
5. Staff to have final approval of building materials (including colors), design and
materials for the proposed retaining wall, and all landscaping for the site;
6. The applicant will be required to secure a grading permit for the site;
7. All newly created slopes, south and west of the building, will be stabilized prior to
issuance of a building permit.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 16, 2010 - Formal
Page 2 of 7
REZ10-00013/ SUB10-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Casey Boyd,
LLC for a preliminary plat and a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay-
Medium Density Single Family (OPD-8) plan for Hickory Pointe, 2nd Addition, a 1-lot, 2.97
acre residential subdivision located on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue.
Walz explained that the lot is currently zoned GPD-8. She said that the property borders
undeveloped land owned by ACT and Hickory Hill Park as well as developed properties along
both sides of the street that are zoned multi-family. Walz said that the property is located on a
prominent spot of the First Avenue.
The applicant has proposed combining three lots into one lot that would house 16 units. The
driveway would be from a driveway off of Hickory Trail. Walz said that the Planning Department
prefers not to have curb cuts and driveways off of arterial streets. Walz said that the previously
approved plan for this property had two-story townhouse units on each lot with an entrance off
of Hickory Trail that looped back on to First Avenue. The current plan calls for the setting
aside of some open space on the southwest corner of the site. Walz said that either way there
will be a lot of grading for the site, but the current plan keeps the grading to a smaller portion of
the site. She said that the landscaping plans for the site include the planting of numerous trees
and the restoration of a prairie area.
Walz said that the GPO overlay is designed for properties that are somewhat difficult to develop
due to topography; the intention is to allow clustering in a smaller area of the property. Walz
explained that the steep slopes on this property are man-made and were created when the First
Avenue extension went through. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of
housing in residential neighborhoods and encourages multi-family housing along arterial streets.
Walz said that the properties on the west side of First Avenue, north of Hickory Trail are
townhouses, which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Walz said that property is 2.97
acres and the overall density of the development would not be considered excessive. Walz said
that the northern portion of the property would be preserved as open space; staff has
recommended maintaining the open space in a manner that is in keeping with the neighboring
Hickory Hill Park and the ACT property that is being restored to native prairie.
Walz said that the mass and scale of the building is appropriate for the area as there are a
number of architectural features, such as front porches, that lend to an impression that there are
multiple buildings rather than one large structure. She noted that there is an ADA accessible
route to the building that is planned in the rear area. All of the parking is underneath and behind
the building so that it is not visible from the street.
At the time the last plan was approved, there had been concerns expressed about First Avenue
access and whether or not that would pose a traffic problem. Walz said that the transportation
planners do not see that as a problem as First Avenue is an arterial street intended for high
volume. She said that this is not the kind or size of building that would create traffic congestion
and that there is clear visibility along that portion of the road.
Walz said that in consideration of the adjacent park, staff has asked the developer to choose
natural-looking landscaping based on a list provided by the Johnson County Heritage Trust.
She said that they have also asked that building materials be used that blend into the area and
do not stand out from the natural landscape. The idea is that the choice of appropriate
landscaping and building materials will not detract from the park.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 16, 2010 - Formal
Page 3 of 7
Walz said that in order to make the development work with the grade of the topography, there
will be a large retaining wall along the whole southern face and down the First Avenue side of
the property. She said that the wall will be approximately ten feet in height in some areas so
staff has recommended that the materials and screening for that wall be staff-approved.
Walz noted that the Commission had asked about access to bus routes for this property at their
informal meeting. The nearest bus route for this property is located on the corner of Rochester
Avenue and First Avenue. She said that the question had also arisen as to whether such a
large retaining wall could represent an obstacle for fire-fighting efforts. Walz said she had sent
the plan back to the Fire Department for review. The Fire Department said that while the wall is
not ideal for fire-fighting, the building will be fully equipped with sprinklers and they do not have
fire-fighting concerns for it.
Freerks invited the Commission to ask questions of staff.
Eastham noted that the application is to rezone this parcel to OPD-B. Walz noted that the
parcel has already been zoned OPD-B, but that the rezoning was tied to a specific design. The
application before the Commission presently is for a revision of the approved plan. Eastham
asked if the developer would have to come back before the Commission if and when they
decided to develop the northern part of the property. Walz said that if the building before the
Commission is actually built then the developer will have maxed-out the density for the property
and will not be able to develop it any further.
Weitzel asked about staff's vision of what a more natural-looking retaining wall might look like.
Walz said that the picture staff had shared of the retaining wall along north Dubuque Street was
an example of a natural-looking wall. She said the idea was not to have a wall that looked too
man-made or modular given the height of the wall and its proximity to the street.
Payne asked how many total bedrooms would be in the building. Walz said there would be two
to three bedrooms per unit. Payne asked if the parking ratio was determined by bedroom count
and Walz replied that the parking requirements are the same for two-bedroom units and three-
bedroom units; two parking spaces per unit. Payne said that the she was concerned about what
would happen if there were not enough parking spaces for the units. Walz noted that it was
possible that there would be some parking along Hickory Trail.
There were no further questions for staff and Freerks opened the public hearing.
Casey Boyd, 250 12th Avenue, Coralville, said that he had been working to develop this property
for a couple of years now. Boyd noted that the project currently before the Commission is
actually 36 feet lower at its peak than the one previously approved, which should significantly
reduce the visibility of the project form the nearby park. Boyd said that this plan also disturbs
less of the site. He said the current plan is more in keeping with the current economy in terms
of price-point, but that the look will still be nice and clean and unobtrusive. He said that he is
very sensitive to concerns about the compatibility of the project with Hickory Hill Park as he
grew up about three blocks away from this area. He said that he has been working with the City
and with Friends of Hickory Hill Park to come up with a plan that makes sense. He said that he
knows the retaining wall has been a concern for some people, but said that he will be sure to
expend the time, energy and effort to do it right.
Payne asked how many bedrooms were planned for the building. Boyd said it was a mix of
about half and half, with the interior units having two bedrooms and the exterior having three.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 16, 2010 - Formal
Page 4 of 7
He said that if necessary more parking could be provided but that the goal was to keep the
parking as unobtrusive as possible. Eastham asked if there was room to add additional parking
spaces in the future if it was deemed necessary. Boyd said that he believed there would be but
that he believed there was adequate parking in the plan. Miklo said that a pretty extensive
retaining wall system would probably be required to make room for additional parking if it was
added in the future.
Plahutnik asked Boyd if he envisioned the units as apartments or condominiums. Boyd said
that he intended for the units to be condominiums. He said he would like to avoid the rental
scenario but that if individual condo owners wished to rent out that was always their prerogative.
Ron Amelon, MMS Consultants, introduced himself as the design engineer for the project and
offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. There were no questions for
Amelon.
Scott Rude said he did not really have any questions for Boyd. He noted that he lived in a
subdivision just off of Hickory Trail. He said that First Avenue is an arterial street that is
increasingly busy. This project will create even more traffic on an already heavily-trafficked
street. He said that he was concerned about increased traffic as there are children that walk
along Hickory Trail and walk to Regina from surrounding neighborhoods. He said that the
property in question is a prime one and is very beautiful. He said that he is a little concerned
about what is going to be built on the property. He said that he has spoken with five families in
his subdivision and that none of them had known that the project was a multi-family project. He
said there was enough multi-family housing along First Avenue already. He said that what the
neighborhood wants is family-oriented housing to ensure that their children grow up in a positive
way. He said that he is concerned that these kinds of developments are not in the long-term
interests of the area. He said that his concern is that the units will detract from the area rather
than attract the kinds of families that they want to live there. Rude said that he knew that First
Avenue had initially been delayed until Scott Boulevard could be extended to relieve the
potential increase in traffic flow. He said that the traffic flow on First Avenue keeps increasing.
Busard asked staff what year the property was zoned. Walz said it was rezoned OPD8 from
RS-5 in 2008. Freerks asked staff to address the pedestrian concerns that had been brought
up. Walz noted that more than likely pedestrians would cross at the intersection of First Avenue
and Rochester as it is a controlled intersection. Plahutnik noted that it is sometimes difficult to
envision a place other than where we are living right now. He noted that thousands of children
live in New York City and walk to school every day without harm. Plahutnik said that this is a
relatively small suburban area and First Avenue is a street that has specifically been designed
to handle traffic. Plahutnik said that arterial streets are designed to carry 10,000-20,000 vehicle
trips per day. Walz noted that there is intense traffic at the start and end of the school day in
the area by Regina. Plahutnik said that in terms of safety the street design is adequate.
Rude asked if Plahutnik had ever been out to the property and Plahutnik said that he had. Rude
said that there is no pedestrian crossing to Hickory Hill Park right now. Walz said that it is
correct that there is not a pedestrian crosswalk to the entrance of Hickory Hill Park. She said
that her understanding is that transportation planners typically only locate crosswalks where
people actively cross throughout the day because if there is not a steady stream of pedestrian
traffic drivers eventually begin to ignore the crosswalk, making the crosswalks dangerous.
Eastham said that while he understood the concerns regarding children crossing the street he
was not sure it was a concern the Planning and Zoning Commission could address by reducing
the number of residences on First Avenue. Scott Rude said that he did not want to belabor the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 16, 2010 - Formal
Page 5 of 7
point but he did believe it was a dangerous situation that would be made worse by increased
traffic. Plahutnik said that from what he can tell the density of the property has actually been
reduced by the rezoning and the revisions to the OPD plan. Scott Rude reiterated that he and
his neighbors had not been aware that the property was zoned multi-family. Walz said that it
might be helpful to review the Northeast District Plan that had been done for that area because
it helps guide zoning decisions. That plan did anticipate higher density directly along First
Avenue. She said that if ACT ever decided to develop its property, it might be helpful for nearby
residents to be aware ahead of time of the potential zoning recommendations.
Boyd said that he had appreciated hearing the neighbor's concerns. He said that a number of
his friends live in the area and have children who walk to school so he is sympathetic to those
safety concerns. He agreed that people do drive too fast in that area, as well as in other areas
of town. He said he believed that the development would help rather than hinder with traffic
concerns, as an intersection would bring increased awareness to drivers in the area.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ10-00013 & SUB10-00012, an application
submitted by Casey Boyd to amend the current Overlay Planned Development Medium-
Density Single-Family Housing (OPD-RS8) zone and approve a preliminary plat of
Hickory Pointe for approximately 2.97 acres of property located on the east side of First
Avenue at the intersection of First Avenue and Hickory Trail subject to the following:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted;
2. An accessible pedestrian route be provided between the Hickory Trail right-of-
way and the rear (west) entrance to the building;
3. Detailed plan for establishing and maintaining portions of the site to be
planted in native prairie;
4. All landscaping (trees and shrubs) to comply with the species list provided by
Johnson County Heritage Trust or similar list from the Iowa State Extension;
5. Staff to have final approval of building materials (including colors), design and
materials for the proposed retaining wall, and all landscaping for the site;
6. The applicant will be required to secure a grading permit for the site;
7. All newly created slopes south and west of the building will be stabilized prior
to issuance of a building permit.
Weitzel seconded.
Eastham said that he supported this application because it was in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan and the district plan. He said that staff and the applicant had worked hard
to address parking and landscaping issues.
Weitzel noted that there was very little the Commission could do to alleviate traffic problems.
He said that the density was in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that it was his
hope that an apartment building in the area would bring more traffic awareness and improve
safety. Weitzel said the rezoning to a higher density was approved a couple of years ago and
that in his opinion this is an even better plan than was originally approved.
Plahutnik said that there are a lot of single family homes in the area and the current
development helps to provide a variety of housing types in that area of town. Plahutnik said that
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 16, 2010 - Formal
Page 6 of 7
he was a big fan of locating multi-family housing near parks as it changes the whole way of
living for people in the units.
Busard said he was happy that Boyd was reducing the footprint of the building as he recalled
that as an area of concern during the initial rezoning.
Payne said she had concerns about the parking, but that they had been somewhat alleviated by
Boyd's comments.
Freerks said that she found the plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and felt that
it would better utilize the property than the one originally approved. She said that design and
scale are important in a building of this size, but felt that they had been appropriately addressed.
Freerks said she felt that overall the project would be a benefit to the area, though she did
understand the traffic concerns.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 29 AND DECEMBER 2.2010:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes.
Plahutnik seconded.
Payne noted that the rezoning number is incorrect in the formal minutes. She noted that the
there is a comment in which the "southwest corner of Scott" is referenced but that is should be
"southeast" .
Eastham moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Payne seconded.
The motion carried 7-0.
OTHER:
Miklo noted that staff would be mailing out a draft of the Southeast District Plan to
Commissioners within the next week or so for their review.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Plahutnik seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote.
Z
o
en
~
:Ee
:E~
00
00
C)w
Z~
-wo
ZO"r""
OZo
Nc(N
ee
ZZ
c(w
C)I-
zl-
_c(
Z
Z
c(
..J
a.
CD
.... XX XX XX X
-
N
....
N
- XX XX XX X
N
....
CO
.... XX XX
- XX X
....
....
....
N XX I:!:! X XX
- X
Q 0
....
1'0 xl:!:!
- X X X XX
Q
.... 0
CD W
.... X - X XX X X
- 0
0)
N X X X W X
- - X X
0) 0
0)
.... X X X X X X X
-
CO
It) X X X X X
- X X
CO
~ W W
.... - X X X X X -
- 0 0
CD
Q W W
N - X X X 0 X X
- 0
It)
~ X X X X X X X
It)
It) W
.... X X X - X X X
~ 0
.... X X X W
~ X X X -
0
CO W
.... - X X X X X X
- 0
M
::! X X X X X X X
N
....
N X X X X X X x
-
....
en
:EW ...... ...... ('i) N Il) Il)('i)
o:::e:; ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
- - - - - --
we.. Il) Il) Il) Il) Il) Il)Il)
t->< 0 0 0 0 0 00
W
W ::I: >-
<c - t- W ..J
..J W
;:) 0::: m ..J ..J
::I: <c z ~ ..J <c
en ::I: z W 3:~ :E
0 () <c :J ::I:
~ ~-
-.. en W _t-
e :E en :E z ~
<c ~ t-..J
W 0::: ::I: 0::: W W ;:)W
<c t- W e.. z ::I:N
:E en enw e.. ~ <c!:::
<c ;:) <co::: 0 ..Jw
z m wu. ~ e.. e..3:
C)
z
i=
w
w
:E
..J
<c
:E
0:::
o
u.
M
:!::X XX XX XX
N
....
0)
~X XX xl:!:! xx
.... 0
....
It) W XW
.... W
- - XX - X
.... 0 0 0
....
::! W xl:!:! W
Q - X - X X
.... 0 0 0
CD W
.... X X X X - X X
- 0
CO
N X X X X X X
- X
CO
CD W W
N X X X - X X -
- 0 0
1'0
1'0 W
.... - X X X X X X
- 0
CD
1'0 W W
.... - X X X X X -
- 0 0
It)
M X X X X X X W
US -
0
N W W W
.... - X X - - X X
~ 0 0 0
0) W W
N X X X X X
- - -
M 0 0
....
....
-
N
en
:EW ...... ...... ('i) N Il) Il)('i)
o:::e:; ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
we.. - - i:O i:O - --
Il) Il) Il) Il) Il)
t->< 0 0 0 0 0 00
w
W ::I: >-
- t-
<c ..J w W ..J
;:) 0::: m ..J ..J
::I: <c z ~ ..J <c
en ::I: z w ~:E
0 () <c :J ::I:
~ ~-
-.. en w _t-
e :E en :E z ~
<c ~ t-..J
W 0::: ::I: 0::: w W ;:)w
<c t- w e.. z ::I:~
:E en en w e.. ~ <c-
<c ;:) <c 0::: 0 ..JW
Z m w u. ~ e.. e..3:
C)
z
i=
w
w
:E
..J
<c
:E
0:::
o
u.
Z
E
::3
....
o
::J
-00
~ 0
::Jz ....
u-'Q)
X OJ..c
UJ:.SE
~Q)Q)
CQ)-=::
'E-Q)E.o::::
Q) C CI) <tl
CI)~..c<(o_
Q)oO zo
a:<(III1Z
II II b!:! :E II
><OOz
:>.:
UJ
~