HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-06 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org September 6, 2012
IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
I132 Email response to Qianqian Huang from Finance Dir.: ERP Software Award - 9/4/12
I133 Copies of correspondence regarding Iowa City Community School District Issues [with
responses from School Supt.] — Kelly Messingham; David Weiss; Ute Muh; Edwin Stone.
DRAFT MINUTES
IN Planning & Zoning Commission: August 13
IP5 Planning & Zoning Commission: August 16
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1
September 6, 2012
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Subject to change
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
11"
jy ik
ki
.',
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
n i� ti; - � 14
i (I �������I ; ICI �����I' ( (vI (fidi I� a P �i ," G
��
h �l�
�����) e �" ��
�u 1a �x"
wa`'` -. "" a 4i'
. _� ,a
��x`fl" t. ^r
...;e �,(F =.a 1 t�
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
7:OO13M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
7:OOPM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
7:OO13M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
QM JI
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
7:OO13M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Original email distributed 9/4 agenda item # 12
From: Kevin O'Malley IP2
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:26 PM
To: 'q.huang49 @gmail.com'
Cc: 'City Council; Tom Markus; Eric Goers
Subject: FW: FW: ERP Software Award - 9/4/12 Council meeting
Dear Mr. Huang,
I have been asked to respond to your inquiry. Please see the answers highlighted below in response to your questions.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Kevin O'Malley
Director of Finance
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
kevin- omallevCcdiowa- citv.ora
319.356.5053
fax 319.341.4008
Please consider the environment and do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
From: Qianqian Huang [mailto:q.huang49@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:27 PM
To: Council
Subject: ERP Software Award - 9/4/12 Council meeting
Dear Esteemed Council:
I am writing to you concerning an item on your agenda that is also related to my coursework. I have a few
questions, the answers for which would provide information for my case studies.
I understand the Council will consider award to a U.S. vendor for its enterprise software needs. I am somewhat
familiar with the history of this acquisition, and would like a bit more detail as follows:
I notice that other recent purchasers of this software, Des Moines specifically, have obtained a guarantee of
maximum percentage software maintenance increases beyond Year 5 into Year 10. Des Moines obtained a
maximum annual increase of 5% from Year 5 - 10. According to the Finance Manager's memo, I see figures
only for Year 1 -5. Were Years 5 -10 bargained for? If so, what was the guaranteed rate? Thank you very
much.
Year Two —Zero percent (0 %) increase over unwaived Year One annual Maintenance fees;
Year Three —Three percent (3 %) increase over Year Two annual Maintenance fees;
Year Four —Three percent (3 %) increase over Year Three annual Maintenance fees;
Year Five— Five percent (5 %) increase over Year Four annual Maintenance fees;
Year Six — Five percent (5 %) increase over Year Five annual Maintenance fees;
Year Seven — Five percent (5 %) increase over Year Six annual Maintenance fees;
Year Eight — Seven percent (7 %) increase over Year Seven annual Maintenance fees;
Year Nine —Seven percent (7 %) increase over Year Eight annual Maintenance fees; and
Year Ten —Seven percent (7 %) increase over Year Nine annual Maintenance fees.
Was there a site license obtained, rather than license based on number of users?
Yes, an unlimited Client License was purchased.
At a glance, I see very little detail which depicts what services the new software will provide for the staff and
the citizens of Iowa City. The primary justification stated was the advanced age of the prior system and the
support staff retiring, but is there more detail on what was to be gained by the new system? Perhaps council
received this information at a prior time or meeting. In this regard, on the Des Moines document attached, you
will see
1. a summary of the "Objectives" for the project, some of which include budget forecasting; a -Gov
applications; employee self - service; recruitment/applicant tracking; dashboards; citizen transparency, HR
streamling; online disbursements for citizen transparency; etc. Could any document which lists these objectives
for the Iowa City project be provided to me?
From the Tyler Technologies Proposal:
At Tyler, we also understand the challenges you face from budget cuts, decreasing cycle times, and in
general having to do more with less. Achieve Return on Effort (ROE) by putting timely and accurate
data
right at the user's fingertips —with Munis applications.
• Role - tailored dashboards proactively deliver personal "operational
intelligence" tasks to your desktop
• Tyler Content Manager eliminates the search for missing paper files and
documents
• Workflow improves productivity by reducing time spent waiting for
approvals and requests
• All system - generated reports and forms are automatically archived in an
electronic filing cabinet
• Reports and forms are easily retrieved, displayed, printed, and e- mailed,
and multiple users can simultaneously retrieve vital business documents
• Includes complete "single click" integration with Microsoft Office
• Internet self - service applications reduce the number of routine calls from
vendors, citizens, and employees
• Each users experience is configurable to meet their unique needs, from
role - tailored dashboards, to data entry screens, workflow rules and
inquiries and reports
2. a tabulated summary of the "point" evaluation by the staff committee - for non - price; demo; and price point
evaluations. The manager refers to a point summary existing I believe. Could the comparable point tabulation
for Iowa City be provided to me? He also refers to a difference among staff as to which system they
preferred. Did this difference reach a final consensus as either unanimous or majority preference among staff
members? Thank you very much.
Phase I
POINT CATEGORY ASSIGNED POINTS
Compatibility with the City's desired functional and technical requirements 24
Proposed implementation strategy and plan 13
Cost (both cost of project and 5 -year cost) 22
Public sector experience, product longevity and qualifications of the 13
proposed staff
Compatibility with the City's proposed contract terms and
conditions 9
References 19
Total 100
mm o n D
' ^i =. 3 s
° oa
°? o m 0
m 3= z
m ° ry m >
3 o a m ocr a n
•2 m ' 2
N a
n �
< o
d.
~ b b w N w A w
m
< Z
A
F
X� a XP„ i6 3 i
0
a
D
m
y� a m rn w w m
p w O O O
m <
S i
A �
W °
W
A
D
<
m
w
V J$ O O V w m
< u
A a
wy wM V O O�
D
G
m
q O O O p O O m
O
w = m
m
b m A N w O $
On
N
O.
D
<
m
O N O yd
Q U O p o O
O
O
a NN O
� A lYn N to w O
b
D
m
UVI A N Y N Y O d
N to O N
There was not a separate Price Point total. Cost was one criteria category in Phase I evaluation.
Phase 2
Ranking of Proposers following presentations and demos:
1. Tyler Technologies
2. New World Systems
3. Advanced Utility Systems
4. Kronos
3. Lastly, the Des Moines city council received a narrative summary of the specific Tyler system
benefits provided to their city. Some included (detail on the attached): user - friendly chart of
accounts; dashboard; interactive analytical tool; enhancements to annual audit process; ease of federal
reporting; project cost accounting; CAFR enhancements; seamless integration with present hardware
and software, employee self service; and fully auditable system, among others. Could the council's
staff provide to me a similar listing of specific functions which point to Tyler being the best product
for Iowa City?
Both Tyler Technologies and New World Systems offered the benefits that you have listed. Our
determination was either New World Systems or Tyler Technologies would work for the City. The
recommendation to Council of Tyler was based on exhaustive analysis of the MUNIS application
through Proposer presentations and demonstrations, reference checks, current- client site visits, the
on -site lab session and the Best and Final Offer. Tyler scored higher in the evaluations and was
priced lower in the final offer.
The Des Moines document tells me that Tyler is "the largest software company solely dedicated to
the public sector and has more than 30 years of experience." It appears from the Des Moines report
to their Council that the Tyler product is very strong, suits their needs very well, and will be of great
benefit for both staff and the citizens.
Any information from prior documents which supplies comparable information on how the finance;
utility billing; and HR modules will provide the best service for Iowa City would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you very much for your public service.
Thank you very much.
Q. Huang
From: Messingham, Kelly <kelly- messingham @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:38 AM
To: Board; Stephen Murley
Cc: Council
Subject: Thanks!
Dear Board Members and Mr. Murley,
I am writing in response to the story on the front page of the Press Citizen this morning.
Thanks very much for making the decision to provide equal opportunity for all students within the ICCSD. The decision to
focus on the immediate problem of Elementary overcrowding, disrepair, and understaffing will impact our students
during these critical formative years. Additionally, this decision will foster community pride in our schools which is
important for the entire community.
Thank you again for listening to the community that you represent.
Sincerely,
Kelly Messingham
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510 -2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please
reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
Marian Karr
From: Stephen Murley < Murley. Stephen @iccsd.k12.ia.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Ute Muh
Cc: Council; Board
Subject: RE: Support Iowa City schools
Greetings Ute,
In the past few days I have heard from many constituents on this issue. I have responded individually to many of these emails. In
the interest of ensuring that the message is consistent I have borrowed from these responses to put together a more comprehensive
response that I can share with constituents who write with similar concerns.
First, thank you for participating in this important dialog and writing to share your thoughts about the challenges facing the
District. I have heard from many concerned citizens in the past few weeks about perceptions of inequity in the distribution of
resources specifically related to our older schools, the need for more seats at the elementary level, and in regard to the 3rd
comprehensive high school. I understand your concerns about these issues. One that comes up at this time of the year concerns air
conditioning and pertains to many schools in our District. As we discuss long -range planning, air conditioning is one of the items that
comes up repeatedly. We have also heard from many in the community about the need for more seats at the elementary level. This
is clearly a need when you look at the number of modular classrooms required to provide the necessary educational space for our
children. We have taken this input into consideration and will be including it in our discussion regarding the needs of existing
infrastructure as we deal with the growth that the District has faced and will continue to face in the upcoming years. All of these
issues will be included in upcoming discussions regarding long -range facility planning.
Again, my thanks for your interest in the District and for your participation in the dialog regarding solutions to these issues!
Steve
Stcphn T. 9wu&y
Superintendent of Schools
Iowa City Community School District
1725 North Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA 52245 -9589
Phone: 319 -688 -1000
Fax: 319-688-1009
Web: httn: / /www.iowacitvschools.org
IOWA CITY
COMMUNITY
SMOOL QLSnUL7
From: Ute Muh [mailto:ute_muh @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Board; Stephen Murley
Cc: council @iowa - city.org
Subject: Support Iowa City schools
Dear Members of the School Board and Superintendent Murley,
As you wrestle with decisions about whether to build a new high school, I urge you to consider that addressing
problems at the elementary school is level is in fact more important.
The problems have been laid out clearly in a letter from Mayor Hayek, and in recent Op Eds in the Press
Citizen from, so I will not repeat those arguments here, except to note that the underlying issues are: aging
facilities, crowding, unbalanced distribution of children from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups, and the
complete lack of any new elementary schools on the east side of Iowa City in many years. These issues are
interconnected, and they are the pressing problems most in need of your immediate attention.
Sincerely,
David Weiss
410 N 7th Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
NOTICE: All email communications to and from the District's email server are archived in accordance with District policy and procedures. This email
communication, including attachments, contains information which may be confidential and /or legally privileged, and may otherwise be exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this
communication in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. In addition, if you are not the intended recipient or believe
you received this communication in error, any unauthorized retention, copying, disclosure, distribution, or other use of the information is strictly prohibited. Thank
you.
Marian Karr
From: Ute Muh <ute_muh @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:35 AM
To: Board @iccsd.k12.ia.us; Murley.Stephen @iccsd.k12.ia.us
Cc: Council
Subject: Support IC schools
Dear President Swesey and members of the ICCSD Board, dear Superintendent Murley,
I urge you to, please:
1. Table the discussion of a third high school
2. Focus on rennovating existing, aged schools
3. Consider adding capacity at the elementary school level
I fully agree with the arguments put forward in a recent open letter to the school board by Mayor Hayek.
Sincerely,
Ute Muh
410 N 7th Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
Marian Karr
From:
Edwin Stone <stone.edwin @g mail. com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:35 AM
To:
Board; Stephen Murley
Cc:
Council
Subject:
Thanks
Dear Board Members and Mr. Murley,
I am writing in response to the story on the front page of the Press Citizen this morning.
Thanks very much for moving the ICCSD in the direction of providing equal opportunity to all students in the district.
I believe that this course of action and this principle will be supported by the majority of voters in our community for
many years to come.
Regards,
Ed
IN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
AUGUST 13, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00005 /REZ12- 00006 /SUB12- 00003: Discussion of an application submitted by
Steve Moss for a rezoning of approximately 172 acres of land from Interim Development
— Research Park (ID -RP), Planned Development — Mixed Use (OPD -MU), Planned
Development — Research Development Park (OPD -RDP), and Planned Development —
Office Research Park (OPD -ORP) to approximately 15.8 acres of Planned Development —
Highway Commercial (OPD- CH -1), 27.97 acres of Research Development Park, and 129.12
acres to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) for property located west of
Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80.
Howard explained that the applicant requested this item be on the next Planning and Zoning
Meeting in order to present their overall concept for the development and explain what they
have changed since their original application in 2010. She said the applicant then wants the
Commission to vote on the application at their subsequent meeting.
Howard presented a concept plan for the development, which includes Phase One to be
development of Office Park uses. She said the remainder of the property would remain as
Interim Development (ID) until roads and services are provided. She said the mitigation area for
and disturbance of the wetlands has been designated on the concept plan. Howard said the
applicant intends it to be large, Class A office development similar to Northgate. She said the
applicant is now partnered with an experienced office park developer, R &R Realty. She said
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 13, 2012 - Informal
Page 2 of 5
they are not planning any residential at this time in this portion of the development. She said
R &R Realty believes the first development should be office uses and retail services that are
complementary to the office park, including shops, restaurants and hotels. She explained how
this concept plan differs from the original proposal in 2010. She said the biggest change is that
there are now two new streets proposed from Highway 1 across the Pearson property. She said
a traffic study has been done to determine what would need to be done to accommodate the
existing Pearson traffic and the Moss traffic. She said this is an improvement over the former
plan of having access solely off of Oakdale Boulevard, which is a half -mile from the interchange
and would possibly have promoted leapfrog development, which would be contrary to the City's
policy of compact and contiguous growth of the city. She said that Oakdale Boulevard would
eventually be needed, but that could be many years from now.
Howard explained that the applicant has not delineated all the sensitive areas on the entire 172
acres because right now they are focusing on the southeast corner of the property. She said
staff has noted some potential discrepancies in their platting documents and received some
correspondence indicating that there may be some potential archaeological sites on parts of the
property, but the applicant is following the required state and federal rules regarding these sites.
Eastham asked what the agreement is with Pearson regarding providing right of way between
the two connectors to Highway 1.
Howard said the City is currently in negotiations with Pearson for those, and they will be public
streets.
Eastham asked if the alignment at Oakdale Boulevard would be the most northern intersection
to Highway 1 between Interstate 80 and going north.
Howard said it was, and that alignment, the point of intersection, was agreed upon in years past
by the City and the State.
Eastham asked if there will be two new intersections on this proposal.
Howard said there would only be one new intersection with Highway 1. She said the traffic study
was done to ensure that all the traffic lights and intersections would be aligned so all the
employees of Northgate, Pearson, and the Moss Development could get where they needed to
go.
Eastham asked if the staff recommendation is that both of the connector streets be installed
before any development occurs on this property.
Howard explained that the traffic study indicated that two are needed for the full build -out of
Phase One but the streets and intersections will have to be phased in.
Eastham asked if the traffic studies indicate that the two easterly roads would serve the entire
172 acres if it's eventually developed.
Howard said that the traffic study indicates that for Phase One the two streets are unnecessary
for full build out. She said for the full build out of the entire development and for further
development of the area Oakdale Boulevard will need to be extended and the streets will need
to be connected in the long -term.
Martin asked about the staff - recommended deferral.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 13, 2012 - Informal
Page 3 of 5
Howard said staff is still working with the applicant on a Master Plan and some other issues.
She said staff would also like the planned development for the commercial lots in the southeast
corner of the property to be consistent within the Master Plan for the entire office park. She said
in the previous plan they had shown a much more extensive commercial area with taller
buildings with apartments above.
Freerks said it would be good to read up on what the previous plan entailed.
Howard said what they understand is that there would be spots for two restaurants and
potentially a hotel with the remaining area to be used for mixed uses. In reply to a question from
Martin, Howard said they don't have a detailed district plan for the North Corridor but in the
Comprehensive Plan it talks about this area being suitable for office park development.
Martin asked if there is a plan for connecting this across the interstate to the rest of Iowa City.
Howard explained how Oakdale Boulevard, Prairie du Chen Road and Dubuque Street would all
eventually be used as connections.
Dyer asked if the developers are giving any sort of consideration to the ecological problems with
grass.
Howard said that question could be asked of the developers. She said there are a lot of
sensitive areas on the property, and the previous plan did go above and beyond what was
required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Eastham asked if the appearance of the three lots in the southeast corner from Interstate 80 will
eventually be considered.
Howard said they would be talking about building materials, locations, parking, screening and
signage.
Martin asked what happened to the original proposal.
Howard said there weren't enough street connections in the 2010 proposal to make it feasible
for development.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a
rezoning to designate approximately .034 acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street
as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Miklo said there is quite a bit of material supporting the historical significance of this building. He
said making it a landmark would protect it. It couldn't be extensively altered or removed without
permission of the Historic Preservation Commission. He said making it a historic landmark
would also allow potential waivers of zoning requirements subject to approval of the Board of
Adjustment to allow uses that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in the zone.
Eastham asked what uses would be allowed at the property should it be designated an historic
landmark.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 13, 2012 - Informal
Page 4 of 5
Miklo said the Board of Adjustment can waive some of the standards and allow for uses such as
hospitality retail, and some office uses. He said the Board could also approve changes in the
nonconforming use. He said staff has told the owner they prefer that there be no alcohol sales
on site, and the owner concurs. He said staff is recommending that it be designated an historic
landmark, and the Historic Preservation Commission determined last week that it meets the
historic criteria for that. Miklo explained that the Commission's role is to determine whether it
historic designation complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Plan talks about
actually redeveloping this area at a higher density as an incentive to get rid of some the
buildings that were built recently that don't have open space or have large surface parking lots.
He said landmark designation would not be in conflict with this, because the property is too
small to redevelop on its own and it is located on the corner of the alley and Bowery Street so it
would not prevent the redevelopment of other properties in the block.
I
COUNTY REZONING ITEM
CZ12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Wendae Waite for a rezoning
from County A- Agriculture zone to RUB - Residential zone for .46 acres of property
located at 3549 Utah Avenue NE.
Miklo said this property is in the fringe area, and it is not anticipated being annexed into the city.
He said that the owner wishes to remove and build on the property and replace it with a new
house, which will not be a change in density. He said staff recommends approval of this
application as it is not an inappropriate re -use of the property. He said this residential enclave
has been in existence since the 1960s, before the County had zoning.
OTHER
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote.
z
O
U)
U Q
20 c�
00 z
IX W
O
04NQ
NQp 2
od z w
Z~ O
za
z
Q
J
IL
z
H
W
w
O
U.
z
:
N
7
N
�O
�d
(D o
U) Z
a) o
j Z
m
U cm
U ch
x C
LU.S
.� N
C CD
N
N
C U E
(D C y E
N
� a<
� )<z
E
dQ II II
dQ II II
4?
unLU
u11 L
w
>COOz
xOOz
Q
0
Y
Y
Y
xxxx
1
Xxxo
�oxx
xoxo
o�
;XXX
1
xxxx
Nxxx
W
X
X
1
xxxx
X
W
00
W
co
r-
exxx
XXX
i
XXXX
mxx-
X
X
x
1
xxx
X
cm MXXX-
LU
-OXX
1
XXXX
XXX
-
XXOx
X
X
X
i
xxx
X
X
N
MxXXO
1
XXX
N
Q
x
X
X
x
i
X
X
x
CO)
00mNI`
tOLOM
;xxxx
--
7
7
7
;
xxx
7
7
N
N
QXXXX
i
XXX
N
w
Z
T
X
X
X
x
1
X
x
x
zw
Cfl(OMNI��O�OM
x
z
P
Wa=
wW
z
z
z
z
z
-
�
Wd000LO0
�X00000000
0
LO
LO
W
VQYV)aIxNJ
W�1-
CV
a
-vaa
a
2
aWV)WaW
mao��
ZGWLLLYd2
a
a
W
w
OF
xa:
-
Ni
W?
IL
hN
-
�wU)LUCL
Q�Q000
=W
z0WIiY2V)i
-�
z
H
W
w
O
U.
z
:
N
7
N
�O
�d
(D o
U) Z
a) o
j Z
m
U cm
U ch
x C
LU.S
.� N
C CD
N
N
C U E
(D C y E
N
� a<
� )<z
E
dQ II II
dQ II II
4?
unLU
u11 L
w
>COOz
xOOz
Q
0
Y
Y
Y
xxxx
1
Xxxo
O
C*Xxx
1
Xoxo
�O
W
X
X
1
X
X
W
00
W
XXX
1
xxxx
mxx-
1
xxxx
cm MXXX-
1
XXX
-
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
N
M
;XXXXIXXX
N
aw
00mNI`
tOLOM
pC
--
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
I-X00000000
w
w
J
W
J
zw
j
x
z
P
Wa=
0Uam=ao
VQYV)aIxNJ
W�1-
=FLU
WmF
-vaa
2
aWV)WaW
ZGWLLLYd2
:
N
7
N
�O
�d
(D o
U) Z
a) o
j Z
m
U cm
U ch
x C
LU.S
.� N
C CD
N
N
C U E
(D C y E
N
� a<
� )<z
E
dQ II II
dQ II II
4?
unLU
u11 L
w
>COOz
xOOz
Q
0
Y
Y
Y
IP5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
AUGUST 16, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Bret Bosworth, Shawn Leuth, Michelle Wiegand, Steven
Rosenberg, Mary Bennett, Terri Larson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of approximately .034
acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
The Commission voted to recommend approval of an application submitted by Wendae
Waite for a rezoning from County A- Agriculture zone to RUB - Residential zone for .46
acres of property located at 3549 Utah Avenue NE and that a letter be sent to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of rezoning this
property.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00005 /REZ12- 00006/SUB12- 00003: Discussion of an application for a rezoning of
approximately 172 acres of land from Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP),
Planned Development — Mixed Use (OPD -MU), Planned Development — Research
Development Park (OPD -RDP), and Planned Development — Office Research Park (OPD-
ORP) to approximately 15.8 acres of Planned Development — Highway Commercial (OPD-
CH -1), 27.97 acres of Research Development Park, and 129.12 acres to Interim
Development — Research Park (ID -RP) for property located west of Highway 1 and north
of Interstate 80 and a 172 commercial subdivision consisting of nine commercial lots and
one out -lot reserved for future development.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
Howard said in 2010 there was a Planned Development rezoning and a preliminary plat
approved for this project with similar zoning designations as the applicant, Steve Moss, is
requesting today, with the intent to build a large Class A office park with support retail services
to complement the new office park and other businesses in the employment area that surrounds
the Interstate 80 interchange with Highway 1. She said the applicant found that without
adequate street connectivity from Highway 1 to serve his property and others in the area,
development was unlikely to occur, so has submitted a new application for a rezoning and plat
for the development.
Howard explained that the applicant has now partnered with R & R Realty Group, an
experienced office park team who has developed office parks in West Des Moines and
surrounding areas. She said Mr. Moss has partnered with them to redesign the office park
subdivision with the necessary street connections and revised zoning and lot pattern that they
believe is better suited to respond to the market.
Howard said that in the previous subdivision, the only access proposed was to construct
Oakdale Boulevard from Highway 1 to the Moss property. She said that the new development
team felt there was in adequate street connectivity to make the office park viable, and has
proposed a different zoning pattern and a different plat configuration. She said the key
difference between the original plan and this one is the additional street connections that they
feel are necessary to make the project work. Howard indicated the two new street connections
that were proposed to extend from Highway 1 across the Pearson property to the Moss
property; one on the north side of the Pearson property and one along the south side of the
Pearson property, which would lead to the retail support portion of the development. The bulk of
the property would be reserved for general office park uses. She noted that the applicant
intends to develop in phases with Phase 1 being in the southwest corner of the property where
the property is currently being farmed. The remainder of the property would be included in an
outlot for future development and be zoned Interim Development — Research Park.
Howard said that Phase 1 lots would have access to Highway 1 with the two new proposed
collector streets that would cross the Pearson property. She pointed out the lots within Phase 1
that would be zoned Research Development Park and those that would be devoted to support
retail services. The types of uses that the developer was hoping to attract to the support retail
portion of the development would be a hotel, a couple of restaurants and another retail building
that would have a mix of retail and personal service uses.
Howard said in order for these new streets to work, cooperation will be needed from Pearson.
She said the development team has been in contact with Pearson and has asked the City as
well to enter in discussion with Pearson, which the City Council agreed to do. She said the City
received a letter from Pearson last Friday discussing their position on the two roadways, but the
Council has not yet had a chance to review that letter so at this time Howard did not feel it was
appropriate to discuss the details of the letter with the Commission, although she did want to
note for the record that the City received the correspondence and that further details of the
discussions about the proposed roads could be discussed at the next Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Howard said the intent is to master plan the entire office park but at this point in time the
development team has not yet ironed out all the details. She said staff feels that those details
still need to be worked out and that is why staff has recommended deferral of the rezoning and
plat. She also noted that the developer is hoping to work through those details with City staff
and present a more complete picture of the proposed development for the next Planning and
Zoning meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
Regarding the subdivision layout, Karen pointed out the northern portion where the northern
street would be extended into the subdivision. The proposed streets within the Phase 1 portion
would be stubbed to the boundary of phase 1 to allowed for future extension as the office park
develops over time.
Howard said that while the vast majority of sensitive features on the site will be within the outlot
that is reserved for future development, there are a few areas within Phase 1 where
development would disturb sensitive features. There are some woodlands and steep and critical
slopes that would be disturbed. She noted that there appears to be a few discrepancies and
omissions regarding the sensitive areas as shown on the submitted documents. She noted that
Staff would continue to work with the applicant to work through those details and revise the
plans accordingly prior to the next Planning and Zoning meeting.
Regarding off -site improvements, these are shown in the documents commission members
received in concept only: so the exact alignment of the roadways, the water and sewer lines will
need to be determined through survey work conducted on -site. That has not yet been
completed because discussions with Pearson are ongoing. Any sensitive features located in the
off -site areas on the Pearson property will need to be delineated and any proposed
disturbances noted. She said until an agreement is reached with Pearson, the sensitive areas
delineation and survey of roadwork cannot commence.
Howard summarized by saying that staff is in support of the general concept of the expansion of
this important employment center; as this is one of the few places in Iowa City with a visible
interstate location and the type of land attractive for larger office park uses. She said there are a
number of issues that still need to be worked out. The City Engineer was still reviewing the
latest submittal to ensure that the technical details on the plat are correct. She noted that the
applicant requested to put the rezoning and plat application on the Commission's agenda at this
early stage to get feedback from the Commission and allow any questions from the Commission
to be addressed. She said staff supports, in general, the rezoning and subdivision for an office
park in this location but recommends deferral pending resolution of the issues noted within the
staff report.
Eastham asked if the applicant will agree to dedicate space for an Oakdale right -of -way or
would that be up to City to secure in future.
Howard said that she believed that the previous development team had prepared engineering
documents for the construction of Oakdale, so she assumes that the alignment of that roadway
would remain the same, but would be constructed in a future phase. Staff assumes that the
developer will dedicate the right -of -way for Oakdale Boulevard at such time as the roadway is
needed to accommodate the traffic within the office park. She also noted that the applicant had
permission from the abutting property owners east of the Moss property to extend Oakdale over
to Highway 1, and staff assumes that all those agreements and all those conditions are still in
place. However, staff will check on this issue to make sure.
Eastham said that staff had indicated before that staff believed sewer and water service was
adequate to serve the development. He asked if it is still adequate.
Howard said that staff believed that these services can be extended to the property as noted
generally on the plat. However, the details of the plat documents are still be being reviewed
with the City Engineer. She noted that with the possibility for a new roadway, it would be a little
easier to get sewer and water extended along the northern road across the Pearson property
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
rather than relying solely on extending the infrastructure to the site along Oakdale Boulevard,
which would be further north.
Thomas asked if the road to the north of the Pearson facility is on the Pearson property as well.
Howard said that yes this road would cross the Pearson property. She also noted there was an
extensive traffic study conducted to study the spacing of these intersections to make sure it
worked for all users. She said the traffic study details the improvements on Highway 1 that
would be necessary to keep all of that traffic functioning properly and at the interstate
interchanges as well. She said the traffic study talked about this being appropriate for Phase 1
and could be served with these two streets, but once it reached some threshold of traffic,
Oakdale Boulevard would need to be built to serve the larger office park. Howard said that is
one of the reasons that the large outlot should remain zoned Interim Development.
Eastham asked if both of the external connecting roads needed to be in place to support the
proposed uses in Phase 1.
Howard stated that the traffic study indicated that two roads are needed to serve both the traffic
for the new development and the Pearson traffic over time. She said one of the reasons that
two roads are preferable is that Pearson traffic already backs up somewhat at this intersection
during peak hours, so there could be some potential benefit to having a way to distribute some
of that morning and evening concentrated traffic for Pearson as well as the other users that
would use the two roadways. Howard said since not everything in the development is going to
be developed immediately, the construction of the roadways could be phased and be built at
different times.
Eastham stated that some kind of phased development that might use one roadway for some
period of time would have to be part of the rezoning.
Freerks said the Commission would need to have that phasing of roadways defined along with
the list of other items that are incomplete.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Brent Bosworth spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, the Moss family, R &R Realty group, the
developer, and Shive - Hattery. He gave a presentation about what R &R has done in the West
Des Moines area, explained how each of their four office parks was developed there, and said
that a similar vision is behind the Moss development. Bosworth said that everything R & R has
developed has never been sold, and that is their intent going into the Moss development, so
they can have a consistent owner, theme and philosophy to follow.
Bosworth explained that they have been diligent in their previous developments to not have too
much retail but have enough retail to support the larger office park. He said if there is too much
retail in an office park, then you begin to lose office users due to the traffic congestion that is
often associated with retail uses. As far as building design and quality, he said single -story and
multi -story brick and glass is what people in Iowa City could expect to see in the Moss
development. He said R & R likes the Moss property because by nature and by design there will
be a lot of green area. He said R & R has dedicated 35% of their land in their office parks to
green spaces, lakes, trails, wellness centers and daycares. He said all of that is dedicated to
creating a community, and that is the same vision they have for the Moss development.
Bosworth said they anticipate, as development occurs into Phase 1 b and Phase 2 that Oakdale
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
Blvd would need to be built to accommodate growth. He said if they can get at least the north
and south access points, Oakdale would provide for expansion of the office park in the future.
He noted that access to the west is also crucial in the future. Oakdale would provide the main
route to the west. They are not sure how additional street access to the west would work, since
it would have to go through a residential community, but it is critical. He said when they started,
they would only need the south access point in order to provide access for the support retail
area in close proximity to the interstate interchange. He said they decided to include the north
access point that would possibly be constructed immediately and were willing to do that
because Pearson needed a better way out from their parking lots. He said the traffic study they
had done said these access points enhance the project and traffic circulation for Pearson as
well. Bosworth said they anticipate Phase 1 would take 15 years to develop. He said they have
to know that if they get into it, infrastructure like Oakdale Boulevard would follow if demand
called for it because Moss and R & R have put a lot of money into it already.
Shawn Leuth from Shive- Hattery said that from a connectivity standpoint, all four or five access
points are very important, but for Phase 1, getting out to Highway 1 is critical.
Bosworth said if they put Oakdale in then put the interior roads in to feed the Moss property, the
rent that they would have to charge would not be affordable. He said that Oakdale would not
work today, but would work when they have 400,000 or 500,000 square feet of office property
already built, which would take about 15 years.
Eastham asked if R & R is satisfied with the proposed location of the intersection of Oakdale
Boulevard and Highway 1.
Bosworth said they are.
Dyer said the previous plan emphasized green development. She asked if R & R has developed
plans for this property to deal with a modern idea of land -use and save resources.
Brent says R & R has a lot of green area within their parks. He said the Moss park will probably
have twice as much green space than the parks in Des Moines because of the existing stream
corridors and other sensitive areas on the site. He said R & R would go as green as they can
until the market says they won't bear that rent. He said due to all the natural areas that are there
on the subject property, it will be less expensive to use the land in a manner that is more green
than building buildings that are more green.
Dyer said pictures show lots of large, sweeping lawns that require a lot of chemicals to maintain,
and creeks and other water sources that make her concerned about lawns.
Brent said that stormwater facilities are required by the City, and in past developments they
have taken the requirements of the City and turned them into much larger ponds that are
amenities for the park and they pull the water out of the ponds to water the grass.
Freerks asked if R & R has worked with sensitive area ordinances in Des Moines and how the
Des Moines ordinance compared to the sensitive areas ordinance in Iowa City.
Brent says R & R has identified where the sensitive areas are on the Moss property but would
still need to go into more detail. He said he would ask the Commission to look at the office parks
they have already done. He said they are very consistent and very heavy in that green area,
and their intent would be to not do anything different because that is what the market wanted.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
Freerks said she brought this up because the situation with the Moss property is different from
the office parks previously completed by R & R. She said this is a sensitive areas ordinance in
terms of woodlands and protected slopes rather than just grassy areas. She said she was
curious if they had dealt with such an ordinance before and if they were comfortable doing that.
Leuth said there are some things they need to correct on the submitted documents and that
they are working with staff to delineate the sensitive areas according to the ordinance. He said
they are aware of some of the challenges and issues they need to address to get this to move
forward. He said these issues would be more fully addressed in the future.
Brent said there are a total of 172 acres and they are down to 115 acres of developable land
because of the sensitive areas that will need to be preserved.
Thomas asked about freeway frontage and if R & R was looking at how that provides an
opportunity to create an image for the office park.
Bosworth agreed that that was an opportunity to show that this is a class A development. He
said they would be willing to sit down and work with them jointly to try to determine what they
can do to make the front door look good.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to defer the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September
6.
Martin seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Greenwood - Hektoen explained that until the access is worked out, approval would not be
recommended. She said at this point Pearson has indicated that they are opposed to the south
road but that the north road is negotiable.
Freerks said that the Commission may need to defer this because the pieces of puzzle still need
to be put in place. She said the Commission was interested in this in 2010 and is something she
would still be interested in seeing moved forward. She said that the details are important, as is
that the plan works for the whole community. She said the sensitive areas and roadways are
important, and those details need to be worked out before the next meeting.
Eastham said the development would eventually be a great benefit to Iowa City and so he
hoped that the parties could work on the access issues. He said he was not sure what role the
zoning commission may or may not have in that, but it is something he hoped could eventually
be resolved.
Thomas said looking at the horizontal alignments of the roads he prefers what he is seeing on
the north side —where they cross into the Pearson property. He said he did not find the
alignments flowing quite as well on the south side of the Pearson property as they do on rest of
the property. He wondered if there had been any discussion with the Iowa Department of
Transportation to find out what could be done to get more room in the tight area of the south
entry along the Interstate right -of -way.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
REZ12- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a
rezoning to designate approximately .034 acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street
as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Martin disclosed that she had had a client interested in this property, but there now is an
accepted offer by a completely different party. She said her client would not have any further
interest in this property.
Miklo noted that the request is to designate this property as an Iowa City historic landmark,
which is a form of zoning —an overlay zone. He said designating this property as a landmark
would require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant alterations to the
exterior of the building. He said it would also provide for some zoning incentives where the
Board of Adjustment could waive certain zoning requirements to encourage the continued use
of the property, so there would be additional regulations but also potential waiver of zoning
some zoning requirements for the property.
Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the property last week
and concluded that it was eligible based on the criteria in the zoning code for landmarks. He
said there is a detailed history included in the Commission packet that discusses the building. It
may have been built as early as 1856 and that it was a neighborhood grocery store for much of
its existence. He said it is one of the few buildings of this sort that is still standing in Iowa City,
therefore, it does appear to clearly meet the criteria from a Historic Preservation point of view as
being a landmark.
Miklo explained that the Commission's role in reviewing historic districts and landmarks is to
determine if a particular property or designation of the property is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan for the area. He said there are two aspects of the Comprehensive Plan
that apply here. He said one would be the Central District Plan, which discusses the land uses
for this surrounding neighborhood, which is zoned High Density Multi- Family (RM -44). He said
the plan discusses that the existing development in the area is fairly dense but lacking in opens
space and amenities. He said there are some concerns about long -term livability in the area.
Miklo said the plan talks about the possible redevelopment of the area, possibly at a higher
density. He said that even though the plan encourages redevelopment of the area, staff does
not feel that designating this property as a landmark, which would discourage redevelopment, is
in conflict. He said the property is located on an alley and is too small to be redevelopment by
itself. He said it would have to be combined with adjoining properties to be redeveloped. He said
staff feels that designating this property as a landmark would allow the property to remain and
allow other properties in the area to redevelop.
Miklo said the other element of the Comprehensive Plan is the Historic Preservation Plan, which
encourages identification of important or significant historic properties and their protection. He
said since it is clear that this building is a historic property, the Comprehensive Plan would
encourage its protection.
Miklo showed some images of the non - historic garage at the back of the site and said that
indications are that the garage would likely be removed to provide parking spaces for a potential
business in the property.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
Michelle Wiegand, owner of property, said the property is now zoned for single - family residential
and it is no longer conducive to that use. She said the property is the original home of the New
Pioneer Co -op, and that it was a grocery store for about eight decades before it was zoned for
residential use in the 1980s. Wiegand said she would like to return the building to its original
beauty and put some type of small business to serve the neighborhood in there, like a coffee
shop — something to bring back that neighborhood grocery store feel.
Dyer asked if it is for sale and how that fits in with her ownership.
Wiegand said she had a buyer lined up. She said the buyer is interested in putting in some type
of small business.
Steven Rosenberg identified himself as the potential buyer. He said he intends to turn it into a
similar store to what it has now —to keep the shelving intact and maintain the same look and
feel.
Mary Bennett, who works at the State Historical Society but as a private endeavor prepared the
nomination papers for this property to be considered for the National Register of Historic Places
said it is important for the community to recognize these rare examples of the older times in this
city when things were on a different scale than the proposals the Commission saw earlier. She
said the neighborhood has been devastated by apartment construction, and preserving this
remnant is important. She said State historic tax credits available to the property owner help
make this project possible.
Terri Larson said she is the realtor with the listing and had a difficult task of trying to figure out
how to sell it as a single - family residential use. She said it was not possible to get a rental
permit for property unless it was an efficiency permit but there was a lot of reconstruction that
would have to happen to get an efficiency permit, which would have been difficult. She said the
only option was to sell it to somebody who would owner occupy it but nobody was interested in
that.
Miklo clarified the zoning on the property. He stated that it is zoned High- Density Multi - Family
(RM -44) and that it has been a form of high- density residential since maybe the 1950s or 1960s.
He explained that the grocery store was a legal non - conforming use and as such any retail use
could continue to operate on this property. He said that sometime in the 1980s the use was
switched to a residential use without a City permit, but not by the current owner. He said the
single - family residential aspect is not legal under current zoning. He said the City would
recognize this as being a non - conforming building, and a commercial use would be a possibility,
but it does require a Board of Adjustment special exception.
Larson said she wrote a letter to the City and has worked with City staff to determine what the
best use would be. She said it was hard to determine best use of this property, given the zoning.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that the Commission approve designation of the property as a historic
landmark.
Martin seconded.
Freerks opened discussion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Eastham said it looked like a neat project and that this is a good use of the building. He said that
designation as a landmark would not impose difficulty for redevelopment in the future.
Freerks said the Comprehensive Plan supports it in many ways. She said these small historic
pieces of Iowa City are worth preserving because they help make this community special.
Martin said that the project would beautify a little section of this neighborhood that could use it.
Thomas said that this is a very important token of what that neighborhood was.
Freerks said that these very dense areas full of students are screaming for a sense of
community and have a place where students can spend their time.
Dyer said that the city has been looking for late night place for students to go that don't serve
alcohol.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
COUNTY REZONING ITEM
CZ12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Wendae Waite for a rezoning
from County A- Agriculture zone to RUB - Residential zone for .46 acres of property
located at 3649 Utah Avenue NE.
Miklo pointed out that a cluster of non - conforming residential is located within this area. He said
this applicant is requesting that this be rezoned residential so the existing house can be
removed and rebuilt, bringing it into conformity with County zoning. He said this is within the
two -mile fringe area of Iowa City but not within the Iowa City growth area, so indications are that
this will not be annexed into Iowa City, at least in the Comprehensive Planning time frame.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Dyer moved that a letter be sent to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors
recommending approval of rezoning this property.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said this would not involve an increase of residential development and said she would
be in favor of this.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: July 30 and August 2. 2012:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
OTHER:
Miklo said that staff had received a draft of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan that
they would review over the next few weeks and they hope to schedule a public meeting for that.
He said staff has worked closely with the consulting firm and several of the Commission
members attended the workshops held last winter. Miklo said he believed the draft captured the
sentiments expressed in the workshops.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote.
Z
0
N
N 0
20 c�
00 z
w W
ZV
T-�
0 Z N Q
Np
oif Z
OC
Z~ O
LL
za
Z
a
J
a
Z
H
w
w
O
LL
z
E
N
3
3
N
'00
-v 0
�z
�z
cu
U p)
U im
+ N
N
N
c N E
y c E
m
to N M O
to N O
E
1
as ,z,
a¢aZ
n u UJ
u u LU
x00z
XOOz
n
0
Y
Y
Y
co
XXX
1
x
X
X
w
0
00
cnXXX
-XX
i
X�X�
CD CD
x
x
X
i
x
X
x
x
°wXx
0
;
xxww
00
Nxxx
xxxo
m
ti
lxxx
XXXX
co
ti
XXXX
!
XXXX
MXXX6
!
XXX
��XX
XXXX
ti
"XXXX;XXX
exx
x
i
XXX
N
MXxx�
0
XXX
2w(fl(OMN
f-
LO
LO
M
!eXxxx
XXX
M
to
;xxxx
W
xxx
N
W
N
cDxxxx
Z
!-<Zxw4z
xxx
N
004cuix
r
XXXX
X
X
X
ma
p
7
�W
CD
CDMN1-LOLOM
Y
Z
�yJ
Q
Q
W
w
dP
_
w
w
a
F-
V'
mo
WN
Wd0
�X00000000
00LOLOLOLOLOto
0tntpLO
uj
CL
LO
LO
to
w
3
Z0uQ.wU.Y2W
C>QYN
aW
.xwLU
N
a
>-
oa
=w
Zow
4Ix
-LL
Yd2U)P3
Z
H
w
w
O
LL
z
7
E
N
3
3
N
'00
-v 0
�z
�z
cu
U p)
U im
+ N
N
N
c N E
y c E
m
to N M O
to N O
E
1
as ,z,
a¢aZ
n u UJ
u u LU
x00z
XOOz
n
0
Y
Y
Y
XXX
i
xxX�
Go
cnXXX
X�X�
°wXx
0
;
xxww
00
to
P-XXXiXXxx
coxxo;XXXX
MXXX6
!
XXX
ti
"XXXX;XXX
Cl*
;xxxx
;
xxx
N
N
2w(fl(OMN
f-
LO
LO
M
�X00000000
W
W
W
Z
!-<Zxw4z
J
004cuix
"
0—
ma
p
7
C�QN
Y
Z
�yJ
Q
Q
W
w
dP
_
w
w
a
F-
V'
mo
WN
2
ui
uj
CL
3
Z0uQ.wU.Y2W
7
E
N
3
3
N
'00
-v 0
�z
�z
cu
U p)
U im
+ N
N
N
c N E
y c E
m
to N M O
to N O
E
1
as ,z,
a¢aZ
n u UJ
u u LU
x00z
XOOz
n
0
Y
Y
Y