HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-18 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Diversity Committee, August 29, 2012 1
3b(1)
MINUTES Approved
CITY COUNCIL AD HOC DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
AUGUST 29, 2012
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, 4:00 P.M.
Members Present: Bakhit Bakhit, Cindy Roberts, Joe Dan Coulter, Orville Townsend,
Sr., Kingsley Botchway II, Joan Vanden Berg
Members Absent: Donna Henry
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr, Tom Markus
Others Present: Charlie Eastham
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS:
The meeting began with those present introducing themselves.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE:
Chairperson Botchway began the discussion by noting that the Committee should first
decide when their meetings will take place. Members gave their opinions on what days
and times work best for them. After some discussion, the Members agreed to meet at
4:00 P.M. on Mondays. Coulter moved to set the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee
meetings for Mondays at 4:00 P.M.; seconded by Vanden Berg. Motion carried 6-
0; Henry absent.
The discussion then turned to the regularity of meetings for the Ad Hoc Diversity
Committee. Chairperson Botchway noted that they would like to have presentations
made by the Chief of Police and the Transportation Director somewhere in the middle of
September. He continued, stating that his preference would be to meet at least two
times per month, but he asked for others' opinions on this. Townsend stated that he
believes they should meet more frequently at first, until they get a better handle on how
they will proceed. This led to some discussion among the Members, with meetings
being set in September for the 10tH 17tH and 24th. Townsend moved to set the Ad
Hoc Diversity Committee meetings in September for the 10th, 17th, and 24th;
seconded by Coulter. Motion carried 6 -0; Henry absent.
As for meeting content, Members noted their charge from the Council and what the
background issues are surrounding their charge. It was also suggested that the
Committee receive public input on the issues, as well. Karr noted that the Council has
requested staff provide Members with background information from the Human Rights
Commission, several pieces of correspondence that have been received regarding the
issues, as well as transcriptions of the PCRB forum; and that information would be
provided prior to the first meeting.
City Manager Markus responded to Members' questions and concerns, further
explaining the presentations by the Chief of Police and Transportation Director would
provide background to current operations of the departments and provide an opportunity
to expose members to the departments. Meeting length was also discussed, with
Members agreeing that an hour meeting would be optimal and that meetings be kept to
less than two hours in length, when possible. The meeting on September 10th will be
geared toward sharing of opinions and viewpoints of Members, as well as reviewing
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, August 29, 2012 2
correspondence from Council on these issues. The meetings of September 17th and
24th will be scheduled for presentations by Transportation and Police /PCRB staff
involved in these issues.
Roberts noted that she would like to have more background information on the PCRB
and their role in these issues. Staff will provide the PCRB's Annual Report in the
September 10th information packet so that Members can gain further knowledge on this
particular board, its role, and how the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee fits in. Members also
agreed that discussion with the School Board may also provide much needed input.
Karr then brought up the issue of which meeting room would work best for the
Committee. After some discussion, it was decided that Harvat Hall would work better for
the Committee. Also agreed as important is public input, with Chairperson Botchway
stating that advertising of this will be key to educating the public. It was agreed that
agendas and notifications of the Committee meetings should state that the public is
invited to attend all meetings, and that they will be held at City Hall in Harvat Hall.
MINUTES FORMAT:
Karr explained that the Committee can decide what type of minute format they prefer.
She explained how the Council and various other boards and commissions handle this.
After a brief discussion, Members agreed that action minutes will be essential to have,
but that there may be instances where a full transcript will be warranted. Coulter
moved to have minutes of the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee be action driven;
seconded by Roberts. Motion carried 6 -0; Henry absent.
AGENDA DISTRIBUTION ELECTRONICALLY:
Next discussed was the issue of how Members would like to receive their meeting
agendas and packets. After a brief discussion, all Members but Townsend agreed to
receive this information electronically. Townsend will pick up his packet in person.
Dilkes and Karr spoke to Members about open meeting and open record laws. Dilkes
gave Members a rundown of issues they need to be aware of with these laws. Public
records are a major concern, especially with emails between Members. Dilkes then
responded to questions from Members regarding such issues as conflict of interest and
closed meetings.
STRUCTURE:
Karr noted that a timeline of March 10, 2013, has already been established for the
Diversity Committee. She then asked if the Members would like to add public input to
each agenda, or to hold these meetings in a separate manner. Members discussed this,
agreeing that having public input as an ongoing agenda item may work; however,
several wanted more time to consider this issue. Botchway moved to table the issue
of having public input as part of each agenda; seconded by Bakhit. Motion
carried 6 -0; Henry absent.
ADJOURNMENT:
Botchway moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M.; seconded by Vanden Berg.
Motion carried 6 -0; Henry absent.
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, August 29, 2012
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2012
Kew.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
TERM
o
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
°0
OD
co
co
(0
CD
CD
Co
O
-4
Donna
03/10/13
O/E
Henry
Cindy
03/10/13
X
Roberts
Joan
03/10113
X
Vanden
Berg
Bakhit
03/10/13
X
Bakhit
Kingsley
03/10/13
X
Botchway
Orville
03/10/13
X
Townsend
Joe Dan
03/10/13
X
Coulter
Kew.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
3b(2)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
AUGUST 2, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code,
defining Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow
these systems as accessory uses in certain zones by special exception as detailed in the
staff memorandum of August 2, 2012.
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.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy Conversion
Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory uses in certain
zones by special exception.
Howard responded to the Commission's questions from the informal meeting of July 30'h 2012,
regarding the Code language itself and potential for shadow flicker from wind turbines. She
referred to literature she passed out to the Commission indicating that shadow flicker is typically
only a concern for to utility - scaled wind turbines, not the small wind energy systems under
consideration with these code amendments. She recommended that the Commission either
remove the provision regarding shadow flicker from the proposed code language or leave it in to
give a greater level of scrutiny to this concern when it is near a residential zone. She noted that
it should not be difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that the turbine doesn't create shadow
flicker.
Howard explained that currently small wind energy systems are not allowed in Iowa City as
either principal or accessory uses. She said they are becoming more common in some parts of
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 5
Iowa but there hasn't been a lot of call for them in Iowa City since the wind patterns in this area
are not as consistent for producing wind energy. She said that the City is interested in allowing
this type of energy generation in places where it is feasible and noted that there have been a
few companies that have inquired about installing such systems. She said there are also wind
turbines that can be placed on the tops of buildings, but they are generally limited to new
buildings that can structurally handle those systems. She said although she doesn't anticipate a
large demand for wind turbines in Iowa City, the City would like to be green- energy friendly. She
said that Pearson would like to put a wind turbine on their property that is zoned for Office
Research Park. She said in industrial areas and office research parks where the property is one
acre or more, free - standing wind energy systems would be appropriate. She said staff is
recommending allowing small wind energy systems as accessory uses that would generate
power for the applicant's business only and would not generate power for other users. Howard
said that staff has referred to Johnson County's recently adopted small wind energy ordinance
as well as West Des Moines' ordinance and used many of the standards in those two codes for
the proposed amendment. She said they have suggested a list of definitions that describe the
component parts of small wind energy systems and a set of rules including setback, insurance,
siting standards, and removal. She said they are recommending that towers over forty -five feet
be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, as they would have a greater impact on the
neighboring area than the shorter towers.
Freerks asked if no matter the height or size of the tower, it can't exceed 50 decibels.
Howard answered that there are noise controls and setback requirements, and in order to
qualify as a small energy system they can't generate more than 100 kilowatts of power. She
said that all the turbines have to meet all the performance standards but there are height
differences based on the size of the lot: lots of 1 -3 acres can have a maximum tower height of
sixty -five feet, 3 -7 acres can have a maximum of eighty feet, for lots more than seven acres but
less than fifteen the maximum of one - hundred feet, and for lots more than fifteen acres the
maximum height is 150 feet.
Thomas asked what issues have come up with wind power systems.
Howard said she isn't aware of any concerns related to the small systems that are not
addressed with the standards suggested in the code amendments.
Eastham asked how the Code requirements give the City control over or information about how
safe the proposed tower is at the time of installation. He said he is particularly concerned about
potential collapse.
Howard said when the application is submitted, the applicant would have to show how it meets
all the City standards and would go through the same procedures that is required for a building.
She said that the proposed amendment reads that "applications for any Small Wind Energy
Conversion System ( SWECS) shall be accompanied by standard drawings of the wind turbine
structure including the tower, base and footings; an engineering analysis of all the components
of the SWECS showing compliance with the applicable regulations and certificated by an Iowa
licensed professional engineer also need to be submitted."
Eastham asked if Howard thought those applicable regulations are clear enough in terms of
ability to withstand high wind conditions. Eastham said in Iowa City there have been flat winds
that have downed utility poles and he asked if there would be something different about towers
to prevent that from happening.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 5
Howard said that her understanding is that these systems are required to be able to withstand
hurricane -force winds and to be mounted in a concrete foundation. She said the turbines
themselves have an automatic breaking system that will shut them off if the wind becomes too
strong.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind
Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as
accessory uses in certain zones by special exception as detailed in the staff
memorandum of August 2, 2012.
Martin seconded.
Thomas suggested keeping shadow flicker in the amendment just as assurance should there be
any issues.
Freerks agreed, saying that just like anything else in the Code, they can look at this at a later
time and determine whether to alter it if there are issues.
Eastham said it's important that the staff indicated that there are accepted methods for
calculating shadow flicker for any given tower height, latitude and blade dimensions.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a
rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) zone to Low Density
Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, south of Preston Lane. (Applicant has requested deferral to September 20.)
Eastham moved to defer the item to the meeting of September 20th.
Thomas seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for
a rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone to Low Density Multifamily
(RM12) zone for approximately 13.90 -acres of property located at S. Gilbert Street and
McCollister Boulevard. (Applicant has requested indefinite deferral)
Eastham moved to defer the item indefinitely
Thomas seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 5
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: July 19th, 2012:
Martin moved to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 5 -0.
OTHER:
Eastham asked that a correction be made in the City Council packet regarding his recusal on
CPA12- 00002 /REZ12- 00010NAC12- 00004.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
z
0
U
20
0
U ui
ZW
ZV
ZZ
Na
ca z
c9 LU
z
za
z
a
z
F=
W
W
C-4
CDf
N a
0
z
W
W
OC
O
LL
z
:
N
>
>
N
'00
-v a
:3
11) Z
N
U p
U Q�
d
N C
C �
a)
�aQZ
" .a Qz
u
a <n11
�?
u n w�
u n w 2
m
xooz
xooz
Q
0
Y
Y
Y
cooxx
X
X
X
I
xoxo
g
X
o�
,xxx
I
xxxx
n
NXXx
i
XxXLU
m
XXXX
n
CDXXX
I
XXXX
mxxo
;
xxxx
n
�Xxx
I
XXXX
MXXX-
1
XXX
O�
X
X
I
XXX
X
n
N
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
ul)
Xxox
I
x
x
x
M
;XXXX
!
XXX
LO
M
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
°XXXX
COCOMNf��!')u')M
I
X
X
X
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tD
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
N
W_
N
G
xxx
J
x
I
x
x
x
N
Q
z
X
W
Q=
00<w
CL
XXXX
I
X
X
X
v-
�
y
J
U)
C1
x
w
LU
W
�wCflCOMNI�tp�c'7
-Lu2LP
L
12
�wNWC-
�-x00000000
Ul)
LO
U)
UD
Lo
LO
W
LL
N
tid
*.
a
VQYN
�vi0°ao"SF-
�NJ
al
w�HWaHei�H
=FLU
2wcnwao:
z0L
UIU.Y2CD
P
3
z
W
W
OC
O
LL
z
E
:
N
>
>
N
'00
-v a
:3
11) Z
N
U p
U Q�
d
N C
C �
a)
�aQZ
" .a Qz
u
a <n11
�?
u n w�
u n w 2
m
xooz
xooz
Q
0
Y
Y
Y
CD
M
X
X
X
f
X
g
X
�0XXiXXOO
=XXX
XXXX
mxxo
;
xxxx
MXXX-
1
XXX
n
N
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
N
M
;XXXX
!
XXX
N
�W
COCOMNf��!')u')M
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
W_
J
W
J
Q
z
X
W
Q=
00<w
CL
d
�
y
J
C1
x
w
LU
W
Wof
-Lu2LP
L
12
�wNWC-
Y
zaWL
LL
N
E
:
N
>
>
N
'00
-v a
:3
11) Z
N
U p
U Q�
d
N C
C �
a)
�aQZ
" .a Qz
u
a <n11
�?
u n w�
u n w 2
m
xooz
xooz
Q
0
Y
Y
Y
3b(3)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
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: Brent Bosworth, Shawn Leuth, Michelle Wiegand, Steven
Rosenberg, Mary Bennett, Terri Larson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6 -0 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 6 -0 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, Howard 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 allow 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
rather than relying solely on extending the infrastructure to the site along Oakdale Boulevard,
which would be further north.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
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
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
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.
Bosworth said 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.
Bosworth 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.
Bosworth said 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.
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
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.
Bosworth 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.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
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.
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
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 invited discussion.
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
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.
Swygard said she echoed the sentiments of the other Commissioners and thinks this is a darling
little property and it will be exciting to see what it turns into.
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 3549 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 Auaust 2,2012:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2012 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
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
N
N �
20 c�
O c) z
w W
w
zVN�
0
ca z
z~ O
za
z
CL
z
E_
W
W
O
z
E
N
7
N
��Dt
Z
Z
N
C
X C
C N
C y 1=
CD
m 0.0 O
o
N U.0 O
E
Q z
2 Q z
�
aQ a
11
aQ 11 11
XOOz
XOOz
as
Y
Y
0
Y
IXXX
I
XXXX
co
0XX
I
X0X0
o)
IXXX
O
IXXXX
00
IXXX
I
XXXo
m
QXXXIXXXX
I
XXXX
ti
X
X
X
D
I
X
X
X
XXX
I
XXX
X
ti
NXXXX
I
X
X
X
Q�XX
I
XXXX
M
NXXXX
I
XXX
1
CDXXOX
I
XXX
MXXX�
I
XXX
==
Ot
CocoMNl--
totoM
LuX00000000
HxH
X
I
X
X
X
M
(O
XXXX
I
X
X
X
N
_W
J
W
J
N
XXXX
I
XXX
J2Z
waz
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
U)
a�yJ
C�
wWZa4w
-
Lo
CM
�w(oCOMNr-
Wal-
d
C92FN-
Fx00000000
W
N
a.oa
W
iW
w
-�
mao��
V=
W
Z
Q
Q
a j
LU
2
4>-a�0a
W
y
w
CL
OC
=w
zowwY2v)i
-3
z
E_
W
W
O
z
E
E
N
7
N
��Dt
Z
Z
N
C
X C
C N
C y 1=
CD
m 0.0 O
o
N U.0 O
E
Q z
2 Q z
�
aQ a
11
aQ 11 11
XOOz
XOOz
as
Y
Y
0
Y
ZXXXIXXX-
VXXX
I
X�X�
�WXXIXXWW
ZB
O
00
C:IXXXIXXXX
m
XXX-
I
XXXX
M
X
X
X
D
I
X
X
X
ti
NXXXX
I
X
X
X
N
M
NXXXX
I
XXX
==
Ot
CocoMNl--
totoM
LuX00000000
W
_W
J
W
J
J2Z
waz
zvam=a0
a�yJ
C�
wWZa4w
woF-
2
Wal-
d
C92FN-
a>-
W
N
a.oa
W
iW
zowwYe2wF
-�
E
E
N
7
N
��Dt
Z
Z
N
C
X C
C N
C y 1=
CD
m 0.0 O
o
N U.0 O
E
Q z
2 Q z
�
aQ a
11
aQ 11 11
XOOz
XOOz
as
Y
Y
0
Y
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
FINAL /APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — August 14, 2012
Vice Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M.
Kingsley Botchway, Melissa Jensen and Royceann Porter
Donald King
Staff Marian Karr and Catherine Pugh
None
Captain Jim Steffen and Officer David Schwindt of the ICPD.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Jensen and seconded by Porter to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 07/10/12
• ICPD REVISED Use of Force Report— February 2012
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
OLD BUSINESS Draft #1 of FY12 PCRB Annual Report — Karr noted one typo that had been
corrected. There were no questions or comments from the Board.
3b i 4")'
Motion by Porter and seconded by Jensen to adopt the FY12 Annual Report as
amended.
Motion Carried, 4/0, King absent.
Complaint statistics — After discussion the Board agreed to maintain the practice
of not to keeping any complaint statistics for the following reasons:
- The unique officer identifier number used in the complaints, if kept by staff, is
public information. There is some concern that the officer identity could be
figured out.
- The Board does not have any power to discipline the officer.
- When the Board reviews a complaint, they are supposed to look at each
incident and the facts separately to come to a conclusion. A list of statistics
could influence their view on a specific complaint.
- If an officer works in an area where they have more contact with the public or
where certain times of the day may be busier, the potential to have a
complaint filed would be greater.
- Each Board member, if they choose to do so, already has the ability to keep
statistics.
PCRB
August 14, 2012
Page 2
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION Karr informed the Board that Jensen and Porter had re- applied and have been
re- appointed for another term to the Board and also that Botchway had been
appointed to the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION Schwindt requested additional information regarding the level of review noted on
the annual report. Board members verified the levels were correct.
Porter announced a community event for parents and students being held at The
Spot on Thursday, August 30th, dinner is at 6pm and the meeting will start at
7pm. The discussion will be "Knowing the 4 -1 -1 on the 5 -0 ". Porter asked if
anyone would be willing to come with complaint forms and explain the PCRB
complaint process. Botchway said he would be available to come.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Jensen and seconded by Botchway to adjourn into Executive Session
based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records
which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or
to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or
continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in
confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative
reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and
22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to
a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of
government, to the extent that the government body receiving those
communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably
believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
Open session adjourned at 6:05 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 6:13 P.M.
Motion by Jensen and seconded by Porter to set the level of review for PCRB
Complaint #12 -01 to 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(b), Interview /meet with complainant.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
PCRB
August 14, 2012
Page 3
Motion by Botchway, seconded by Jensen to request a 60 -day extension for
PCRB Complaint #12 -01, due to timelines and scheduling.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• September 11, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• October 9, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• November 13, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• December 11, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Porter, seconded by Jensen.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M.
fD �p
"1 A
H
H
>- z
d o�
N
n
0
b
O
H
A
n
r�
0
C
W
7
0
w
w
N
w
cn
N
r+
O
H
H
>- z
d o�
N
n
0
b
O
H
A
n
r�
0
Approved Minutes
July 2012
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
JULY 19, 2012
ROOM 208, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Jay Honohan, Rose Hanson, Mark Holbrook, Michael
Lensing, Daniel Benton, Sarah Maiers, Chuck Felling
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray
Others Present: None.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 17. 2012 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the May 17, 2012 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 7/0. Lensing / Maiers.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will attend the July 31St City Council meeting. Lensing will attend the
August 2nd Johnson County Board of Supervisors meeting.
STEERING COUNCIL REPORT:
Felling reported that Marylou Henley, the secretary of the Steering Council
passed away. The Membership Committee will be asking members if there are
additional membership benefits of interest to them. The Outreach Committee has
a number of speaking engagements lined up including Johnson County Fair,
Noon Lyons Club, and NAMI. Members of the Outreach Committee continue to
write editorials that are being published in the Press Citizen. They are hoping to
3b(5)
Approved Minutes
July 2012
have an article once a month. The Programming Committee will be hosting a
meet and greet for the instructors.
DISCUSSION OF DODDS REVOCABLE TRUST:
Honohan reported that Clifford and Emily Dodds left two bequests to the Senior
Center Endowment fund that is maintained in the Johnson County Community
Foundation by Friends of The Center. The first was for $25,000. According to the
will, the interest on this money was to be transferred to the Senior Center's
operational budget and only be used for refreshments at programs.
Honohan spoke at length with the Dodds trustee and attorney in regards to the
use of this money. They came to the agreement that this money (approximately
$1000 per year) could be used to support the Volunteer Recognition event. The
Dodds would be recognized for their generous support of the program. The
second part of the bequest is approximately $65,000. It will be placed in the
Senior Center endowment without restriction.
Motion: To pass the Dodds Resolution. Moved by Holbrook, seconded by
Lensing.
Maiers, yes
Lensing, yes
Benton, yes
Holbrook, yes
Hanson, yes
Felling, yes
Honohan, yes
Motion carried on a vote of 7/0.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Kopping reported that an ordinance is to go before the City Council regarding the
serving of alcohol at the Senior Center.
Kopping reported that the Senior Center has received a contract from ActiveNet
for the new membership database software. A similar contract has been signed
with the Iowa City Recreation Department with ActiveNet.
Kopping has an upcoming meeting with Robyn Hepker to discuss the exterior
sign.
Approved Minutes
July 2012
Kopping reported that staff has not heard complaints about the raise in
membership fees. However, there have been comments from members who live
outside of Iowa City but own and pay property taxes in Iowa City. They have
questioned if they could pay the resident amount if they do not live in Iowa City,
but own property in Iowa City. The Commission discussed this and agreed that
the resolution states that membership price is determined by residency only.
Kopping reported that the accreditation notebook has been sent to the NCOA.
Once it has been reviewed they will contact her to set up an offsite and onsite
review.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Honohan reported he and Kopping went to the City Council to discuss the
resolution for a new fee schedule, which the City Council approved.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Maiers /Benton.
rn N
N v-
O
O N
5
N
O
Q
O.
El
C
O
.N
N
E
E
U u
L N
� I.f
d
V C N
ca
C = N
CO) i
O
N
N
T
LO
T
r
00
T_
O
T
O
N
0)
r
co
0)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I-
Co
T
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
LO
0
X
X
X
X
X
v
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
M
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
w
X
X
X
X
X
T
N
N
-
N
N
It
V-
M
M
N
r
r
r
T
r
r
T
X
w
T
r
r
r
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
L
r
r
r
T
T
T
T
0)
O
O
°
O
c
(a
O
°
N
R
L
°
0)
O
O
J
0J
m
ti.
_
°
M
=
o
�
m
E
E
V
Z
U
�
-ca,
a
N
X C E
w +p 0)
C C N E
CD E
N -0 -0 O O
CL Q Q Z Z
II II W 2 II
xooz
Y