Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2008 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, April 28, 2008 — 5:30 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Comprehensive Plan Item: A public hearing for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land Use Map to change the land use designation from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420th Street, east of Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive. D. Rezoning Items: 1. REZ08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 22, 2008) 2. REZ08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48 acres of property located south of Olive Court and Leamer Court and east of Marietta Avenue. (45-day limitation period: May 22, 2008) E. Development Items: 1. SUB06-00003/REZ06-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Dav-Ed Limited for a preliminary plat of Galway Hills Parts 10 & 11, a 51-lot, 21.75 acre residential subdivision located at Dublin Drive & Shannon Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 25, 2008) 2. SUB08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 25, 2008) 3. SUB08-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Company for a final plat of Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, a 17-lot, 7.6 acre residential subdivision located on Walker Circle. (45-day limitation period: May 15, 2008) F. Vacation Item: VAC08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate BP Properties to vacate Northtowne Parkway located east of Nouhgate Drive and to relocate the street to the north. G. Discussion of amendments to Title 15, Land Subdivisions Consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to the subdivision and development of land. H. Consideration of the April 3 and April 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes I. Other J. Adjournment UDcomina Planninq & Zoninq Commission Meetings: Informal May 12 June 2 June 16 June 30 July 14 Formal May 15 June 5 June 19 1 July 3 July 17 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 25, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Scott -Six Industrial Park As mentioned at your last meeting, in order to approve the rezoning of the southwest corner of the Scott -Six Industrial Park from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2), a comprehensive plan amendment is necessary. When deciding whether a change in the Comprehensive Plan amendment is appropriate, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should determine what circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Staff notes that there are a number of reasons that an amendment might be appropriate. Since a grocery store is already located on lots 17 and 18 and the gas station/convenience store is located on lot 18, there are only 6 remaining undeveloped CI-1 lots at this corner of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. These lots are fairly small in size and may be more conducive to small retail, office, and restaurant uses that might get some economic boost from adjacency to the grocery store and its associated retail traffic. Since the die has already been cast by the establishment of the grocery store, it may be in the public interest to acknowledge this corner of two arterial streets as a commercial node. There may be a need to establish a small commercial node in this part of town to serve nearby residential areas, employees from the surrounding industries, and future development as the city grows to the east. When McCollister Boulevard is eventually extended from the Iowa River and across the South District to connect with Scott Boulevard traffic volumes will likely increase to a point that will better support a small concentration of retail businesses in this location. In addition, the City has plans to -reconstruct 420th Street in the next several years to support further economic growth in this area and in the area to the east. The City's policy is to concentrate commercial growth within established nodes near the intersection of arterial streets rather than encouraging strip commercial development. This intersection may be a good candidate for such a commercial node given these factors. A revised Comprehensive Plan Map showing general commercial at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard will be presented at the meeting for your consideration. If the comprehensive plan amendment is approved, this revised plan map should be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. Approved by: obert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 25, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: REZ08-00001 - Hendrickson -Lytham Condominiums Since your last meeting, the applicant has made some adjustments to their plans based on comments from the public and have submitted documents that resolve the deficiencies noted in the staff report. The applicant's engineer walked the site with the Assistant City Engineer and planning staff to examine the western portion of the ravine where there is currently standing water. Several members of the public commented at your last meeting regarding the stagnant nature of the standing water in this area and expressed concern about ongoing drainage issues on this portion of the property. The problems noted in this area are due to poorly functioning stormwater management facilities leading from streets to the west and south of the subject property. The applicant has offered to try and resolve the issue. Staff suggests that the applicant or his engineer describe at the meeting what was observed at the site and their suggested remedies for the situation. Staff agrees that additional grading along the bottom of the ravine will be necessary to improve the drainage and will likely result in a more livable environment for area residents and future residents of the development. The revised preliminary plans illustrate where this additional grading and development activity will occur (See attached plan). We have received the following revised plans and documents: ■ The final geotechnical report from Terracon - indicates that based on soil borings taken at the site, the stability of the slopes is adequate for the proposed development. They note that a more detailed structural analysis should be done prior to construction of retaining walls and buildings. ■ Preliminary side and rear elevation drawings of the proposed dwellings. ■ Notes have been added to the plans regarding tree preservation. An on -site pre -development meeting between the grading contractor, construction manager, the City Engineer and the Development Regulations Specialist will be required prior to any grading or construction on the site to ensure that construction area limits are honored and trees are protected by safety fence. ■ A note has been added to the plan stating that the building designs and materials shall be consistent with the submitted elevations and the facade designs and paint colors of the dwellings shall vary so that immediately adjacent dwellings shall not have the same design. April 25, 2008 Page 2 The City will require a construction site run-off permit and finalized grading and construction plans including a structural analysis for buildings and retaining walls built on slopes, and a tree protection plan prior to approval of the Final OPD Plan. Given that issues have been resolved to the extent possible at this preliminary plan stage, staff is now recommending approval of REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002, a 2- lot subdivision and a rezoning of 9.48 acres from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for property located south of the terminus of Olive Court and Leamer Court and north of Tower Court. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development NED SIP z 8� d �^ W o Zi (t r�14 s gGg➢ gg➢tl ff➢ p $555 PU $55 yd bZQI �➢ a jIIp_psg� a eg� � ig� �8 S� i O$$ 511 Ti Ili) A li e➢ eP �7��1 i�6 �$��a ��� ��p+ �➢ o � �➢P eft p. is I j 4 ` —G nt� ��➢ �!r➢p[g iyr� tl �p6ae 9 rn _� e4F � � r"i ➢fir 6C oP� ➢ $y eyt frg P g C �. � �•$ �rg q g � 8j7 ➢ g�� ➢&, �r➢�i e$�a �� fir➢➢ �• g ,y 9➢Ye �•� •�.�g - � �9sc�itr� jai' �l/Illl�so91 ,iINA ' �.�'- �1 ;�Jflltll►�.�f I GEOTECHNICAL 'ENGINEERING REPORT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROPOSED HENDRICKSON LYTHAM CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IOWA CITY, IOWA Job No. 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 Prepared for. JEFF HENDRICKSON c/o MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, lowa 52240 Prepared by: 1rerracon Consultants, Inc. lowaCity, Iowa lrerra- can April 25, zoos Jeff Hendrickson c/o MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Attention. Mr. Ron Amelon; P.E. lrelrrac6n consulting Engineers & Sclentists Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2399 Heinz Road, unit Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Plione 319.688.3007 Fax 3'19.688.3008 www.terracon.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Job. No: 06685611.02 Dear Mr. Amelon: Subsurface exploration for the proposed slopes for the condominium development, in Iowa City, Iowa has been completed. In summary, soft to medium stiff clays were encountered over stiff to hard sandy lean clays. Our analyses indicate that even with the weight of the new fill associated with the retaining walls and the weight of the new condominium structures, the existing slopes will remain stable with factors of safety greater than 1.3.. We appreciate the :opportunity to be of service to you during 'the design phase of your project, and look forward in assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions concerning' this report, or if we. may be of further service to you, please contact us: Sincerely, Irerracon Consultants, Inc. Timothy T. 1 es, P.E. Iowa No. 12939 17W/8FG: sab/n: /Projects/2008/ 06085611.02.doc Enclosures Copies To: Addressee (3) Gisi, P.E. Iowa No, Delivering Success for Clients and 1;inployees Since 1965 More 'Th*rt 96 Offices histionwide TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION-------------- __------------------------------------ ------------- ..----------- -------------- ---1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... —------ ----------- -------- -------------------------- ---------- --------- — ---- —1 SITE EXPLORATION- PROCEDURES ---- ----------- --------------------------------- -------- ------- —------ 1 FieldExploration --------------------- ----_----- w------ ---------------- _--- ..------------------------------ 1 LaboratoryTesting ------- -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------- 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ----------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 3 SoilConditions ---------------- --------- ----------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------- 3. GroundwaterConditions --- --------- --------- ---------- __----------------------- _------------- —-------- 3 slopestability anaylsis--------------- —------------------ --------------- ----------- ----------------------------4' GENERAL COMMENTS-----------------! ....................._.............._........5 APPENDIX A Location Diagram Boring Logs SlopeW Printout UU Triaxial Test Results APPENDIX B General Notes Unified Soil Classification System GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROPOSED HENDRICKSON LYTHAM CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IOWA CITY, IOWA Job No. 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 INTRODUCTION Subsurface exploration for the proposed slopes for the condominium development in Iowa City, Iowa has been completed. Twelve (12) borings were drilled at the proposed site. The individual boring logs and a Boring Location Diagram are enclosed with this report. This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, evaluates the test data, and provides the results of our slope stability analyses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of the construction of a condominium complex comprising of two-story buildings (12 single unit and 12 duplex buildings), and associated parking and drive areas. The project site is located on Marietta Avenue and Leamer Court in Iowa City. Based on the supplied preliminary development plan, we understand the proposed 8.1 acre site has steep slopes in the form of a valley with existing ground elevations varying between about 725 to 759 feet. In general, the steepest part of the existing slopes is about 3'/:1 (horizontal: vertical). The proposed buildings will be located on either side of the valley near the tops of the slopes. New fill placed between the buildings and on the uphill side of the buildings varies from about 3'/z to 6 feet. A retaining wall will also be constructed about halfway down each slope. These retaining walls will be about 8 to 10 feet in height. The types of retaining walls are unknown at this time, but it is anticipated that they will be some sort of reinforced earth structure. SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Field Exploration The field exploration consisted of performing a total of twelve (12) borings to depths of about 25 to 50 feet below existing grade. The boring locations were selected by Terracon personnel based on the site plan provided and staked in the field by MMS Consultants personnel. The ground surface elevations at the individual boring locations were also determined by MMS; however, the elevations indicated on the attached boring logs have been rounded to the nearest %Z foot. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson Tferracon Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008, The borings were drilled with a track -mounted, rotary drilling rig using continuous flight, hollow -stemmed augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were obtained using either thin -walled tube or split -barrel sampling procedures. In the thin -walled tube sampling procedure, a thin -walled tube or seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into the ground to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive or moderately cohesive soils. In the split -barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch O.D. split -barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split -barrel sampler in the borings performed on the site. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the . standard penetration resistance value. These values are indicated on the boring logs at the depths of occurrence. The samples were sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing and classification. Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs by a geotechnical engineer and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples. Laboratory Testing During the field investigation, a representative portion of each recovered sample was sealed in containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual and laboratory examination. Selected samples retrieved from the borings were tested for moisture content. Dry unit . weight and unconfined compressive strength tests were also performed on - select undisturbed samples obtained from the thin -walled tubes to aid in the soil classification and to provide input for our analysis. A hand penetrometer was used to measure the approximate unconfined compressive strength of some of the relatively cohesive samples. The hand penetrometer test provides a better estimate of the soils consistency and strength than visual classification alone. Additionally, an unconsolidated undrained triaxial shear strength test was performed on one of the samples to provide input to our slope stability analysis. The results of the laboratory tests are shown on the boring logs, adjacent to the soil profiles, at their corresponding sample depths. The results of the triaxial shear strength test are shown on a separate attachment. As a part of the laboratory testing program, the soil samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation, texture, plasticity, and the limited laboratory testing described 2 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson llerraCon Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 above. Additional classification testing could be performed to more accurately classify the samples. Portions of the recovered samples were placed in jars, and the samples will be retained for at least 1 month if additional testing is requested. The soil descriptions presented on the boring logs for native soils are in accordance with our enclosed General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The estimated group symbol for the USCS is also shown on the. boring logs, and a brief description of the Unified System is included in this report. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate depths of changes in soil types. In -situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Please review the attached boring logs for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at the Individual boring locations. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows. All depths discussed in the following paragraph are referenced below existing grade. Borings 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 encountered about 1'/2 to 9 feet of existing fill. The existing fill generally consisted of brown, dark brown and gray brown, lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel with the exception of the existing fill in Boring 5, where the existing fill consisted of concrete rubble. Below the existing fill in these borings and from the ground surface in the remaining borings, soft to stiff, lean or silty clay with a trace of sand was encountered to depths of about 12 to 21 feet. Below the lean or silty clay, Borings 2, 3 and 4 encountered gray brown, medium stiff to stiff, sandy lean to fat clay (weathered glacial till) to depths of about 21 to 26 feet. Below this, and below the upper lean or silty clay In the remaining borings, gray brown and gray, stiff to hard, sandy lean clay with a trace of gravel and occasional sand seams and layers (glacial till) was encountered to the borings' termination depths of about 25 to 50 feet. Groundwater Conditions The borings were monitored while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater levels observed are noted on the individual boring logs. At the time of drilling, groundwater was observed in the borings in the depth range of about 0 to 19 feet below the 3 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson 1rerrecon Lytham Condominium Development ( Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 existing grade, with the exception of Boring 12 where groundwater was not observed at the time of drilling. Delayed groundwater measurements were taken on April 2, 2008. At that time, groundwater was measured in the borings drilled at the tops of the slopes (Borings 1 through 4 and Borings 9 through 12) at depths of about 5 to 15 feet below existing grade. Delayed groundwater measurements in the borings drilled at the bottom of the slopes (Borings 5 through 8) indicated water at depths of about 0 to 5 feet below existing grade. It should be noted that these groundwater level measurements were made during a relatively wet period with melting snow in the area. Due to the low permeability of the cohesive soils encountered at this site, a relatively long period of time may be required for groundwater to develop and stabilize in a bore hole. Longer term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be required for a better evaluation of the groundwater conditions and potential for water level fluctuations. it should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table are expected due to seasonal variations in adjacent drainage features, the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. in addition, perched water can develop within higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future will be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. Groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. SLOPE STABILITY ANAYLSIS Existing fill was noted in several of the borings as discussed In the Soil Conditions part of our report. This is an indication that some earthwork has been performed in these areas and the slopes may have been altered in the past. As requested, a global stability analysis of the slopes with the new construction was performed using a computer program (GeoStudio SLOPE/W) that utilizes the Morgenstern - Price force and moment equilibrium method of slices for circular failure arcs. Global stability evaluates the ratio of resisting to -driving forces, and is referred to as a factor of safety. The magnitudes of these forces depend on the slope geometry, soil characteristics (texture, density, shear strength, and moisture content), surcharge loading, and groundwater . conditions. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that these forces are in equilibrium and no movement occurs. A factor of safety greater than 1.0 indicates that there is a margin of 4 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson lrerracon Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 safety against movement. The closer the factor of safety is to 1.0, the probability of movement increases. The degree of risk or the magnitude of the factor of safety which is considered acceptable. is generally established ,by industry standards and depend on many factors such as variability of the soil conditions, groundwater conditions, surcharge loading, and cost of repair. It should be noted that current U.S Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Transportation standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1:3 for an end -of -construction condition. Based on the limited data available, our understanding of the site geometry, and our analyses, it is our opinion that the factor of safety against a deep-seated, slope stability failure will be greater than 1.3 for the proposed project slopes. Our analysis indicates that a. cross-section from north to south, near Borings 3, 7 and 12 (see the attached Boring Location Diagram) represents the worst case scenario if one of the condominiums was included. The load from the condominium was modeled as a uniform load of about 1500 psf. The attached printout of the analysis of this section summarizes the slope geometry, position of the proposed retaining wall and condominium structure, soil stratification, and soil properties. We understand that the project plans call for slope protection using erosion mats. It is our opinion that, If installed correctly, these mats should provide sufficient protection against erosion that could lead to future slope instability. Our analysis indicates that the proposed slopes with the proposed construction and retaining walls should have factors of safety greater than 1.3. It should also be noted that this analysis pertains to the global stability of the proposed slopes. Analysis of the internal stability of the proposed retaining walls is beyond our scope of work. Also, recommendations regarding the construction of the condominium structures and other related earthwork are beyond the.scope of this report. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical analysis and recommendations in the design and specifications. Also, Terracon should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, and other earth -related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed 5 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson lferracon Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties (express or implied), are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. mnnna I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or ESSlO under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed OF.••••.•. N Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa. TIN40THY T WILES :m v 12939 Timothy T. Wlle Date 'go ww+� My license renewal date is December 31, 2009. 6 N 0 zw z �- zw 0j,zL 6 LLJ 0 w � w L1,1 Z b m LL, Z Q _.nrC—mokI STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: SUB06-00003 Date: May 1, 2008 Galway Hills Subdivision Parts 10 & 11 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Dav-Ed Limited 2300 Cae Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 337-4818 Contact Person: Scott Pottorff MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City IA 52241 Phone: (319) 351-8282 Requested Action: Subdivision Preliminary Plat Purpose: Development of 51-lot single-family residential subdivision Location: West of West High School, north of Shannon Drive and south of Dublin Drive Size: Approximately 21.75 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped — RS-5 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential and Church — RS-5 South: Residential — OPD-8 East: School — P-1 West: Residential — RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: Single-family Residential Neighborhood Open Space District West High (SW6) File Date: June 06, 2007 45-Day Limitation Period: In July 2007 the applicant requested indefinite deferral. SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines are available and can be extended from adjoining subdivisions 2 Public Services: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City will provide police and fire protection, refuse and recycling collection services. Currently, no regular transit route serves this area, however, Westside Loop serves this area during the school -year. After the completion of the development, the Westwinds transit route could be extended to serve this area. Development of the first phase of Galway Hills Subdivision was approved in 1990 and since then approximately 200 single-family residential lots have been developed. Galway Hills also includes an 80-unit retirement community and a church on Dublin Drive. The applicant, Dav-Ed Limited, is now requesting approval for the preliminary plat of Galway Hills Subdivision Parts Ten and Eleven, a 51-lot residential development with three outlots on approximately 21.75 acres of land. The property is located south of Melrose Avenue and west of West High school, on Shannon Drive and Dublin Drive. At the July 12, 2007 meeting, the applicant requested that consideration of this plat be deferred indefinitely. The applicant is now requesting approval of the preliminary plat. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The property is located in the Southwest Planning District, and the Southwest District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for 2-8 dwellings per acre. The Plan specifies the importance of well -designed, diverse neighborhoods served with interconnected streets, sidewalks, trails, neighborhood commercial centers, institutional uses, and open spaces with appropriate designs to suit the surrounding single-family residential development. The Comprehensive Plan depicts the connection of Dublin Drive to Shannon Drive and a connection to Willow Creek Trail. The design of Galway Hills Parts 10 and 11 is consistent with the future land —use scenario of the Southwest District Plan and complies with the RS-5 zoning requirements. All of the lots exceed the minimum 8,000 square feet lot area standard and meet the minimum 60 feet lot width requirement. Subdivision Design: The design of the subdivision is consistent with the subdivision regulations and the Southwest District Plan. Dublin Drive will be extended to the south to intersect with Tipperary Road, which will connect to the existing terminus of Tipperary Road in Galway Hills, Part 3. Shannon Drive will provide a street connection from Tipperary Road to the Walden Hills subdivision to the south. Limerick Lane will provide street access to the lots in the center of the subdivision. This street network has been designed to provide a street connection between Galway Hills and Rohret Road to the south and to provide a connection from Walden Hills to Melrose Avenue. This is consistent with the concept plan that was first developed for Galway Hills in the early 1990's. The Walden Hills subdivision was also based on this street concept and Shannon Drive has been built across the creek to the southern boundary of Galway Hills. The streets have been designed to be circuitous to discourage cut -through traffic. The resulting street pattern will improve access for emergency vehicles and make it more efficient for the City to provide services, such as snow removal and trash and recycling collection. This street connection will allow a City bus route to be established between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road resulting in improved transit service for much of the area. The City bus cannot be operated without this connection of Shannon Drive. This connection will also allow more efficient school bus routing. In general traffic circulation will ppdadmin\stfrep\sub06-00003 galwaypartx-xi-prelim_may2008.doc 3 be improved in for these two subdivisions. An 8-foot wide sidewalk is shown on the west side of the Shannon Drive and is continued further on the east side of Tiperrary Drive and Dublin Drive. This walkway will provide pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the Willow Creek Trail located to the south. Open Space: At the time of initial zoning approvals for Galway Hills, a Conditional Zoning Agreement required the dedication of 6 acres of open space to allow the extension of the Willow Creek Trail. Three of the required acres are located in Galway Hills, Part 3, located to the west of this property. This plat will include the dedication of Outlot A and B. The total area of these outlots equals 3.03 acres and will satisfy the dedication requirement. Willow Creek Trail runs east -west though Outlots A and B. The trail is proposed to be continued further to the west as part of a regional trail network. A temporary recycled asphalt trail now connects it to the existing sidewalk on Tiperrary Drive. With the development of this subdivision and release of the trail easement on proposed lot 222, this trail should be removed and replaced with grass. The wide sidewalks along the proposed streets in this subdivision will become part of this network connecting Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road. Sensitive Areas: The property contains environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands and a portion of a stream corridor. The applicant has provided a Sensitive Areas Site Plan that shows the stream corridor, wetlands and their associated buffers. Most of the sensitive areas are part of Outlots A and B, which will be dedicated to the City. The sensitive areas will remain undisturbed except for the installation of necessary infrastructure. Therefore, a sensitive areas development overlay rezoning is not required. Storm Water Management: This development will share the existing storm water management facility in Outlot C on the west side of this property with Galway Hills Subdivision, Part Three. The storm water from the southern section of the proposed subdivision will drain into the wetland area and to the stream corridor. Adequate erosion control measures must be taken to protect the ground around the existing trail and ensure that the stream corridor is not negatively affected by the drainage. These issues should be addressed in the Sensitive Areas Site Plan and grading and erosion control plan that will be reviewed and approved by staff. Infrastructure Fees: Water main extension fees at the rate of $395.00 per acre (a total of $8,591.25 for 21.75 acres) apply to this subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB06-00003, a preliminary plat for Galway Hills Subdivision Parts Ten and Eleven, a 51-lot, approximately 21.75-acre, residential subdivision located west of West High School, on Shannon Drive and Dublin Drive, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Galway Hills Concept Plan Approved by G Jeff D vidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadmin\stfrep\sub06-00003 galwaypartx-xi-prelim_may2008.doc U. 0 / T O oao Niiena .... .. _ p cz V t' Id 1tl03N00 k a o 901 add V O f ,. � l^• � ndsNav � I � F "PTIFIVY 71!K-%4. WA* �1 '' �� �* "''� � � �: '�� � .mow"f�! 001 wo PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN w g GALWAY HILLS SUBDIVISION — PARTS TEN & ELEVEN IOWA CITY, IOWA PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: OWNER'S ATTORNEY: cuNC ISW MMS CONSULTANTS INC. DAY—ED WHITED BRUCE HAUPERT 1917 SOUTH GILBERT ST IB DONEGAL PLACE 222 SOUTH WNN STREET PLAT/PLAN APPROVED ..I IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 by the°II--r e — 11 City of Iowa City rwgsTs a< <prs a,s rx. AxD wnp, ° swLx ,Tlxxnv xXx, gaw sf:'.x " [IYa' Cit CIvrY Deta.. DU DRIP[ 9NANXDM DRIP[ A NPDRARY X'x.. T �x[X x, ro,x� ae'e c e c� a[�roo OW . (DRIIIXM WXUM OYJVR f 9Nu1XOX DRR'W T— EASEMENTS, AS SNONN HEREON. MAY uAY NOi, WYNCX Al Y WPPDAND WID I— OI RXAXINR OYJY[ AMD e6C DP DUtlDI D-) INLpUDE SANITARY SEWEp LI N ArvpC OR Si SENFR llNES, NOT i0 SCALC TYPICAL SIRESC SE[T10N /- WA— LN+ES :SEE CO SRRU TON PLANS FOR DETAILS. NOi 10 SCALE �D RET [! txF rFsl gD[ ci $NAMx°H DRK x 109 _ {— 179 17T 170 i 9Y3 9�9 lagIIIII _ l _ SIBS 154 — 1 ®f@1��t®B8• @8 183 i/ / 979 II 91711 9 17� l 175 .I 170 I 1�3 \ \ \1 ,"' 152 ' v ww `p POTQAL Ai HLUsy®robw p�Of REO,NNING 154 .I 214 1210 ; Ise A 183 j __ ®aeYO®a #2 209 204 20 p 20? ` 201 L I 184 — 206 y ` 208 a 207 %j 218 217 216 1 I 185 219 $d OUTLOT 220` -;_ I Via, 187 N, 227 ; 228 A g �229 230 a «.. xZ,222121 i 9 g 188' t 226 is 200 =17/� 223Al .. , �. �/% 225 198 ? r ( 189 1 sn` s K Ag o sg k LOCATION HAP NOT TO SCALE �1 1 1 •,i 1 1 �r Sri AFL p , Ax% �° D p Dg g"LR a� y 193 192 31 XA,[xXA,x ExTRxgDx r[RX RRouxm . we/xRgx° / ' �5---� v X� STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES I OUTLOT 'B' 1\ Y L,D ° ,x , �OUTLOT 'A' . w --- E.1LME, XIxp�X.� ,[�pNX[xgpxx ro I - a 1 u - X TEX[, ou'rL®TI #3 4 .�.w....+rY.-. L e • °.TM..m - ...r . ,vo. wxq 1 I k .l __ Q Wlu RD„ a 'A, ❑ d 4 DZD —I CODr P7�Ka P�8 Z"1zrz aN� i�p�q�Yn�RYy�ti t d s �3n3 omo Q3,_ TE 0 C U 0 s N � s v To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB08-00001 Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part 5 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Doug Ongie, Planning Intern Date: May 1, 2008 Southgate Development 755 Mormon Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52244 Glenn Siders 755 Mormon Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52244 (319) 337-4195 Preliminary plat approval To establish a four -lot commercial subdivision South of Stevens Drive, west of South Gilbert Street Approximately 6.48 acres Undeveloped commercial - CI-1 North: Commercial (CI-1 and CC-2) South: Commercial (CI-1) and Public (P-1) East: Commercial (CIA) West: Commercial (CIA) General Commercial April 10, 2008 May 25, 2008 The applicant, Southgate Development, is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a four -lot commercial subdivision on 6.48 acres of land. The property is located south of Stevens Drive and west of South Gilbert Street. ANALYSIS: Zoning: This property is zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The CI-1 zone is a quasi -industrial zone that allows businesses to store or display merchandise outside, to repair large equipment and motor vehicles, and operate in buildings that are not completely enclosed. The South District 2 Plan identifies this area as part of the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor and designates it as an entryway to Iowa City. Residential growth and the extension of McCollister Boulevard to the south of the proposed subdivision will increase the level of traffic along Gilbert Street. The South District Plan indicates that this and other properties adjacent to Gilbert Street may be more appropriate for Community Commercial (CC-2) or Commercial Office (CO-1) Zoning. Areas west of Stevens Drive are identified in the South District Plan as being more appropriate for Intensive Commercial Zoning. Two recent rezoning items have changed the zoning in the area that is more consistent with the South District Plan. Item REZ05-00022, approved by the City Council on August 1, 2006, allowed for a rezoning from CI-1 to CC-2 on 10.38 acres of land along South Gilbert Street, South of Waterfront Drive and north of Southgate Avenue. Item REZ06- 00024, approved by the City Council on November 14, 2006, allowed for 9.83 acres of land located on both sides of Stevens Drive, east of Gilbert Street, and along Waterfront Drive to be rezoned from CIA to CC-2. The applicant has chosen to develop this property under the current CIA zoning. Traffic: It is the City's policy to minimize driveway access to arterial streets where possible. In order to minimize curb cuts on to Gilbert Street, which is an arterial street, a 40-foot access easement will be provided for Lots 2 and 3 to allow them to share one curb cut. The shared access point will reduce side friction on Gilbert Street. Access to Lots 1 and 4 will be provided by a cul-de-sac at the end of Stevens Drive. An access easement from the terminus of the proposed cul-de-sac will provide the option for access to all of the lots in this subdivision to Stevens Drives. Storm Water Management: The proposed grading plan would create a north -south ridge along Lots 1, 2, and 3. A ridge would direct storm water drainage in two directions, west toward the Iowa River and east toward Gilbert Street. In order mitigate storm water run-off on to Gilbert Street, staff recommends that the grading plan be adjusted to direct storm water toward the proposed 20-foot drainage easement. A revised plat was submitted on April 25. Staff will review the plat prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to determine the drainage concerns have been addressed and if any technical corrections are necessary prior to approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Upon resolution of all deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends that SUB08-00001, a preliminary plat for Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part 5, a 4-lot, 6.48-acre subdivision be approved. DEFICEINCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. The plat should contain a note indicating that lot 1 will not have direct vehicular access to Gilbert Street. 2. The plat should contain a note indicating that vehicular access from Gilbert Street to lots 2 & 3 will be limited to the 20' X 40' access easement shown on the plat. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat Approved by: 4'49- Robert Miklo, Senior tanner, Department of Planning and Community Development CL T W� is mA03Nco 0 O cc C� co 0 47 Ld _ H J �Zz = N __...... O ♦^ U F is vm e V Z af o U U > O � O oc WATERFRONT DR WATERFRONT DR N C� O CI) 06 N 0 r U) N > N U) z O 0-4 O W H _ 100 AV 90OL/01/a OMO'dKCS9Ld\aCCS9ZZ\OOLZ\"0 tic 7 Y`5 r� pYi @@E STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: SUB08-00004 Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A Final Plat GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: May 1, 2008 Peninsula Development Company 1088 Foster Road Iowa City, IA 52245 Denny Williams 319 887 1000 Final plat approval 17 residential lots Walker Circle 7.6 acres Undeveloped North: Iowa River & Open Space, OPD-5 South: Residential, OPD-5 East: Residential, OPD-5 West: Iowa River & Open Space, OPD-5 Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre April 1, 2008 May 15, 2008 The preliminary Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and plat for the Peninsula neighborhood were approved in May 2001. The final plat for phases 1 and 2 were approved in 2003. In January 2007 an amended preliminary plat, which included phase 2A, was approved. The applicant is now seeking final plat approval of the Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, a 17-acre, 7.6-acre residential subdivision located on Walker Circle. ANALYSIS: The plat includes the extension of both sections of Walker Circle so the street will form a loop. There will be 11 single-family lots located on Walker Circle. Barbers Place, a short loop street to the southwest of Walker Circle will contain 6 single-family lots. The final plat as submitted is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat. Construction plans have been approved by the City Engineering Division. The City Attorney's Office is drafting the legal papers. Barber's Place contains an open space in the center of the right-of-way. The legal papers will need to address the maintenance of this area by the home owner's association. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB08-00004, the final plat of Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, a 17-acre, 7.6-acre residential subdivision located on Walker Circle be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Final Plat Approved by: G Jeff Davi son, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development '01 o 0 Q)CL_ log, 3 r-------� nn a uj cc Mg $ _X" 2 . o E�tzo ill�'��(lal�aS2= i e 3E W D• f m ! I! ta:i -- C 9 LL 4 e �j g r q p S p Oki Cjg Is. 2 501'35'09'E � dd o ys e p S m Z $ Y C W ao� W J I I� I \\ I \ \ ` t `�s we` >�$(`�s;(}y E���< •, `� 101 <i .�° � � 'ed?� T y`�.p� `�+M ♦° � 'rG'ws a?d� oa � \� i]4isi �-ei!` o �" Wok ���W��tl�s�Stl�kdB re 3rr ei , Cat e �y� ff�Rw:WR�emffryc ?gW B 6€wd W o¢i Wm W W �y �s Wgar V 8; To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: VAC08-00002 Northtowne Pkwy east of Northgate Dr GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Phone: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern Date: May 1, 2008 Southgate BP Properties P.O. Box 1907 Iowa City, IA 52244 (319) 337-4195 Glenn Siders Vacation of current Northtowne Parkway right-of- way in exchange for dedication of a comparable parcel for relocation of the roadway To allow more suitable development of land for development and to allow for a more suitable location of Northtowne Parkway East side of west end of Northgate Drive North: Undeveloped (ID -RP) South: Commercial (CO-1) East: Undeveloped (ID -RP) West: Commercial (CO-1) April 10, 2008 The applicant, Southgate BP Properties, is requesting the vacation of the Northtowne Parkway right-of-way for the purpose of allowing more flexibility in the development of its subdivision. If vacated, the City will retain the necessary easements over the vacated right-of-way and the applicant will request that the right-of-way be conveyed from the City to the applicant so that it may be incorporated into lot 12 of Highlander Development Third Addition. In exchange, the applicant would convey to the City a comparable right-of-way and easement area east of Northgate Drive and north of the vacated parcel. ANALYSIS: Requests for vacation of right-of-way are reviewed with regard to the following factors: 1) impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation; 2) impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation; 3) impact on access of adjacent private properties; 4) desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs; 5) location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property; 6) potential use of the property for another public use; and 7) any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation. 2 Vacation of this piece of right-of-way will not have a negative effect on vehicular access or circulation, access for emergency or utility vehicles, access to adjacent properties, or desirability of access for circulation provided that the alternative street location is established as discussed below. In exchange for vacating the current Northtowne Parkway right-of-way and conveying it back to the Applicant, the applicant has agreed to convey a piece of property approximately 450 feet north of the current Northtowne Parkway for the purpose of relocating the roadway. In addition to this relocated right-of-way, the Applicant will also convey any associated public and private utilities adjacent to the new right-of-way. The Applicant shall construct the new roadway according to City - approved plans and specificiations. An extension of Oakdale Boulevard from Dubuque Street connecting to Scott Boulevard has been proposed for several years. Staff has concluded that the proposed location for a new Northtowne Parkway will result in a more suitable location for a connection to the proposed Oakdale Boulevard extension. When the final plat for Highlander Development, Third Addition was approved, the City and Applicant entered into various agreements, including a Developer's Agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, the City received a letter of credit for the construction of Northtowne Parkway in its current location. This letter of credit or a comparable letter will need to be transferred or provided to the City for the construction of roadway in the proposed new location. Utility easements along the vacate right-of-way are necessary for both City and private utilities and should be obtained or retained, as appropriate. Private utilities have been contacted and asked to identify any utilities currently on -site. If the right-of-way is vacated, the Applicant should grant easements for any utilities that may exist, or alternatively, the utilities will need to be relocated. If vacated, the current roadway will no longer be maintained by the city and will become a privately owned and maintained access drive. Vacation of this right-of-way would benefit both the landowner and the City. The landowner benefits in that the land will become more flexible in its use, helping to facilitate development within the subdivision. The current roadway could be maintained as an access drive or the land used for another purpose. The City benefits from this action in that it gains a more appropriate location for Northtowne Parkway in relation to a proposed extension of Oakdale Boulevard. This will allow for a better configuration where the two roadways will meet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that VAC08-00002, a request to vacate Northtowne Parkway located east of Northgate Drive be approved, subject to the retention of certain necessary easements, the dedication of a new right-of-way with necessary easements and an agreement for the construction of Northtowne Parkway in the new location. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Plat showing property to be vacated by the City 3. Plat showing property to be conveyed to the City Approved by: / '-`Y'r'E4Wf-1 Robert Miklo, Senor Planner, W O Q W W J lO Nd IO:ZZ:ZI OOOZ/IZ/Z OMP'S9Ug9ZZ\OOZZ\:O t NVN O&m �- Q) U co o W O W N to �I (� wav> vtpOp Z N 7z rr W €i morn �Orn p c0 0 4 C) g CV W U J p ujei� ~co ct QZQ °w w 9=O9 m 4 V mQ dcn— )— g o k� ZI ��«$o �o3ugMu�°°9$CopE«_v q 9µµp In'^3onT« i�oln �99�55 a$ �vl 'n v..c a«�o ES 1`; ooF-oZO ZVV�~_m'8n o��'1 T"�E�po LTN— . p `ox' �J, VC yy tt CC u a�✓p2pC pC�C °m V1 ap0 ty T��,.jU �'YOL'6ONZ C^Cyl3✓3" I`V V.4V P �V�17 .-ODOR✓50 09 TN�V sfi0°m co b.4 °°. o°$o .6. YrN- '."c3C p Lp Jpp.UJa ZL Y O °Y Tm _C O UNO p}YLYk5 CpPCpla YO 3M? V3tp�ZY=� rb=a�^ $c«oov °cun9»i=oop3 ovE?I`NEYw�-`� N s O v° 0 N 3 C N a pU "VoIO �oOrr�9 00$ �w2 Dy a.3 Y; JY pFi.j-TC Vl �p�t� "c i 41. .6W 56 cg P^ P3.Z $OQ o "o :5 TuP-a 5a$so �Ujto S`6� « T <« a c<.UOP3 C'~o3Gp 3r°�VOO °o 'CY Q�Uln�a m�cV OZ �F-�f U.r V�i�0 u1-h NV�I TpO MStl-Noei-Bf NOuns Y/I 35-1/i MS !0 3Nn 1SV3 I r 8 4gaP � MStl-Noei-Bf NOuns Y/I 35-1/i MS !0 3Nn 1SV3 I r 8 4gaP � yi ER� $ NEVon l ° F o?o «ro <w ; FZJ Zc9� o�p a rc cs 88 amz �%�(��j�. �1/��� HEM M Ell / / I � �8$',�aE O brc.�r" 66 --------- ------------------/__ / C / -465,--�t-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- / m � U z L v vNn � mw QQ�f V Yb. 4� r � mm p�p�o g.ni T N / Y�Y � U% < N Z CD z CS� � j �� 0O O C/') Mi Z V�\% W W g 0 «D N O C✓ 0= o«, am •v:'a=mow puar.zva$vZ0.,mu.� u 60 o c op z o o« o «O im 'oZm No ao T,+L9, v N n p N +D O'mON )iN _ rn p �Mv pt �U ai rn9 OL O++O.,--Z~ O hvv j pw�- JYro WU0 oNU - uNo `o.0SInp`ILgaN•oOw0 pm0Uu;°`�o�Opi �ayp �p a�N�E�o�•U«`c1 vw O m aEoo cO3.�.c L._ J• m 0 C p TU O.. T« �4'O u N O .. o CC', Z O y 0 m'. Z O C E O P -Oo-u�E ucamvoi.cw ,2 0 C U 0- « u m aoi Py L L h O t O y a 0 c vO�O FLLO« < v z S L O N O N U dLLo u D opt vm3 3 on mF �U NZ Qwm-«v OO. v1i iQ� 5 6pp �rEron a Il F '! Ylv w4516 900Z/v/Z 6x.p'ZSSffS9ZZ\OOZZ\:0 F�w m V �c O =' U c o 00 Z N morn iOm O tD 0 Q p s :Q ai c ram-' of `✓ .¢� t'V Z U �0 E ^ten d ~QZQ ao3 cry ww d Q cWn �0- 8p$ ZZ o om.Q z g CZ¢CgQ=F'SW soz--oS ZZ ¢¢ ¢p N RR Q Z c6�j6�j6p6 Ua yg� 'M'pg�3W-a� 2, lvl r/iN�� �5 �i¢¢AjOY.i lli~ 68 N M00\aIS-f n02F��F�N��K I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v� r L o� �ZZ p c'. n O o u m E m V 0 'o O m o,� aK O U `f c O O O � az0 woo o g s. N y c o t ; 0 w Y F 3 o �o a dMa « _ `u o O d 0— 0 < o a�cp N < O p v za �Zo ZZ§O I)mW M9N-NM-9C Y 135-Y7 ON a L 2 C = c� p cu cn a) cu me 0)0 a) a 0 cn cu 0 o ago= cu =� °� o fu L 3 cn c�� ° Q-c a �•+ c �. o a o f _ 0 3� cu.S a)r--a 3 ai o a) c� Ucu 3.N c c c Q° o coa c � (Do0) No So —�>o10 Q.S� >,°•� o E 11. *+ N N o m C v v_, c0 ai ° o E °= :03 E O'a L) m ° ° °— ° o � MO cL) E cn rn >, >, ccu C �... NNrncu V W c°> 0 � • � �'0 cc � O N UO� rn O O O Z N 0 ai ° cnr cud °ccu 1 0 O Y o 3: >co cn N QO U Nt 0� 0=p0 > U= a cn -C• >, .U) �. oo a a WQ ua �`�° � �r-cu LL -° c O CUB �+ ��,�'XO—>, cu 00 0 rn 0-0 � 0 - �� vQ cn -o � �, ,, "'�( Q' U) .E0 CL ,��.>oa) ��s E 3 ° O � �' F..... y aa) aCL� �a Cl) ° aNi a3i rncno�,` i' O, 0)� ° c'a c >,o c ° c ��� a) N ca t . ° `- > - "; a Imo a_ ° o > p cu c cu u`n) o a) Cl) c o ate~ ccu — c �• c © E0 "c'u�a`�i �'�U)L)(D)S� �.= O U mu)°cEMcn O N �E a)�.0cu c.S�3c`na� I--0 >,000 o E ° a� WW F-m m3� mcuUmc_°u0-0 cu 2 z U ' O cn o 0 cu —cn r- 3 U c o �° C C o a) E c a o o E �cn cn o G p � cE cuQ-a)a) � 0a)a`�i�C) aci> = me c�cC) ° ii+� () L a) v, O a) a) c ` c a) O W H ai Q.i E c iU cn 1�4 1 C a) a)Q a-c-0 O ° o.��L+� �7 � �Jm(1) < < c0.) NO�U) e- N C O N V U a>'� o ° � co a) o cUc� — v O a) () Qa)mEc:.. U' o -C CU � .� f0 C O C P Q- w co Lr-L U a) 'a O a) -O co cn U C O c O 'O a) Cl 3. Vi l Ui .Ln V O -O m c a) O Q U a) 3 c °) CO _ c = c EQ�M N E O N a) E co+r °U° CL 3 'O N E _-ld u L cc "O O O a) LM) W.X O (C :G cc C a) O Q L O O U CCL V a) H cncn3� °-c�c-C c L O co R O V N N O 'O Z U CL U O Q L= n— c y 0 a) N O Q Q•� N o ' N O N U U) O U O U .V Q 0 N C Q c N L fC O C_ W ao°rn H-0(oO-3 c c oc- cn c LQ a)Z3 a� C- cu a-- C °(D a E a o caUE � a) a)> U O > a) .O o L o `~ co E O - 0. �. O V N -C U 7 0 O 0' (� U) N O wcn rI v N � I E mom a) O O O 4- cL a) N Q - �O N 30�cv+°-�aQ- — +-' +�' %O +r c °a�='U)0�a °� °� -aU)� > c c3a°c'1) hoc off,° E E crnM>ai°aoi "O a-°i� >' — CL An (D E 4-- O O O — U)0 — O E-crtl ca ��c �waL>N°"�CD a) T' CU ~°- N >' (D �'� °o a� LO�caE 0- c E L E E U 0) a) > M a� � a) ago ° a) - a) mcm .L Q N L C cq- , O C O O LL.— N�.0tc O N +� '° 0)O O a) c F, (n �Q a) y O N O O-� OL a) a) 4- W N a). o a� a o o g' aEi 3 c o >,° o c ffiL Vi I-4-- ���-0 ca cif F 3U (D c c ° O 16. o ca-Cc°-o��a� +- _ c� 0) M 0 C o �'o v U)M m N ° �.v ai O rno U) a) co�v>'M N-� N .-0 EZ ° c (D c� o c.Q >1° c� m EZ! 0M-.0 N CO U) to -0 ate)=o >'oaa)) a "- � +� a) > 4= c °. c ._ m c o o «r M � -a 0. M > . o o .� o E 0 o (n c o�� c° o 0 acic c = N 0 4? C a) " U� N 4. O V 0)� N c��` E 3 ,0 coNL° o W C Z oE>c: �� L op oU n c ° 3> o mi�.0 � cNL,_°a>I- n.c o 3 o E 3 O° 0 C" Q +� c N ��>°',� c 3 o E� cn� cco c U Nv U) v p .L, V c a i p c O C 'p N E-0 N >' "' (0 a) -p p Ci. N t i N 5 p w O N 2) C Q ,C 'a) O acu._ m o cn 3..'a LO cXo L fc4 m ac E2Z caen rn (U Uu'i A) — 4 U c ca ca �. ccu 3 U N L L m 3 °)E L o f � °- Q � 0 o L L6 c 0 o �d. � o �a)co 0 a) c 0 <: U 6 O C — d U "O °- a) E p E a m a)mmaa))°a)•—.- E O U o 3� p)�� o Ea)0)Czcc° C 0—>Ec�a) O UNCL cn c-C ocCa�(Drn cn - c Cy o0) UrC°a) a m cLa•�v rna) c°ccN M r U(u L > C C MU ma 0 = a) Q C c ^>+ `� C p O L N O Q, m L N Y M a Ea) to C2 > Oa) O "O N yEUa CO) 'vi L c m UOY-C ' Os .�U0a) I O mOQ_ tcommQ O 0 o � -0 � �O rn O 0 0 E m .� o c m ..- -0 Y 3 c° L In •� a) a) —0 U o 0 3 .. o> _ a� m �i c aci C ram+ } O >O a) O L m U cn — c u o O C U. V (m � O Q Q co p e Q O N m _ m a)y m °� E p — 0 �c Q .L- d Q as m m _ +• nm -0 -3> m° O 0 ° �ov,m'v)m me �+ a��� >a)um)-cm-0°C•(`~ _ '� m°-C o ' —co o c� a o= v .r E cc o a) a)�+..r. UO a) �++cEE E c` mC.� �O N p cn N —_ 0— p p E C _ _ 0 -U _ — O c 3�?'upi°�•v�� Q 0 N _ 1 t4 c�'a oc>°E �`�-3L)i cc°�c°�U0 ���'� � LL MM 0EaCi�°� a`�i°off C= m.- °m�°� Orna)cn E cnvEv ° O N UCL �cocoM N tna�T aiO.m� QC+-0 3"U U- n O L =c 1 N ° m 3 > a>'i CDaa)) C 3 r _ Lp > m cm�.Cmo� E o > N 3•V� > 0. c�O Ct L Q m ° Q- E �+ c N> 0 O O .c pN cc (a tea)- °)-N _ I � c 3 ... m � p � � � 0 � m J ,F a) � c � ° c� m.A.— C O C A O O O U o rn cn 0.: o N— L. Q i;i a) m C L � a) Cl •C E a) c 0 U N C U c cn m °-0 a) M 2o O aa)) C o N Q: (D 503E°N 0aoU� �U N 1 LO r I I Lo C N C' N ci -a c O O +, N c N c c o > M O -C -p O a) 3 . V oL c � +, O O — a) ) > co a� co J co m -p O a)a � L to c6 cC N 0 A a) N cu inL y a fU (1) L O N A C C p 'O E N O rn U c�i O N OUNtOa)-Y 30a) c v-c v cv }' �aP-0 =E �a)X�Ea Eoocc CY °-y- ca0coa a U N�-C O p O, vvcUj p —_ cn Q. �N c)� �aa oaa-oo u�)M E U -caE t c CD L co a) - N ° o ° Q� p) N O L N� 0-0c+a V Q� a`ni ? 'L' :cn cn co a 3 N� o f° C L a N O c > O .- C N O L O o -O N= 0 a) o O L p�° U Lo L OCL ° 'O O .> = L N N O O (B "a -C a) >+ M a) •— "O E O a) -p N a) L E _ O o N` o U a) N c O+ - pDo O cn� ESN°c O� a) -so0�o3-'coE��L N co >, C° >, �' o O Lp o �- a) o U 2 a) N aci c ca >,cn > 3 L ° a H c6 E"= c �° C E N U U Q C cLa L D) a) ° cB o - o E L o �, � c� o �> rn o f U c 2 Q� E a a-O cn� a) c C Z cB�-0 acn ° O Op ci a) a)' N o�R •— -0 a) N c �c N M•cn o� a n cpi o cn >� co Ea.wc�°aN a ,p �C5E O cc E3� a°i o ,-0pc°cn°o0 f4 O\ o 0 U +• p Q c �, c a a) (.N L a) .N c 3 L. •0 o 2 .Ljc cN L M u° a) °°.�' °oa)s o rno° W sa Qa.. O a I- co mN Q ca !- cMFf Q v' p> .- con co �U � cn U N M � Y� ca � 3•� 0 U o c N 0)M 3w 8 to M c N a a� aa) E a +r N f0 7 U C > V aE ct a) O CL — `� M c >, c6L U ca Q-O 0 4) O O N a) U CL O c 7 c a) 0 2 j (L) o y i11� i� !� rE V '- L o C a N -p L N _ 3 0C L cn Cam, c CC°o�_(Da)>' U C o a) 'c O) E o .0 m N U Q cu c 3 co 0 2Eoco o ocL N a3Eoa? E E o0oc���nca°Ea��ca� °} o Q-�� >-E O cc�°C: ;° °�o o�,�cu c O � o° o 0a ° o M E oo M �.� c� rnE c.� aa) o a 3 �-0 o 0 c a. o c a�°o Qo o c E E Qca- cn cn O} O 0 ca V O - O EE a) E06 U> O Y o > O vi 0),M �w 3 a) 3 Y - a:3to-0o c UoEoca� cno-�W Mcu aa)0(M CL- 'cao ,-0inc co 0��c-0o O �.0 N +� U) O O -0oNca cn >- 'cEcuocuQ.° c c 0 0 +-' a) L p= v) ocnocna.-Dcncn p L O o c W o cn c o c o 0 c cn °°CoN n; c �M - °o •-O�ai v CL W> co �sn> ° "a a) o cU > cME O o c a cm QaSLP °-oO cc 0) c. o -C cuE p> 00 �' co acrnnoo °QEci; = 5 co namo- c) c ca rn�o�° a) a) u o_ W -0cu o m : CU O-C N n � CU Encu-oo00-0N'2)wo0 � cnooN3°n W 0o a)oca a o `E U�j �o CM arn� na° 0mo a cc U� �� c o E > E a> c o c .0 a rna E c a) ? =N N tc-a' oa)ca E p V� a o oL� p' . N� L .0 c p am N "—Q N x C� o�g o N a `�°'n co-� a E awoi a o �c CL oao °)° � E �,c E Ec CL EL ny �Q°�'o o �o � ° �o"ta �''aEoLoQw`*3o CL oN �-o o. L� -o�a aaiW 2E.E om000-0o tL>o-0 O c C m m o Q- ai Ln +� '> o x > cu a) Q' p c U c 'p c O c J c to Q "a O L . . d •' ..'0 N o O O «, 0 o o Lp O a) U p 'U U o : C x� ° C)a � C O a� (D M U L co = C)) c`a aNE0c ��-0 o� occ C C co a) m Q-ca — a� ° .0 >,a) c_ 3 - '� UL •- °s E' ��°�'o �'�cEcU �ch0�occa,-0� > �' � c f° E � -2 m E '> cn o > U E � a� �, C CU " �_ -0-0 a aca c Q.� oU c �cn c lam- c a (u o E -o =3 0 c LQ— 0 o c f° � � Cj: c'n v�°i (D 4=cn W o �oa`ni � ��' mM 0°�EaEi�cnc cc rno 3Z.� � a� r> � .c c 0 c c U w o� u� c`n =3 ,`'"aa°i�°c_H=c>,v>i-o�U N �;j.Coa'a>>octcc°na c a) CLM �'c c 0 °_ ' M c mom= o o ,;c oU �o c° O (0 L N E a cn U +' N N _ U a N .N .N N E N m ccuO N N Q O ) C "O O a CL O .. «. cli -0 CL (D rn- E E Ec ° �� c �'� �, � o�c o a�i a) V�' U c co U > U > E-a Q.2 ~ > a Uv c�n� aim �U 0 � cm o O c O cn CD o cn O a- N C O N > = N EE >O—v 0 N U Q Q L ° N � U a)> M U > N .— Q- O o3a�; d °�r'• a3i c°a .+ �a cu`X c ;Z ca 0 O C �_ c u� m E CL -C QED X CL K ai M a) c co 0 E W `—' � M, Q � 4-- O O N c _ N m m Cl) c N _��4= N 5 a c -5 E N L ai in Q N v� O ocu 7E o > N E=0 ° Q O fni L M y+ Q 0)a :E N M CU CL N :3 N L N O a 6 c 4- > T-To(1) Mcn c O E 'y 10 U� O iyr O •O N V c� U cccu� N N N a) C C 0; o - o ° a > M °0CL �o CL ° a c a) N" H oU m o -Co -C a) �-C ct-C o> N� a) E �n c L 0 'o ° �� O cu • Q-jcn° ca = 3>4 0 � CD 7 N 'O a)°i-c E � a) a).- °-0 �_ o ��- ca C a) a c ° ca c -0f ca ca Cl)Z'o a) �� o o c� cOa C O vOi U a cn 0• X p c U= •3 H, o ;r- p E cU cn � �. a) v�-C N c N o N > Z ca c a) E �� a)aNLL-��rnE? c°n•co ° Z UNia aa4)� o° o oo() a) O m � ON a) 8 E O— a1 O c-CO 0co in 0 C EUL >0c�m'c(ic�°°)5aa`ni eo rn Q- orn�-0aa>)m3 tea"cn �0c2�a) oa)co=�°E W co I—m cua- E 1awccaa3cn ►. ca o N r La)0) E cn a) c L a) +•' _ N c � a) .cam.. +'�••' Cu E C a ° G> fn a)V O •� '� c a) r 0 a) 0) N Q C O 'a)N O U�oa)U) Nrn ch °)aE c � 0' N CC V V 6 7 G: L ca y - a) a o .Q -r- 3 a) O of cn 0 C O co C (D O N to D). O r+ -0 O C .= a) cu 0) U a) L_ C E O=> O' OL z- O w M fa • OL c� QE cv a L_ c m r ; v o ° a >. a 7 CL N c OCR O Or C Q) Oai f6 (n 0) .4 cn �— O>ca EM a) c C�'� a—% :o> D_� > ta CC c — ���cu��v�- (D to �mc'F-Ernoo5"Dc O E U O .+ C U O m O O C a)� U E ►.CO) O C C a) -p M '0 a) N C (n O .0 c Q U O a) w lQ (B p 0 f0 aD C N � N� c � > O� a� ", 0. 0 CA 3 o "= O� cU V M .. O.O CLC o N— O O U O CY a Q �0 �2 r-0)2(Drn'Su) UO L 0 C O Q f6 O C .. -C C U fII N rr N O ca U E co U "0O U c -° 3 co a(Dca)(D c CU C;),- c E0) cE cp°_O�c� ._ C o co 3�' a� Co O _ . 0 E a) a) ca > cv 'i > C O'D - O c O ca O o�0OCmM p 2_=n� e� Q-�O��Nc`i=Oaa��'c_a� c a� C `L 0 'cam E o W E cn 3 - D C C a> > O 0 o O c 5 CL M O d c o CLCL o f O CL M •Fn .5;cccn C U 0 �o Q cV 0 72-O v > L 0 C O N NJ = ci v C A (n o O O 0 L = E C� a) m O Cl) p p O o 3a U m ��c m e ° CU � �c N m 0"N� o0 M C C � ""N O � 'CO mUtm =L,C o O 0- a)p -D O N o p a N a) + Q N0o �.0 a) v - �uE F0Q -C c+p->�am cy c c cO a) ° O) ao-O � ai �o Q �pQO0 C O 0 U O ac a > nL_O U -a O O C c mm +COcN UO N ma)c Q m n�a) a)° N »a). CC0 LCO U oaL) �m-' U Z a.0 I > O c m� o C>C N 3o 0 "a a) ch -C Ema> cc ) 0:3 C o *• r o . m Q— .p in c E mmcZ ° U_c U C O O m =a� ,Ca) m a)CC CL O " NvN LO y O' UN n —a) E ma)"Qm m 2° moo o,Q a (n* m c> Qf om: v oC.c � C°(n mQNC co .�EcUn mCN O Q 'O o om a>o L C a) O p U a) o CL m a) , Q0� 0 ° m � p a m m° )O>mrnco> o °cu o-0 U) o °) c � moaQ) 4Orn) -C 0 m Ca) 0 m -0o C a)Q >) VD C CO E � Q o C a) c >% a) o Q Q o a) 9 O c mUm UC° 6 N c>N m-p > "otU O a Q ic�nNpE Q Hwo V) C foQ.Eo U omLm Q 'o > U m m coU N "O 0 0 U O UUS— ^ p a) 0 — QC�'a0a • Q (L) m N d Q_ C c .9 m m m C L t > aL-C E o C Q 00 ca0rnQs-0m o O N O� U L C' >'.- C C U�Ua3c=E-°a)—c- 00 Q o °0CL= Q- =c eCa c-o�m•`viUmo��.`c K .mc U o N m a) o a s o v .0 W I-9)Ua)U2E .223-02o C >, 4- C o c Lh 3mT- cs 0 cc L >, C N D 0) C Q N N°= m 0 C '0 m' L L m a) C m 0 C O C °� � ° o 4 �•- °L�ma) U�Uca) a) N.2 Q Qm m a)O N m_ N O U CL Q— Q O -o «� a) U U U wQ, L ° m L `+ > ° L L M/ N. O C mc��3 v�cp-�cN�c w. C m ,. O N O L .r a) (h Q m L U 'O -O m ° m C C a) O 1 -0.. .., c 70 >+ m Ln ° U C a) +� O m o 0 N r- U m C) o to a) C> 0 U Q C U V- 0 o E �- E ''N cn o� o >M co o ° °c�cca O`0CzL c �.oCD co< c E ~ 0 V ° x c Q p �L Z N t; a) N c N a�t"� '� 'a Q .N Q C > C�'� j>' CC �, a) ca N--+ c U N Q C O -0 Rf -a U C C N > O U 'N Q- O ai w E a) °��aci.00 .O _Q- ��,' oc��N�°o�v_,a2c.c3oEf°a�5`- p U fn C Q dj C im > E U- > U� ° ,N N> ° .N O 00 a) ccu O *' O C 0) rn C +� �'V O N '2 N a1C U O O C -O -O C C ++6 -p C O) C '� O +�_� .V > O L a) N rn "p 02 E' c ° ° ° c� �,c ° W� N c O 3a-0 °�� oU Qa� �. ° o > U) co U En cn E C U ° os ° E' L coin o =CL ° cn�. i a� °N o ° = p O p V N c °•c QIM E n 0 o `n O �� c c' � a� V U N aj cn a> L' N ,� ... a) p 'a N+ N U C N Y N -0 N a'� E �v� o° U ow rno —�� o O' cc ° OCDEL co-a�m°ao3 oQOo-0 coo rn ocoNn 30 ZZ C c°->cnc aipv����°a0coi°AIM co0aci (Dc`° o��'coMU c NU 0 c �� O° c a� o v� �-� n o c C �vica ���ooU�ogQ�o�oa�`m�oa� 0 Mn Npcn o �cno c -_a '>3 -oa) Mco�'Q"�.°p ° c E' C:.p�.�U°�cnUEcY t/3 N N QEms. a) O O I—+.C�EocoN° p N Q o .� m c mL) °�tUQmU) N c ns p N ca E "' (Q O N (D-� cl4):-:t--rnU -0 C c a V � c.0 M a� c m w �-C C C Qa�° 0 0 �.+��L3 }0 c� °cp�o -0 aci eo 0�� ��rn«-o,'�3�� Q a)ca� E�Q arc>acE° o C K W ' o ° -o cn M M 2 Q °° F- QMELC-) O '� N C ° .0 c ca � �.. Ica c L 4i Ch C U a� N C.a C C C Q a (D o 'O ° =3 J .1y+ "a 5) C � c L c ` M M 'a c Na�Q E ° E ` vs Q>a) CL N :.iio a� N r � i i O U O 4 N C o a) C O C �O A p CD.O C U C > (pj a� � 0 O c c >'� N Y o `� -� Y L ���L C y c' E a voi o m� 3 aci �- aci 3 c o aoi L c�«- p ai o o c :3 �� o° o M -o E� c"- c a) ns o � cu 4-- cn cC >, a- o rn-o"-�c"avoiaoi o3o,�� rn oy�a)ocE53E ) :? -a a)>� CC oai a) o Uo>v �is c ?cO ,co � , ca f yy vo O >~ Q O _pp_Q0) pN o O �� N oo �C) o rn�) ` N aL) o cE,0Y v, cam 0 3 c C p U - N _O v- "- (V O O C ._ N p L- Q a- O O U a) Q N a) O 4- .- _O >p p to cA to O U O E 3 c U p a) �, O E a) O "1 "' U a) o p N O N N• N Q c E 0= U O co > a cn C.� (n E oo .� N � moco o. .0 W 4- vi coi~ �o N cca coi (D4-- L— p_ ca ��.�Ea>i� c �c�°io�o�� o� a`ni�cno�a)ai0 f, �'o m a)C a) o Loco a) E p >o�-�- _o "C N C Q c O p)C 0 p U c N c a) �''3 a)m-0 o j N yam, c a) Q� cB yOL, — O Cn 3 p o _� p A >, to C a) N 0 -p cM a .O O ca c �+ N� � U- N a) U O L Q- U .0 c C U C >, U Mn c .� v E p O (n c X N a) `) a) N rn c - c '� co O U U a) e of t 0 >,a)oy.raa) N N a) +-� LL-ooccO O U 'a O In c��o U N> U o j o to N 0 •> O rn o U Q "O o .v N a) u .� ca rn „ O C) N N .� O Cn o p U: U aL) - -0 a�i o a) gym = 0 c � � � L-� cn L o a)'cn N nf°�c�a�'i X'via°2a)aL")Lc�oa a)c y E c"• L j E E p C 3 >, Q .-. p 3 a) E o Z U�Coc� va)rnooca)� 3 00��N� o o m o> aa)) o 0 cu Ea Oi 0� N f°� 4) 0 cl ~ U 'O U C 'a L U p N U— N O C O O O o c m ".' .D E L C E co E L O L ca cu o E cu C. U �.� ai o a) a��i o 0 3� �� >>,00 0 o�E�- (n O — 00oLL L L L O — a) 2.() Q co W I�-o���a Qm.�nv)Eao�n�°)Tcp)06 C U O = c6 c 3 1 3 �. �� o o - c cn c ap a) c U 0 >, -C 0 o N ca 'o C C C >, cU V ~ C U a) w a U aU >'NJ L C � �, Jm � a) a) y N000c0E co�vE of •_� 'O N O (LQ p N 0 U L fn C- N c� 0 Q (h 70 C "� p 0 N N E (D M C4 c a m o rnE ._ :3W0 a) N (Cl N N W (n E W0 M � C 54, co U) U a) C a) M c co L U O Z U) 3 rn O c C .O 0-0 c U U 3 =_ 'a CO: yL+ > C N 3 co __ a) (D �QOa)�a)3coa) a) aC G a) N c •= L 'O O O tm OUJ 0 0 ��Qo Now"U�nmc0 -Ca) I N a) O F- 3 co -O L U cn O cn N (Q I a) O O a C :2a) (�E N0a)0c a)3 .4mc O U L- 4- C (n L a _N 'p N fn c �� O O co N c c to L c a) 0 0 0 3 0 ++ Y O U U C O O) a) c 0 a) 'O o c o Y Q .N a) N� O U U 1 �O to O > cn a) > 2 o N ..� U U_ V O=� D O O- O > ° 3 -C aa)) aa))� 0 3_m of � >,ccLo�Lao�c—oc0 c c 'O a) co .0 a) .- a) E 3 — •cn > Et5 E� 0- — > >. N (n C O O N .3 M "2 D N a) O O O L C a) , L N> 0 O 00 a) >, O 0) fL0 v� o� E c 3 ?� a•- o N a) M 0 a) 0 0 0 L C a) N c>C co co co O F- co C cn � Q a C 0-0 U 3 O N C O O (n a) co M O p N a) a) a) "O U U E N a) L cn cn O 4- N U N -vcoma)�a)-C 3 —>+�; > 3 c o c 0 co (0 N i O'> a) co .a c — N Q acn co 3 co a (D c L N o a) cu c 00 N C L a) o Co U «. i s O QL O O co >, 3 "O O O _ 0C 00))CO F- 0 0- �0 c 0o c w co CC) O � L (� O O (.r .� a) O m c (J) U O� �-0 O C CN a >, O(u fad 3 LO - N 1) c N a) o a) (D o U N L U N O � 2 U (D N � C) co 3 2 W cn F- U) .IR w N N NCU U U O fnOOU a) cu U 7 U �o(L)� O N Q N 4-C L D Im m '> 3 0 •` a C a) CUn O U� 3(j)c>om0 oc'aa� l`I 5 (n t O NcM L O E 'di +' cn L O c N �+ O c L 3 > co cu N N O a) o 2) F- a- in C� ,C O . N N >,aci aci �c: 0 -E75 N U a) O O � c 0 �2)O 0cuMa O a)� C3>>o y�+C ccn •V 1 C o caa) N 0 0-0 C E •c0 o0a) a >, .2 O O M- 0 m 4.� '� C co U L U) 0)'N U O % U C L o L 0 O>aD0 0o�c UUO� 3m oc0 °� 0)cn co =o-°� �sccco° -0 ccu cu0 a0 )a0 o N 0 CO O a 0a> o ai � N c�3ou; 3E=� C 0 0 U -0 O Q '= �- a a) O U E` (D N Q -0 O >+ Co m N Q.fl O a �. CU N ago"- oo >x�� o?c: C 0) co mC—cnc U,cn•�u NmCL oa�c c°nO)omaa) �o.0oM CUcOnaUi0 ��Q�c coo°W ��oo _ 4- - ��72 Vi H�.cn(D _OUEa —�.�0 cAa)o aD�>,� c .ST ca) CO) co o 0 0 0 .m o U) cu o a� 0 c°U 3"c co w q� O a� o o�0y�a�c�o�rn.. a�i cno�,n a� O- �� 0LL L a���0� v°i Z a�'iacama�o•03o CC00ai".'-�'°-a-E L o - :3voi�—cw cn �' o > cam c o�' ccm :� o � U� 3 ° ° 0 �. c ocn°�oo�o�LcaO a� >, o co -o co ., c >, Qc�Oc-cacioc�a�vi cn a a� L a v � a3 a).= co m aa) S am 2 � a0 cn• c. a coin o cn k W 0 �? m .� C)cn�� co 0 ao a N 3 o m 0 E o a a) -0 I—� cts () a N °-a cc m a) (Q E� E rnin U c"�n o � � � c o rnn S� C: N 0U L N O a � _ L a o U C C i C -0 a) G y0 CC 'p �±•C a) D O CU 0 0 > 4-4- 0 ° O CU M Q C4 (0 cc U J +, C a) U O C L O co++ J C ++ O C E -a_ M cu O � O C H O H a cn N` U cu y Q N O N U N r U a O I Q U O C. c� c -0-0 1 a a- > M U cn a- > > �3 c a) �ooTE2 0 a> a� �O cn ao �cnUcn a�i �0cA0 4 y � W C uN cu-C— s cu o a) -0 o c c°a L f° aS _> a) CD C o a. ._� N a j carn•CM U x O� a) ° Qa 3 Q-co CcC0 c LLC >,a) a) ._ ) 0- 0 YjC �>). 6 N — a o O.N •�� O O o a�0 C NpoQ -jCU 0 p •` •N cu C? o`°u CNa�E o=_U) N _ ° CM a) L a) y C a U) ` C c-)c3 ) O� O O O O a- •CN rnto rn o > ca a- N tm, aaC) "O O O � C E L o3NEu�� 3� pOa) a) C N in N E U CA f4 O a C ,cu o L n. a) �2 E cn c ° cu c to �+ L � ° o U o cn E U C cu O Z U C a) c6 A Ey �+ N N _O Q as 2 = N a)'r- 'a 0-0 cu a) C O L a > > a) m C cn -0 o mo e C I cn as .5 cn cm m C �' cn c rn�°Cc E "ca) �o o cu > ° >��cu U) a) a) C: L - a O (D N a O to O O N M�aCU°�U)� C7° a �. o �c 2a�0 n N 4-0 C N Y v m 4m O cv J M L6 r N C v W i C C U �L ice+ N d V a. N Y 3 d M M i N r W rn �' aD c --o ( L c o �. �cEm n°'voiai c0cn o�. mcn -0E 'C0- c`aa�icC�oI - °C� vi rna_°iaa �E ;Ll > a) C Q p cn 0)��OC m °CoC E a) •-QU 'p cm-Dwwo—c Om= . o0oo0om+-Upm>0 Noc= L- L- ca)�a� o U) � a) M.o a) a) U) CN Co L) E C U) = `O -0 UNc O MpME=C acio>3:00c oa) aci�a�'ica3� o E N"w.N o-a w Em c af°i w.n C-�+°'o= �� - E C U) a) cMCOaa))pc`a>�=aoi0 pc T3 > a) O M O 2`iCCwVL` O a) a0i U (a c 0 U C> CU I—v uC,ai0�iv°',coicE o O > Cl) 0 O � �,L 0C) ca-a V L O C I-- N N E U p .N 0.0 CM to N ca a) _a- L C -n" .V O U CO O U)O� � O C 3 N U 0 w a) C:) ca a) c 0 O C N O O) M O L V) N C))a) 2 ca C F— N ) U V C �.- .0 > �, Q -p Y a) a) j a) N O a) L a O a) O . ��+ 7 O O U F— cn B .0 o = 'CO C. v) U N E ca co co C O U C O O C ca L— p ca U 3 :m .0 M L -0�c� corn C- `o co o�c°w- co y� U .O o 0 O L cn Q 0 0 c N O U- ca O 0� ca a) U _N N V cr� C O � O N O ca C 0 COC p. C 0 cn 0 0 C O ca U ca z -0 a) O C) =C O 0 cl 2- -0— . ca a) Ec0u�o5L5orOE O C O O O C U .Lm >o .O cn L E, FL- �a 3. '5 c a° c-0 co co) C 0 L N C a) L "�+yL NO a) a) a) — a) O a) CD O E a) O O U Q O coO cn L CM L Q- a)ca 0 .: R) O ca U ,O, U .. .� U �� m OL :� >� O M M 0 C in a) E N O C) L M ca C- E -0 o C U N 0) j a) ` Q X O Q• C) X U) J C L N Q O C p E L a) O,E p p)E ca ��, c 6- a U t6 O C O M Q O L Q a) N m N cu Z N Q O ca cn O _ OY rC Y M = co C a N � Q N � LCU) O �m O a) N N o.-0O� ��aU�ovaS .O W0 CO N C O L a) 0) L N .r O N p a) o r m N U N 3 vOi p iQ� E E �>, a) L w. o p SA—cu aa) > -Cocu N 0a`>o�'�`ua)a_°)oc�� �• E L C — CT—L p �-C CD O a) .� M� p > >, U -C E a).> L a)=. — Q� 3 N o��C rn c ��'CD �3aco�=3cM r- cn C- c= ca-C-0 M ova 3 Q� o cu.51- 0 rn� rnn r N ° cu -a cu cud cu cna) o3om > `���a3ECcv°)i C a) CO o . 3 Via) 3 M cu c°)i U m �. o a) °o ' cu cu C o o' U "' a CU C' p p a N O p O N o N L 0-0 d C o p = 3 L = +- Q-0) E c c`cuu ° c O N �w O cu a c a) ao `oo r-- c ° — L a) a) o M ` >,c fB 0 O cU o-C cu Q-p -°(D-a) Na) N_,0)�`'`aC3°)Ecue -C D a)`o Uc `� � cn a) ovoiEEoa)(Da)C "a o CU N a) > a) E to p .� `~ p C — +� (Q = M -C to M C m O) > " Q o co O '� O E a) Q a) cu O .0 a) U p) U C cu ., .� .� N Q C N a) c i� f- y, U >, C E C V (� O O p 0 w p a) 7 0— o a) a) (D a) p a) O 0- c N 0 o (n N a) 0 a) E a) c x Q N f6 a) a) 0 O U = a) N -c 4= � U a) a) a) C O L- O -C .pc E p a) a) O C rn a) a) Q- a) i p N N U N N .c to M p) N �� to w w a) V cn -C .� O :� != U fpC cu ;� N -0 ca) x C a) C C _C O) O • N a) cu co D m 4- cu CL N CD(u--0 v°)) cU)v >- cu M w a�� � °� 3 3 3� o a�'i o cu w C Q. vi aN � Qo LZ 0 o o co n E rn c> 0� d a) O Q O Q- C O a) O +. C N >' "- C O D a�'i 0) cn U +• z N -p p V cu N N 0 O Q� C O cu f6 �� C p� Op+�o3 a O O j C - a-) o �-C aC (n tsO U o c aaO � = ° c -oUpN 0�0ornvi c i lu C) a�M x o c c a) •Ea)Qa CN vcNui a)NUN f _NC O .NCU )� O WcQy 3l FaO-) co cn N Q� c N-0 c cu ON I— N O O O -0 >, 01'� O (n p — O U=o� C =��' C v)O C fl. "2 4= E cu fC N ` O C a) III U O OVcn Q C xMo N, M to O N M, Fn > cu U UJ f4 O U J C E ` -jC f a) • -Z J C 0 o .N � O E GM NLO a)° O a a) j Q m o N >, (D Q- o OM � .U0) -0 � 75 -E M• > Q,. ��a��iOca w0 �Qoo �0 ��2 � N N N M N a) ^' N C Q. is L) N (� C Q- C V 72 ~� E C -0 N O a) cQ 7 0) m m 0 .. 0 0 75 p N ca p E '> -0 - Cy Y U0C O OU N c-0 O. CC O C aI- C �- a) OC CD CD l°Ny=u)-CNN ma _coO Cco G c6 C+r� p O QL O. X c c6 O V) a) NCO, o d, �p .+ o �� N H Q= a) a) 0 0) N E a) C O CD me �- > c c o-C o 3 .. a-0 1- O'> AC"- c� 0 �°mycE 0U� a) a) C7 N-a) 0- ° me a� ° y �,c0 c�� m~= o > 3~ a°i > C E E� o-0 Q.Z 3 aN E aa)) a) 0 c N inmcccv)3u65L5 m A ° C/5u(L O L) O a) o C O D N W C ram-+ f0 E$ W iJ m a) 0 •> O cn o 0 -0 M •L ° � c '- -a > 'a O p a) a) U O) Q- p -p p cn `O .> 0 C 5 0- � �c0 N_ oocavoi oc° cn O c L) o c N cu c 0CoE cat _ O �'�"'' --00 C ca oV N ca °) V ca— �� vCL moo cl �c IL W U H C u m C = Q > O U to 0 C c 3 E US �' U V o O c6 O .r- C U C C° O C O Q N V C cn J -J 2 C (D � cn N y� O E m3c>a U)a d O U)a Z C. A CoN � W °� =a°i a)) to Ln c o >>% a) aCL u>) m >-0 �p a°i a�i ai M LO aA O G ._ C N E ... c c U U 0) c �3 to p E . '-' C O cQ L U C' O .� N C N m L ++ Q W .V .0 ,C Y p a) 0 m C M C E C C 0 •— D (D E o Cat a •—'' E ao .E a'�> 0 0c N > -0Ocno Nco t5 cn U L a) -O r O a) C: :E N 1� Uvi.o0NOa%0•�0c ���L0 � •�' 0 U U a% > OCT -0 '' .Q 0— O o O 3-0 v0i.5cM(Dc:ccao0L-o:(600 > , tQ 0aco�">,o>�0-0— CCL (n0 1. ��c�a0)E3�maci°coNNOp 0 cn M K o (Do o�oCa)c U—a— ca 0 ai cDocc c.c E aW CL -0-0 ^ca N C co -0 0 0 L D to -0 O C a) o E �0 v/ s � M � N !" N o� •yyk •IjiyljO Y� l,i�.,.. �..: W •Yr� N i.. Ci v a vw 0 a 0 C 0 ° c Q� ° 0 N C00~ 0 = cn aD o c o ° Cc . 00� N.ornW>�NN3 ui N U_ N -o ° D)"O a) ON N "O 0a)c>a N L= Dvi 0— O c0caCU V co 0 7 C O �-C +• �, M O C O U N C °a� 0 O (Q > Cf ��E � CDCU N c Q a-a)M C E�• o N to'� O C O L cu ++ +— E N O O C E u O O U O O O Q cC a) �. N •U O O 0 N �. .ONEcn -0-o�N�'� �,U3�� O L> 0 0 a) O) O CU O O . �� C O 'O 0 0° a) E C—U v a) •�' p �; d Cm E 0 0 a)CL 4? O N L tea) cCY) OI W p o Q ( U°��.°a 0 0 3�._ a >,C °E0 CO -0 cu >+ N 3 L �: >''� N U U cn U a) ' Q O O N U () L O O O C 0) cu 0 ca co m 0 cu-0 N 'I H� Qco C 0 N O -C cn 0 O II. �_ 0 O N CY)C a) E ,y ° 0 c O rn O� to O N c0 a) E O v°�i N-0 CO Z Qi U ° C Q V I, Q. co CO L U O' 0o 0) 0) m � �'' `�� 3 ° j o � .. c o C cn n ° Q � ° "� m0°-papa°rn` cI aO)E�vQivOi �. 0 (D c a)W O y� i4 L� M Wu Cd E E co a0 c-0 �� o . U Q1 a) a) O a> N "O Gi N 'a L E .— m 0 > cx ° O .r O .r O U Q Q O' a)O m J� :� Q N J c C C N - a) a) 0`u0 � f N. n(n OE0 EaL c�0 QO cn Q CL O ° a a) �on0 a)�a) E c>a Q .� � w0-0-0 s m �i /4)i i if, 5 /aa/i a>> LL VJ a>> C; cme- ,y I���i�IIIl�nii3ii,�l N a0,',. .z Lk v O U a) L a) A O a) � U 'U0) cu m 0- M O O -O Q a) U 0- X > _ 0 y �O O) O o +m D c�V=•��°�c_oi 0�co� = N O U N O M 0 0 M U .`r = U_ C• C° C V� O, o Q ;� _�. a) E' ++ ° L �L N �NM� �c3 C' �m-oao�~��o fn: NLU) 0ovoia°i 0c=oN-0L)U) U)�� ai Q�MMa)M0)a=)°.� -C aaa)) -C °�� x" > N Hco-0v)�L- o(L)3(o +�+ cn tea 0 a)=off c°c=ocoi } — - a ``- O (i 000> � aN a3a -0a E cO 0 aO - C a) �° O :3M 4, L a)r .. a) Q� .. > 2! a) to C O M C 0 0 U '' C a) ° ° �� o Q- C a) aa) M�'� a) � w0 N� C ob°c 3 a? cn � aic��vi�vi>-°vc��o�oo�� o-ao C °� U co > 2-5 3 o >,� o� � _ c o '-- - N _ N M M CL ° a U ° U o 0 a L C a) N d' cn N O�C c co :3 Q CO Jo C N p • • a) N` U =o Q. O - = (D O a = � aD M M M r N MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2008 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL SESSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon, Charles Eastham, Robert Brooks, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Pfuhl, Bob Elliott, Dan Smith, Glenn Siders, Carol Spaziani, Wendy Robertson, Audrey Croft CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Judy Pfuhl stated that in reading about the subdivision amendments, it does not really address the area that she is interested in, which is when the City tries to make the roads so that physically you cannot go more than the speed recommended. Staff stated that she could address this after the presentation is made this evening. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Karen Howard began the discussion, stating that she would be doing a presentation for those present this evening. She also noted to the Commission that staff had received correspondence on this issue, and she gave Members a copy of this. She noted that the goals of this project are to update the City's Subdivision code to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan — to clarify definitions, the purpose statement, subdivision design standards, and to be more explicit about the submittal requirements and approval procedures in order to help streamline this process. She noted that it would also codify current practices, as a major overhaul of these codes has not been done since the 1960's. Howard added that there are a number of things that are current policy and practice, but are not codified in the subdivision code, — policies such as secondary access, street naming, private streets, mailbox requirements, and cost sharing procedures for public improvements. Howard continued, describing what a subdivision is. It is a division of a parcel of land into three or more legal, buildable lots. A subdivision plat is a graphical representation of lot lines, streets, sewer lines, water mains, sidewalks, trail connections, parks, conservation areas — anything that's included in that area. The purpose of a subdivision code, according to Howard, is to encourage orderly community development, to allow development to occur in a manner that makes it possible and cost-effective to extend public services and infrastructure. This will insure that the City grows in an orderly fashion. Howard continued, stating that the Subdivision code also regulates the extension of public infrastructure improvements, which are standards in the code in regards to streets, sewers, water systems, and that type of thing. The City's role is basically one of quality control; to make sure that the infrastructure that's going into new neighborhoods is going to last over the long haul. Howard added that this also insures the livability of the neighborhoods in Iowa City. With respect to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Howard stated that these regulations help to keep new neighborhoods consistent with what the Plan and the City's vision have in mind for these areas. Howard added that inefficiently built and poorly designed subdivisions increase the cost of living for the City's residents, and reduce economic development potential for commercial areas, and may even jeopardize public safety. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Howard noted that the Subdivision code is one of the tools they can use to implement the Comprehensive Plan. She added that the Comp Plan calls for an inter -connected street system, which helps to reduce congestion on main roads by dispersing the traffic, and helps to encourage more pedestrian and bike traffic. She shared a diagram with the Commission, depicting an inter -connected street system and one that is not connected. Howard stated that other policies recently adopted by the City include a "complete streets policy," meaning that streets should be designed to be pleasant and functional for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Another policy is to narrow the local streets, which slows down traffic and allows more complete tree canopy over the street, and to design arterial streets to accommodate all modes of transportation, including sidewalks on both sides of the street. The Comp Plan also has environmental protection goals, according to Howard, which include preservation of environmentally sensitive features within the city, and to adopt best practices with regard to storm water management and soil erosion. With regard to parks and open space, Howard noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for small neighborhood parks within walking distance of residences, accessible open space that provides a focal point for the neighborhood, and a continuous network of trails and sidewalks that provide access to neighborhood destinations. Howard next addressed public safety, stating that insuring emergency access by developing adequate street circulation patterns and minimizing the emergency service response time are both critical factors. Howard then jumped to the proposed draft of the Subdivision code and how they plan to implement some of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that a main goal is to have inter -connected streets. Therefore, they are recommending new block length standards. She noted that currently there are very few standards and they have little effect on what happens. Howard stated that each new subdivision needs to stub street access to the next subdivision that comes along, so that all of the neighborhoods will have the inter -connected street system. Howard added that the policy is also to discourage cul-de-sacs. She noted that in some cases cul-de-sacs make sense, but that having too many in a street system creates problems. The secondary access policy, which Howard states has been in place for a number of years, will also be codified. This is having more than one access to a neighborhood, in case there is an emergency situation. Howard then talked more about inter -connected streets, stating that there are a lot of good reasons for having them. She noted that you could have a lot of short blocks and a lot of intersections, which gives you a choice of routes. A study in Washington State showed that there was a 14% increase in the decision to walk for each measured degree of increased street connectivity. Howard stated that a consultant was brought in to analyze both the Subdivision code and the Zoning Ordinance several years ago, and to also give recommendations with regard to how the City could implement their Comprehensive Plan. Some of the statements made by the consultant were: the City's existing regulations contain virtually no regulations addressing street connectivity; and if the City is serious about implementing a policy of connectivity, new regulations and guidelines should be added to the code. Howard went on to say that a hidden cost of an unconnected street system is more money spent on gas and auto maintenance, as well as an increase for services such as garbage pickup, snow removal, mail delivery, etc., as all of these vehicles have to drive more in order to provide these services. She added that this past winter showed how difficult it could be in those areas with cul-de-sacs and unconnected streets when trying to clear large snowfalls. Unconnected street systems also add to the response time by emergency vehicles. Howard continued, pointing out the important aspect of connected streets between subdivisions and how what gets done now will have a huge impact on what can take place later in future developments. Street types were addressed next, with Howard stating that currently the City has very limited wording regarding this. The proposal is a reduction in the required pavement width for local streets, from 28 feet to 26 feet; an increase in the required right-of-way width for local streets, collector streets, and a codification of what is currently required for arterial streets to allow more room for street trees and utilities in the space between the street pavement and the sidewalk. Also proposed is an increase to the sidewalk width standard from 4 feet to 5 feet along local and collector streets. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Howard stated that there are three types of streets — local, which are low -volume and are mainly for access to property, and provide street and sidewalk connections within a neighborhood; collector streets collect traffic from local streets, and provide connections to the city's main arterial street system; and the arterial street system, which is the main traffic arteries of the city, providing connections across the metropolitan area, often define the boundaries of neighborhoods, and they function to move traffic efficiently. The City requires wide sidewalks along one side of arterial streets to provide room for bicycles and pedestrian traffic. Howard then shared some examples of street cross -sections with Members, explaining that there is a 4-foot sidewalk, and the property line is typically one foot inside that sidewalk. That leaves about 6 feet for utilities and street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed code would reduce the pavement width for local streets from 28 to 26 feet, and would increase the sidewalk width from 4 feet to 5 feet, which leaves 11 feet on either side of the street for street trees and utilities. Howard continued, talking about the benefits of having street trees. She listed some of them — increased traffic and pedestrian safety by providing a street wall, encourages walking and neighborhood interaction which increases neighborhood security, improved businesses, protection from rain, sun and heat, reduce harm from tailpipe emissions, absorb pollutants, lower air temperatures, lower ozone, and add value to adjacent homes and businesses. She noted that in Iowa City there are many tree -lined streets, and she shared some of the history of the older neighborhoods. Howard stated that in talking to the City Forester, he stated that there needs to be sufficient room between the sidewalk and curb for street trees to be healthy, and that in some neighborhoods, Summit Street for example, many of the trees have problems. Howard continued, explaining that in newer neighborhoods, streetscapes are more interrupted with driveways and large garages. Therefore, there is less room in the parkway area, and by adding another 5-feet, these newer neighborhoods could have a tree canopy over the street, as the older neighborhoods tend to have. In higher density neighborhoods, Howard stated that the need is also great to have large street trees to shade the street. She shared examples of current neighborhoods as she moved through her presentation. The proposal for collector streets is to increase the right-of-way width from 60-feet to 66-feet, and the reason for this, according to Howard, is to accommodate room for bicycles on these streets. In order to become more "bicycle friendly" in Iowa City, Howard stated that the City needs to plan for streets that can accommodate bicycle traffic. She showed an example of the 60-foot right-of-way, and how much room is needed for a bike lane, and that there is not enough room for the overstory trees. By adding the extra room and making the right-of-way 66-feet, this allows more room for the utilities and street trees along these higher volume streets. With regards to arterial streets, Howard stated that 100-feet of right-of-way is needed so that as the traffic volumes increase, they have enough room to add more lanes, turn lanes, etc., especially in commercial areas. She noted that it is very difficult to retrofit after the fact, and that planning ahead makes this much easier. She shared some examples of problem areas with the Members, one being Court Street. Howard then addressed some of the miscellaneous items they want to codify with their proposal — sidewalk width standards, provide standards for mid -block pedestrian connections to break up long blocks, require deeper lots along arterial streets to buffer these homes from the arterial street traffic, and require a buffer along high volume area, such as along 1-80 and Highway 218. Sidewalk standards being proposed are to go from 4-foot to 5-foot in width along both sides of collector and local streets. Arterial streets would have 8-foot sidewalks on one side, and 5-foot sidewalks along the other side. The City would pay the oversize cost for these required sidewalks. Mid -block pedestrian connections that break up long blocks would help both pedestrian and bicycle traffic in neighborhoods. Howard continued, sharing examples of what happens when homes that back up to arterial streets don't have deep enough lots. She noted that people want to buffer their yard from the arterial street, but problems occur when the lots are not deep enough. Howard next addressed parks and open space goals for the City, stating that this was already in the Subdivision code. It cross-references the City's open space policy, as well. She added that the same standards with regards to connectivity, mid -block connections, and trail system connections, all feed into Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 whether the parks and open spaces are usable spaces for the people of those neighborhoods. Howard spoke next about good access to parks, showing an example of the good access that Willow Creek Park has. She then showed the example of Windsor Ridge's park area, noting that it should be accessible to everyone, but that it does not have very good access and is not apparent to everyone that this is a public park. Howard then addressed the environmental protection goals of the Plan, stating that the Subdivision code has a cross-reference to the sensitive areas ordinance, and also cross-references new construction site erosion and sediment control ordinance. The concept plan stage that has been added to the Subdivision Code, according to Howard, will help design neighborhoods based on existing features of the site. Public safety goals — things such as connectivity standards, limiting cul-de-sacs, secondary access standards, temporary turnaround requirements on street stubs to accommodate fire trucks, and also traffic calming design — are all new standards in the Subdivision Code as proposed. Howard then spoke to approval procedures in the code, stating that they are proposing to update the list of submittal requirements in the code so that there is a checklist for developers when they are submitting an application. Also, she noted that they define what is meant by a "complete application." There will be a timeline for approvals, based on the date a complete application is filed, and codify current practices with regard to forwarding applications with technical deficiencies to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and to be more explicit about what those submittal requirements are and approval procedures are, in order to help streamline the process. Howard then shared a flowchart, stating that it shows how the process occurs. In regards to the concept plan, this has been added to the Subdivision Code, and is a pre -application review and feedback to developers so that they don't have to completely design a subdivision before they get some review, that they can get some feedback prior to spending a lot of money on design. She noted that staff has 20 days to comment on a concept plan, and then the developer can chose to redesign or revise the plan, ask for further advice, or after having one concept plan review, the developer can submit a preliminary plat at any time. Howard continued, stating that the preliminary plat stage is 45 days that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have to approve or disapprove, and the date that this starts on is the date the City receives a complete application. The final plat stage, according to Howard, was streamlined somewhat. She noted that at this stage most of the design has already occurred, and if the final plat complies with the preliminary plat, and provides all the legal documentation, it could be more of an administrative review on the part of staff, and then forwarded directly on to the City Council, unless major revisions are needed, at which point the developer would have to resubmit at the preliminary plat stage. The City Council then has 60 days to approve or disapprove the final plat from the day it is submitted as a complete application. Howard then commented on some of the concerns voiced about the review process. She noted that the City has a Joint Staff Committee that reviews application materials when they are received. They are concurrently reviewed by all appropriate City departments, such as water, fire, public works, planning — anyone who has a relationship to the plat. They meet and discuss any problems that they see with the plat, and then the plat is forwarded to the Commission, via staff report and presentation. She stressed that this is a Joint Staff Report that comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also addressed was what does a "complete application" mean. Howard noted that basically staff would not forward an incomplete application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is the City role's to safeguard the public interest and safety, according to Howard, and what a complete application means is the developer has to have accurate measurements and dimensions, and all of the required documentation on the checklist. If this is not done, Howard stated that it is difficult for any of the City staff involved to review the plat without knowing everything is in place. She added that both the code and the application form contain checklists of required documentation. If a plat has more than six technical difficulties, Howard stated that staff will not forward this to the Commission, and that this has been a practice for quite some time. Technical difficulties would include engineering standards, storm water requirements, etc. so that over time problems do not develop in neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Once an application is complete, Howard noted that the City and Planning and Zoning Commission have 45 days to review and approve, before it is sent to the City Council. The developer may revise and resubmit concept plans and plats as many times as they desire, before being sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. It is up to the developer how many revisions they make. City staff will give the developer advice and let them know if they have met the standards in the Subdivision Code. Howard noted that many times there are negotiations back and forth between the staff and the developer, and that prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review, the developer typically wants the staffs' approval. Major revisions may occur during this process, Howard noted, such as topography or steep slopes, wetlands on site, etc. and that the process can be lengthy on difficult properties as revisions and resubmittals take place. She added that often times plats with sensitive features require outside expert analysis, such as the Army Corps of Engineers' approval on wetland items, which adds to the timeframe. Howard noted that with regard to the public review process for the proposed Subdivision Code the idea is to have public meetings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that as public testimony is heard, notes will be taken. After Planning and Zoning discusses and votes on these issues, their recommendation will be sent to the City Council, at which time another presentation will be made by staff. If there is a disagreement amongst parties or a lot of changes that need to be made or explained, Howard noted that a joint meeting could be held between Planning and Zoning and the City Council. At that time there would be further public hearings before Council before approval. Freerks asked if anyone had any initial questions before she opened the hearing. During public hearing, Howard noted that staff will keep track of any requests or amendments to the draft, and a decision matrix will be created with these requests. She added that staff will review this carefully, and it will then be brought back to either the April 17 or the May 1 meeting. Public Hearina: Pfohl stated that she has a few comments that she would like to see considered in the Subdivision Code. She noted that she would like to see bike lanes be better coordinated with streets on cleaning. As an example, she noted that this year they started cleaning streets on March 1s`, but you still cannot take bikes from Rohret-Mormon Trek area and head into the University Hospital area without finding two or three inches of sand along the road. She also addressed the street trees issue, and questioned if there is anything on replacement of these trees, so that if the trees die out early, will they be replaced, and by who. Pfohl then spoke to ponds, such as the one on Westside Drive, and who is responsible for taking care of them. On current cul-de-sacs, she questioned if there is any arrangement for connections into those, such as the one on Sycamore. Next Pfohl spoke to brick sidewalks, and the maintenance needed to keep them stable. She added that these are not good for ADA-type of regulations. Bob Elliott stated that he particularly likes seeing the straightening of streets, as it helps in the numbering of houses. He also likes the access between streets being improved. He did, however, plead with the Commission to not narrow the streets. He noted that the street in front of his house, Dover, is only about 24-feet wide. He added that if two cars are approaching, one will almost always stop to let the other by when there are cars parked along the street. He believes the streets should be made wider and straighter. Dan Smith addressed the Commission on behalf of the Greater Iowa City Area Homebuilders' Association. He thanked the Commission for listening to public comment on this, and thanked staff for all of their work on this project. He noted that in May of last year the Homebuilders' Association submitted their thoughts on this ordinance, and he stated that he had an updated version to share with Members this evening. He stated that this version is a lot smaller, as many of the questions and concerns the Homebuilders' Association had were resolved. He briefly covered the five goals — to streamline the approval process; eliminate unnecessary requirements or vague language; require good governing practices, requiring the City to be financially accountable for public improvements; insuring that the Subdivision code affords property owners the greatest amount of flexibility and creativity by eliminating unnecessary or arbitrary limits; and fifth, honor the community's commitment to workforce housing by eliminating excessive, unnecessary cost increases. Smith continued, stating that he has a number of Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 suggestions, some of which are simple policy disagreements and others are requests for more information or clarification. He stated that the review and approval process is one concern, more specifically the concept plan stage. He stated that he understands this to be voluntary, and the Homebuilders' Association believes this is a good thing and that more of their members should take advantage of it. The preliminary plat, he added, is where they receive most of their feedback on difficulties, whether simple disagreements over what is required or policy disagreements. The Homebuilders' would like to see only one mandatory staff review, and then have the ability to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Also recommended is that any deficiencies be listed in the code, exactly what it is that is not in compliance. Alternatively, Smith added, they would like to see some sort of a deadline. He noted that most likely an applicant would not forego more staff review, as not having staffs' approval can be very negative for a developer. Smith next addressed the connectivity of streets, sidewalks and trails, stating that developers have no problem with this goal. What they see in the future, however, is a problem with what is "legally required." Right-of-way standards — Smith noted that it was not clear to them on the pavement issues, where it says 26 or 28-foot pavement, as to when this happens or who has the discretion. He added that the increased right-of-way in conjunction with the increased sidewalk widths will lead to an increase in the cost of housing, as it will remove a portion of land from buildable area. On the sidewalks, trails and pedestrian connection issues, the mid -block connection is felt to be unnecessary by the Homebuilders'. They don't believe that the 600-feet is necessarily a long block, and noted that this is a pretty subjective evaluation in their opinion. He laid out for the Commission what this does to available land, and how it affects the buildable portions of land. Smith also referred to the layout of blocks and lots, stating that the Homebuilders' like the fact that the current code allows for more flexibility in block length. It was noted that the minimum is 400-feet, and can go up to 2,000-feet. The Homebuilders' are seeking some guidelines or refinement to this requirement. The next concern that Smith addressed was the 125% lot requirement for corner lots. Smith questioned every corner lot needing to meet this requirement. Smith continued, stating that clarification is sought on public open spaces. If it were private park space, according to Smith, this requirement would not apply. Next up, the highway noise issue. Smith noted that there are no subjective criteria as to how much buffer would work. He stated that they believe this isn't something that needs to be publicly regulated. Neighborhood open space — the Homebuilders' would like to see some incentives for developers who voluntarily provide open space, by providing some sort of a credit towards the required fee in lieu of. He added that he believes there is a provision currently in place where if you dedicate a certain portion of land for trail, you get a credit for this. Mailboxes — Smith addressed this briefly, stating that the code as it is proposed uses the word "constructed." He states that they question this after a final plat has been done, that perhaps in preliminary platting this could be addressed. To wrap up his comments, Smith talked about the provisions concerning sanitary sewer, water systems where it uses the phrase, "Where the City has required an applicant to provide a public good, sanitary sewer for example, beyond what they need for their own project, the City may share in the cost of this." He added that the Homebuilders' believe it should read, "...the City shall share in the cost of this." Smith added that they believe the "administrative approval" is a very positive step in this code, and something that should have been looked at years ago. Smith added that he will distribute copies of the revised Homebuilders' analysis of the Subdivision code, and thanked the Members for their time this evening. Eastham asked the question of Dan Smith, of whether or not the Homebuilders' are requesting specific language changes to the provisions. Smith stated that a lot of what they are suggesting is removing Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 language, or to sit down with the Commission and come up with some specific language changes. He asked if Eastham had anything specific that he was wondering about. Smith stated, as an example, that on neighborhood open space they could come up with some wording for a credit -type system. Eastham noted that it strikes him that they need to keep a level playing field for everyone in the public process when considering these provisions, and that if they have specific language that everyone can see, then it might be easier for everyone to understand the revisions the Homebuilders' are speaking of. Howard suggested they use the matrix, and stated that staff will take a close look at the suggestions that have been made, in addition to letters they have received, and will input this into their decision process, talk about it publicly at another meeting, and from there suggestions can be made out in the open. Smith added that if there is something of specificity the Commission would like to see, they could provide that, and Howard noted that this is a good place to do that. Glenn Siders stated that he is representing the Land Development Council, and that they agree with the Homebuilders' stance on these issues. He noted that their focus was more on wording in the proposal. He began with definitions, stating that "alley" is one of them. It states that an alley is an open public way, but that a public way is an undefined term. He added that public right-of-way is a defined term. Boundary line adjustment — Siders stated that he was told that the 1,000 square foot of land is a standard that the City has used for some time. He stated that this is incorrect, as this has always been an arbitrary decision. He added that in a developer situation where you might buy 80 acres of land, you might have a boundary that is 2,000 feet long. He stated that they believe this 1,000-feet standard should be changed to a percentage. Siders noted that on definition of public improvement there are several bullet points. The last one refers to a public open space improvement, and he questions what this is, stating that it is undefined. Smith asked Siders if he had these comments written down, and Siders stated that he could attempt to put this in a Word document, and that he will send Karen or Bob an email with his notes typed up. Howard noted that the meeting is also being recorded. Siders continued with Section 15-3-2, streets and circulation, asking when this connectivity must occur. He added that later on there is some language about having to provide dedication for future items, and that he will address this shortly. Under design of roads, Siders stated that term "respecting natural features and topography" is a vague term. He noted that many developers are currently doing this. Siders added that one of the reasons there are so many cul-de-sacs is because residents want them. He referred to Howard's earlier depiction of problems with walkways in these situations, stating that you don't need a street to have a walkway easement. Siders spoke further to cul-de-sacs and a single point of access being avoided, stating that cul-de-sacs only have one way in and one way out, so "single point of access" needs further clarification. Minimum access standards were addressed next by Siders. He noted that "adequate" is an undefined term here. He also questioned the secondary access within three years, stating that when a developer has a large parcel of land, they may not be able to develop the entire area within that time period. He added that they need to know what the intention of this requirement is. Street types, Table 15-1, was talked about briefly. Siders continued, stating that here cul-de-sacs are talked about, and further clarification is needed once again. Siders noted that there are no provisions for eyebrow streets in Table 15-1, nor provisions for mailbox pull -off areas. He noted that there have been a couple subdivisions where instead of the ugly pedestal mailboxes that stick out into the right-of-ways, they've been able to "hide" some of these. The Post Office, however, will not go off of a public street to deliver mail. In some developments, they were able to put mailboxes on privates drives, but only because the City got involved and talked to the Post Office. In other developments, pull -off areas that are a combination bus stop, mailbox area are greatly appreciated. He noted, however, that there is no provision for this type of thing in the ordinance, nor in the standards for street right-of-ways or allowances. Under "street intersections," Siders stated that number 5, where it talks about 'dead end streets,' there is a newly added piece about an accommodated turnaround may be required, and if required, must be constructed to City specifications. He noted two problems with this as being that there are no City Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 specifications for a turnaround, and secondly, how you would make a turnaround in a situation where you have a dead end street adjoining another property line. Traffic calming features — Siders noted that these are a wonderful thing; however, in number 2, where it addresses minimizing potential speeding, ..."the City may also in cases where it is warranted require traffic calming features," and he questions what warrants a traffic calming feature exactly. Private streets — Siders noted that this is not addressed in Table 15-1 either, and he questions this, stating that there should be something about minimum and maximum widths, that type of thing. He also addressed in 15-3-3, sidewalks and trails, B, stating that Table 15-1 tells you all about streets and right-of-ways and sidewalks, and then you see, "The sidewalk may be reduced to 4 feet." Siders questioned the "may," stating that it needs more clarification here. Under C in the same section, Siders noted that there is talk about an 8-foot sidewalk and when it is required. He notes that the City "at its discretion" will either pay for the excess pavement or require the developer to install the 8-foot sidewalk, or collect the estimated cost of a 5-foot and apply cost to something else. As a developer and contractor, Siders noted that he does not want the City putting in his sidewalks as it costs him more than if he did it himself. On 15-3-4, where it talks about lots with multiple frontages, Siders noted that in this section mandatory language was actually used, but that this is where he does not want to see mandatory language. He stated that the 25% is not a problem, but he would rather design this to fit a particular neighborhood and not have it all be a mandatory layout. Referring to the buffer along highly traveled areas, Siders noted that you could have a 1,000-foot buffer and it may still not make a difference. He noted that all of the buffering in the world is not going to accomplish what is wanted if your property sits lower than the highway, as an example. He added that it does impose a serious restriction on very isolated properties in the community. Siders continued with 15-3-6, energy and communication distribution, where the electrical is crossed out. He stated that he has no problem with this, unless they are talking about the main feeder lines that utility companies use. Siders added that this is very expensive and he does not want to have to shoulder the cost that utility companies would pass on. Storm water management — Siders noted that he sees no provisions for regional storm water basins, and he would like to know why the City has not put this in. Siders believes this is very important to have. Water systems and sewer — Siders noted that extending these to the property line is no problem, but that the wording "and beyond as may be necessary" is troubling. The final issue Siders addressed was the language with final plat administrative approval, and that one of the frustrations they experience is that time is money, and the quicker they can go through the development process, the better it is for everybody involved. He added that many times they wait weeks and even months for the engineering department to review their construction drawings. He feels there should be a timeframe here. Carol Spaziani stated that she has mainly questions this evening, as she has not had the time to thoroughly review the proposal. Spaziani stated that there are several implications that extended beyond subdivisions that she believes the City needs to consider. One of them is a regional detention basin, such as what Siders mentioned. She noted that this is very important. She relayed problems that they had on the west side of town at a condo that she lived in, where the developer was to "forever be responsible for the upkeep of the retention basin," and as the condos were sold off, ownership changed to the condo association. She related some of the problems they encountered in getting this situation resolved. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Another regional implication, according to Spaziani, is the connectivity piece. She asked that the City develop some type of a long-range plan to address these issues. She noted that Atlanta, Georgia has a plan to fix the "broken links" in their trail system, as an example. Spaziani then noted that she belongs to the organization FAIR, and one of their concerns is affordability of housing. They want to make sure that the overall implication of the Subdivision Code does not decrease affordability. Also noted was the reduction of street widths, and Spaziani asked if there will be room for on -street parking, or if on -street parking is even going to be considered. Spaziani asked about street trees, as well, and who is responsible for planting those. Staff responded that this would be the City's responsibility. Spaziani asked if they automatically include this in every development, and Miklo stated that it would depend on the budget of the City Forester at the time. Spaziani noted that if this is not always the City's responsibility, then they need to make a long-range plan on how street trees will get planted. Spaziani also noted the mid -block pedestrian crossings, asking if this means there will be an actual crosswalk or if it will be an intersection. Staff responded that they don't have an actual illustration to share, but that it will be a connection between blocks so that a pedestrian would not have to walk all the way around on a long block, such as by City High where there are walkways between lots. Spaziani then asked about the open space requirement and dedication. Staff responded that they are not proposing to change these standards. Howard explained the formula for this requirement. Spaziani also questioned the change in process, stating that it looked to her like it could pass Planning and Zoning's approval altogether. It was explained that P&Z would always see the preliminary plat. The final plat is what could go through just the administrative process. Bart Cramer, who teaches at the University, asked the Planning and Zoning Commission if they could explain to his students who they are and what their positions are in this process. Freerks explained that the Commission is made up of community members from Iowa City, and she introduced Karen Howard and Bob Miklo from the planning staff, and Sara Greenwood from the City Attorney's Office. Cramer thanked Freerks for the explanation. Siders returned to speak to the Commission, stating that he forgot to mention on page 20, measurements and construction standards, where certain screening standards are noted, that the language of concern is "adjacent property owners." He noted that the most logical thing would be to have landscape maintenance go to everybody, not just the abutting property owners, and he would like to see a change in language to make sure this gets maintained. Pfohl returned to the podium talking about street widths, and how on Abbey Lane you can have cars parked on both sides, and still have vehicles pass each other without problem. What concerns her is trying to break up streets into smaller blocks in new developments, which she feels gets rid of the "neighborhood" feel. She explained how her neighborhood is laid out and how this works well without all of the extra breaks in mid -block sections. Wendy Robertson stated that she lives in an older subdivision with very straight streets and regular sized blocks, and that it is a very walkable neighborhood. The streets are fairly small and quiet. She added that she thinks it has a neighborhood feel, even though it's fairly large, and she feels the new guidelines will accomplish this. Audrey Croft commented on the mid -block pedestrian issue, stating that as a student she uses these often, but that items such as lighting and parking can become issues for safety of pedestrians and bikes. She believes they need to set up some sort of plan so these areas remain kept up and well lit, without polluting the neighborhoods around them, so that when the areas get older, people will still want to use them. She also noted that if they would utilize some of the old alleyways, they could solve several problems with both foot traffic and vehicle traffic. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Public hearing was closed Howard noted that staff has written down all of tonight's comments, and she added that it might be in their best interest to defer this until May 1 so that staff has adequate time to review the correspondence and comments. Howard noted that several question involved regulations, policies and standards that could be found in parts of the City Code, such as regional storm water management and fire apparatus turnarounds and that type of thing, she noted that other parts of the City Code address these issues - such as the Fire Code and the Public Works Title of the City Code. In addition, engineering standards and specifics for construction of infrastructure would all be in the City's engineering standards. Eastham made the motion to defer to May 1, 2008, consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to Title 15, Land Subdivisions; seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Dean Shannon proposed that Ann Freerks remain as Chair, Terry Smith as Vice -Chair, and Wally Plahutnik as Secretary. All Members voted in favor of this arrangement. Motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Brooks motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Plahutnik. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. C O .N W E E O V-E 00 c � c� N �CD o CD C N � ca� = d c; �a a v 3 O O z p w w J a O w :"XXXXXXX MXXXXXX0 �� XXXXX� NXXXXX�X E �O.-wNc:)w H W 0 0 0 \ 0 \ 0 L. 0 LO 0 �C c toM N .19 L. N O C O 0 O +'C+ dCL CL C ea r=.+ cu zoo6aui3c� 0 z F- w w J a O w z MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon, Charles Eastham, Robert Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Monson, Ron Amelon, Doug Moore, Chris Anderson, Renee Goethe, Amy Moore, Anna Olson, Chris Luzzie, Elizabeth Gatz, Audrey Knox, Mark Kamps, Kathleen Renquist, Aaron Olson, Mary Jean Streb, Al Wells RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommend approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), REZ08-00004, a rezoning of approximately 11.7 acres from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zone, and approximately 8.95 acres to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for property located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218. Recommend approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), SUB08-00003, an amended final plat and sensitive areas development plan to remove the construction limit line on lot 9 for Cardinal Point South, a 21-lot, 31.6-acre residential and commercial subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway. Recommend approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), VAC08-00001, a vacation of an alley located south of 829 Kirkwood Avenue. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Consider setting a public hearing for May 1 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land Use Map to change the land use designation from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420th Street, east of Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive. Miklo stated there was nothing further to add to this item, from the previous staff discussion. Brooks moved to set the public hearing for May 1; seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 6- 0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for an amended final plat and sensitive areas development plan to remove the construction limit line on lot 9 for Cardinal Point South, a 21-lot, 31.6-acre residential and commercial subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway. (45-day limitation period: May 11). Miklo stated that the staff report was delivered at the informal meeting. He briefly reviewed this item with Members. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke, and public hearing was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 2 Brooks moved approval of SUB08-00003; seconded by Eastham. Motion carried 6-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by William and Mia Wang for vacation of an alley located south of 829 Kirkwood Avenue. Miklo briefly described to Members what this vacation encompasses. Public hearing was opened. No one appeared, and public hearing was closed. Eastham moved approval of VAC08-00001; seconded by Brooks. Motion carried 6-0. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48 acres of property located south of Olive Court and Leamer Court and east of Marietta Avenue (45-day limitation period: May 22). Howard noted that correspondence has been received since the Monday meeting, and she gave members a copy of this. Howard stated that due to the complexity of this item, staff would go through the report in some detail. The proposed development is a planned development for nine detached single-family dwellings and 22 attached single-family homes. There is also a request for a two -lot subdivision. Howard showed the Members the parcel in question using a map, and also pointed out the City boundary lines and the University Heights boundary lines. Some of the unique features of this property include that it is totally surrounded by development, making it an in -fill property; and all of the streets accessing this property are from the City of University Heights. Howard continued, stating that this area has remained an open space with a few dwellings on it for some time, and there is a ravine in the middle of the property that bisects it and makes development somewhat difficult. She shared photos of the site with Members, as well, pointing out the ravine and the various aspects of this parcel. Howard stated that the underlying zoning is RS-8, single family residential with approximately eight units per acre, so the maximum density would be eight units. She added that what they typically see in an RS-8 zone is about 5.2 dwellings per acre, once you take out the area for streets, sewers, and storm water detention. The proposed development on this site is approximately 3.8 units per acre, given the extensive sensitive features on this site. The middle part of this property, the ravine, will not be developed. Howard noted that the existing residential density along Leamer and Olive Court is approximately 4.9 units per acre. With regard to the land uses being proposed and the site layout, Howard stated that the applicant is proposing to connect Leamer Court and Olive Court into a loop with eight detached homes on the extension of these two streets, transitioning to the larger two -unit buildings that will back up to this ravine. Also, the proposal covers extending Marietta Avenue into a cul-de-sac with the units backing up to that ravine. Howard stated that the RS-8 zone allows for single-family and duplex units. Typically an RS-8 zone allows for duplex units on the corners and single-family on the interior of the blocks. Since this parcel is completely surrounded by developed areas and there is little opportunity to extend the streets, and the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 3 developer is not proposing to separate these into individual building lots and wants to do this as a condominium development, there won't be the typical corner lots and interior lots. Howard noted that this makes it difficult to create a typical block pattern. She added that staff believes this is a fairly reasonable design, with the transition from detached homes along the extensions of the streets, and transitions well to the larger units in the interior portion. The larger units have more open space between buildings, and the street layout maximizes the views for these units. Howard added that staff believes this could be quite attractive for this development. With regard to the mass and scale of the buildings, Howard noted that in planned developments, such as this, they like to have some compatibility with surrounding development. The homes being proposed are quite a bit larger than most homes in the immediate area. The detached home proposed are approximately 4,300 total square feet, having a building footprint of about 2,300 square feet, and the attached homes will be from 3,600 to 4,300 total square feet with about a 5,500 square foot footprint. She added that the height and scale as viewed from the street is similar to existing houses. The developer is proposing one-story units with walkout basements. Howard stated that the developer has hired an architect who has designed plans that somewhat mimic the existing homes in the neighborhood. Staff noted that garages are larger than the ones on existing homes, but that the developer has de-emphasized them by setting the garages back from the fronts of the homes and created some architectural features that help to de-emphasize the garages, as well. Howard noted that staff does suggest that the designs be alternated to prevent monotony, and to vary the colors of the buildings. Howard then showed the members the building elevations from the front view, as proposed by the developer. She pointed out the detached single-family homes, and noted that there are four variations proposed. The attached buildings will also have four designs offered. Howard pointed out to members how parts of the proposed homes will be about ten feet in front of the garages, which will recess the garage fronts. She added that this is a requirement of a planned development, particularly when you are varying the zoning requirements and requesting lot variations. Howard then addressed the requested adjustments to the lot requirements. She noted that in cases, such as this, with sensitive areas, the developer is requesting adjustments to fit with the topography. The front lot frontage and lot width standards, and insuring that dwellings are visible and accessible from the street was also addressed. Howard noted that this is important for public services and fire protection. She added that the Fire Department looked at this application carefully, and they are comfortable with the design as the developer has oriented the buildings towards the street, reduced the drive -way widths, and set the buildings back further to create more front yard space. Howard stated that staff believes this is an acceptable design. With regards to open space, Howard stated that the planned development requires that there be open space. In this application she noted that they have done several things to accomplish this. They are proposing that about 72% of this site will remain open space. In regard to front setback space or front yard space, Howard stated that the developer is going to set the buildings back along the extensions of Learner and Olive Courts, similar to the existing houses along these streets. She noted that most of these existing homes are set back about 25 feet from the street. Howard then stated that on Marietta Avenue the setbacks are around 25 feet here too; however, because of the ravine, the developer is proposing the new units at 15 feet, with a side setback on the western unit of around 33 feet. This will allow some of the mature trees in the area to be saved, as well. Howard stated that the developer is proposing a private trail that will connect the two portions of the property. Based on the public open space requirements, the developer will be required to dedicate either .41 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be reviewing this. If the fee is paid, Howard stated that it could be used for acquisition of new parkland or improvements to existing parks within the open space district, which is southwest #3 in this case. This includes Tower Court Park, Brooklyn Park, and possibly the open space at Roosevelt School. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 4 Howard then addressed pedestrian facilities, adding that planned developments call for careful planning so that pedestrians have access to all aspects of the development. She added that staff believes this requirement is met with the provision of sidewalks and a pedestrian trail. With regard to traffic circulation, Howard shared a larger view of this area, pointing out the street network to Members. She specifically pointed out the signalized intersections and those with stop signs. The developer is proposing to extend the Olive and Learner Courts into a loop, and the traffic circulation would then be able to go in either direction to get to Melrose Avenue. Howard stated that there is some concern on the part of the neighborhood about connecting these two streets into a loop street. She said that staff has heard from some property owners with concerns about traffic circulation and how it might change the neighborhood. Howard stated that they typically view connected streets to have some real benefits, as it would provide better access for emergency vehicles, provide an alternative route in the event one of these streets is blocked, and also provides efficient delivery of services for things like snow removal. Howard stated that the question becomes whether or not this will become a "cut through" route. Transportation staff reviewed this, and Howard stated that there was some concern that as traffic comes up Koser Avenue and is stopped at the signal there might be some tendency for people to drive around this area to get back to Melrose Avenue. She stated that after staff's review, it was felt that this was not a likely scenario. Staff believes that once someone is at the signal, they will not backtrack to the streets in question. Staff, therefore, believes the benefits for connecting these streets outweighs any negatives. Traffic volume was also discussed. Howard stated that the typical trigger for traffic calming, for example, on a local street is if it exceeds 500 vehicle trips per day. She stated that they did some traffic estimates based on number of trips typical for a single-family dwelling and for apartment dwellings on these streets. For Marietta Avenue, the existing estimated vehicle trips per day was placed at 49. With the new units being proposed, it is estimated that this would increase to 126 vehicles per day. On Learner Court, the existing traffic is estimated at 98 vehicles per day, based on the number of homes currently there. The projected number for Learner would be 182 vehicles. On Olive Court, the existing number of vehicle trips is estimated between 170 and 200, although staff does note that this may be a bit high as traffic staff did not take into account those homes that have access from the alley behind the homes. Howard stated that taking a very generous view of projected traffic, staff estimates there would be between 226 to 256 vehicles per day. Howard stated that people are often worried about connected streets and the traffic speeds in these areas. She noted that if you have narrow street pavement, tight curves, on -street parking, and even street trees along the edges will help to slow traffic down. Howard stated that Learner Court is 26-feet wide, which is narrower than typical local streets, and that Olive Court is only 18 to 20-feet wide, and Marietta is approximately 24-feet wide. The developer is requesting a 26-foot wide street to continue and be consistent with the street width along Learner Court, and also be fairly consistent with the street width along Marietta Avenue. Howard noted that 26-feet is the new street width that is being proposed in the new subdivision code, as a way to lower traffic volumes and traffic speeds along local streets. She added that staff does not believe that traffic speeds will be a problem along this proposed street connection. The developer is also requesting to increase the cul-de-sac length along Marietta Avenue. Howard noted that the City standard is 900-feet, and the request is for an increase to approximately 1,003-feet. She pointed out Tower Court, stating that it will basically mimic what is there. Howard added that the City typically discourages cul-de-sacs as it reduces street connectivity and creates inefficiencies for the provision of public services, and makes walking and biking more difficult. In this case, Howard noted that the street pattern is already established. She further explained how the units would be laid out in conjunction to the streets in this area. This property also requires a Level 2, Sensitive Areas Review, due to the steep slopes and a small wetland on the southeast portion of the parcel. She explained the City's stand on steep, protected and critical slopes to enhance safety, and to prevent flooding, and land or mud slides. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 5 Howard pointed out the areas of steep and critical slopes on this parcel, as well as protected slopes. She also identified the wetlands area that is next to Melrose Lake. The proposed design will disturb about 60% of the steep slopes on the property, 42% of the critical slopes, and 34% of the protected slopes. Howard stated that the City is particularly concerned about disturbance of protected slopes, and typically do not allow encroachment into protected slopes, unless these slopes were previously altered. She noted that the applicant has submitted some evidence that these slopes have been humanly altered over time; however, even if they have been humanly altered, Howard stated that disturbance of altered protected slopes may only be approved if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates that the proposed development activity will be designed to eliminate hazards and not undermine the stability of the slopes. She noted that the City is requiring the developer to do a soil stability analysis, and that the developer has hired Teracon for this. Howard added that the Commissioners have the preliminary report in their packets, and staff suggests that the final report be received and reviewed prior to Planning and Zoning approving this, and then passing it to the City Council. Howard also addressed the erosion control measures that the developer will need to adhere to. Howard stated that there is an extensive network of retaining walls being proposed on this site, and that these will have to be structurally engineered and building permits issued. These will then be reviewed at the time of site plan review. Staff also suggests that there be a tree production plan submitted and approved at the time of the final OPD, to protect those trees and groves on the site. There is some grading at the east end of the ravine, according to Howard, that is essential for public services. As for the wetlands area, Howard noted that there is less than one acre of jurisdictional wetlands, and that there are certain requirements for reducing the buffer from 100-feet to 50-feet. A wetland's specialist has done an analysis for the developer, and staff's review shows this requirement to be met. The emergent wetlands in the ravine are not considered jurisdictional, according to Howard. With regard to the subdivision, Howard stated there are only two lots proposed — Lot #1 north of the loop street, and Lot #2 being the remainder. Howard added that there are a number of private access easements to the existing homes, which proposed to be raised. She pointed out these areas on the map, and noted which will need to be vacated prior to final plan approval, as this will become a public street. Howard also pointed out a sliver of land that is designated as Outlot A and Outlot B. She stated that the developer has said he will deed these parcels to the adjacent property owners prior to final approval. She added that this would need to be done in order to give the properties frontage on the public street. Sanitary sewers were then addressed. Howard stated that this is being proposed to extend to the east. The City engineer noted that there is about 50-feet of sewer that needs to be reconstructed in order to hook this into the City sewer system. The Water Department noted a number of technical deficiencies, according to Howard, that will need to be resolved prior to approval. Howard stated that a "dry bottom basin" is being proposed for the storm sewer, and the engineers feel this will work. Howard noted that the Commission had asked a couple of questions at the informal meeting this past Monday — why the two dams were proposed, and will this cause problems for Melrose Lake. She talked to the City engineers and they felt that as long as the storm water management is properly installed and maintained, it should not have any effect on Lake Melrose. Howard stated that she talked to the developer, and he is having some negotiations with the property owner next door, hoping to be able to use the dam on that property, rather than having to build another dam, but that so far they had not worked out an arrangement for this. For now, the proposal is to put in two dams. Another question was whether future access to Olive Street from the apartments to the east would be possible. Howard shared a photo of these apartments, and pointed out that the topography would prevent easy access in this area. Plus, any change to that development, also a planned development, would require an amendment to the plan with the required approval process. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 6 Howard then summarized the information for Members: 31 dwelling units on 9.4 acre parcel will not increase the density allowed under the RS-8 zone; the proposal complies with the Land Use Map, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and in staff's opinion it is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; a planned development is required due to proposed disturbance of steep, critical and protected slopes, located in a ravine that bisects the property to allow condominium development, rather than a standard subdivision, and to allow adjustment of certain zoning and street standards; and given the developer's desire to cluster the development in a manner that limits encroachment into the regulated slopes, but also takes advantage of the views inherent to the natural areas in the ravine, certain modifications to zoning and street standards have been requested. Staff finds that these requested modifications are reasonable as a means of balancing the goals of encouraging in -fill development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and production of environmentally sensitive lands. Staff recommends compliance with the submitted building elevations, and a requirement to vary the use of those designs to prevent monotony along the street in the development. She added that staff also recommends that "best practices" be observed with regard to erosion control and slope stabilization, during and after construction, to prevent environmental damage and ensure public safety. Howard stated that specific staff recommendations are in the staff report with regard to recommendation for approval. Eastham asked for a clarification on the proposed slope stabilization recommendations, and Howard stated that she could read the staff's recommendation into the record, but that the specifics are in the staff report. She suggested that members mention those recommendations when they are making their motion. Miklo noted that essentially the action this evening would be to defer to a future meeting. Brooks asked a question of Howard regarding whether they could put on these OPD requirements that there would not be any access to the property to the east from Olive Court. Howard referred this question to Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that this would be something they would do at the time it was proposed, that it is not part of the present development plan, and therefore they cannot put restrictions on this. Brooks stated that he is having difficulty understanding why they can't, as part of this plan and the street system and access issues put this type of restriction on this parcel. He added that his concern is that they are dealing with a piece of developed property that is accessible only by an easement, and that the owner of that piece of property is stuck in the middle. Miklo addressed this, stating that once this becomes a public street, the smaller apartment complex will then have access to that public street, and that they cannot deny this access. He pointed out the larger apartment complex to the east that does not currently have access to the public street, and stated that the only way to get access would be by an action of the City Council, on recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to change the approve plan for that particular development. Brooks again asked if there is no way they can say that there can be no intrusion or no penetration of this parcel, and Miklo responded to this query. Eastham stated to Greenwood-Hektoen that this was the first time he had been asked to consider an application of a rezoning of this type. He asked if he is correct in asking if there is no fringe area agreement between Iowa City and University Heights. Greenwood-Hektoen responded that this is her understanding. He asked what needs to be considered as far as the residents of University Heights when reviewing this application. Greenwood-Hektoen responded that arrangements for snow removal and that type of thing are easily done between the two cities, and that the rest of his decision making is for the general public, whether Iowa City or University Heights. Howard noted that they would be Iowa City streets. Currently, she noted that University Heights contracts their street maintenance out, and that Iowa City would probably do the same in this situation. She added that Iowa City does own and maintain the water and sewer lines in University Heights, so that there are a couple of arrangements between the two. Miklo gave the members some feedback on what was taken into account for this area when conducting their analysis, and what type of effect this proposal will have on the area. He added that it is compatible with both the Iowa City surrounding area, and the University Heights surrounding Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 7 area. He added that if they feel there is too much burden being placed on surrounding areas, then they need to consider this when deciding if they want to grant approval for this rezoning. Eastham asked if there are sidewalks in the existing area, and Howard stated that there will be sidewalks as they are a requirement for new developments. The public hearing was opened. Freerks asked that people sign in and state their name, and to keep their comments to five minutes or less. Architect Kevin Monson stated that he is representing the applicant, Jeff Hendrickson. He also introduced Ron Amelon from MMS. Monson stated that he would like to give the Members a little more about this development. He stated that the targeted market for these condominiums are "empty nesters," retired or people planning retirement, and possibly professionals wanting a care- free lifestyle with no maintenance on their grounds or building. He added that past experience with a similar project shows that there is a demand for this type of housing, especially in this area. Monson stated that he will share the four different configurations of units, the four unique architectural treatments that will be offered, and the four different color concepts, as well. This will allow the buyer to have many choices, and will also create a rich variety in the development. Monson then gave a brief history on this parcel, stating that a case has gone to the Iowa Supreme Court in the past regarding this land in determining its density. He added that it has been downscaled, rezoned, and with each additional change in ordinance, the density has been reduced. Monson continued, stating that he believes this is the best proposal for this parcel as it truly takes advantage of the beauty of the ravine, provides for an abundance of open space, and due to the units being clustered, it lets the whole site become part of a very green space. Monson then mentioned the community meeting that they held earlier this year, noting that they were able to explain the concept of their proposal to the neighborhood. He added that they had a very good attendance at this meeting and a very lively discussion with the neighbors. He stated that from this discussion, they learned that the University Heights neighborhood would prefer this to remain green space, more specifically a public park. Monson stated that this would be the preference, however, the neighborhood stated that if the parcel is to be developed, they would like to see it be as few units as possible to reduce the amount of traffic on their streets. They also noted concern of these units becoming rentals, and possibly having students move in. He added that they also expressed their concern for the connection of Leamer and Olive Courts. Another concern was the pathway being proposed. Monson stated that this pathway has been changed from the original proposal, after they met with the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood meeting also led them to change the number of units being proposed — from 33 to 31 units. Another concern, according to Monson, is the football parking that has taken place here for years. By developing this parcel, this will be eliminated in the neighborhood. Monson continued, stating that they also changed the corner units, to keep them further away from the property line. He then addressed how they will connect Learner and Olive Courts, and what measures they are taking to keep the traffic down. Monson touched on the density of the surrounding neighborhoods, noting that the density of this development is actually less. He added that the units being proposed will range from $500,000 to $600,000, which would take them out of the rental market. He added that this will help control what these units become later on. Monson then talked about the traffic counts in the area, stating that the increase will not be significant and is well below a typical neighborhood street. Monson noted that last fall they created somewhat of a stir in the neighborhood when they photographed existing homes in the area. This was done in order to keep the architecture of the development in line with the existing dwellings, and to make it complimentary to the neighborhood. He shared the various styles of homes and how they will incorporate this into the development being proposed. Monson shared pictures of the various styles — the Craftsman style, the Porch style, and the Carpenter style. He explained the layout of the units being proposed, and how this will help create more green space in the development. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 8 Eastham asked about the roof styles for these units, and Monson explained the various styles, noting that the peaks and grade will be similar to the surrounding areas. Monson then responded to another Member question regarding long-term uses of these units, asking if they have considered some kind of a no -lease restriction. Monson stated that the rental rate would have to be around $5,000 to $6,000 per month and that that is not a very attractive rate for the majority of people. A question was then asked about the dams being proposed. Ron Amelon from MMS Consultants responded to this, explaining why they have two dams proposed. He stated that with two dams, the upstream dam will be a bit larger and will have a smaller pipe in it to restrict the flow such that it will actually protect the downstream dams. Doug Moore, 77 Olive Court, University Heights, stated that he was going to address two issues — traffic and time. He spoke about the morning and evening rush in this area, and stated that there are thousands of cars coming to and from the University. He spoke to the issue of people cutting through this area once the proposed roads are connected. He stated that he has caught people traveling around 60 m.p.h. on Olive Court, and that there is no parking on Olive Court at any time. He added that Leamer Court is a bit wider at 24-feet, and that there is one -hour parking here, which goes against staffs report of on -street parking slowing traffic down. Moore stated that the answer to this is pretty simple, and that it was suggested at the neighborhood meeting — put in a fire gate where the loop comes around in the new section. He added that there is one of these behind The Lodge and that it seems to work quite well. Moore stated that they want to keep the neighborhood quiet, as it is now, and that connecting these streets will take that away. He also stated that this is going to ultimately affect property values in the area. The second issue addressed was time. Moore stated that at the neighborhood meeting they were told that this would be a 48-month project. He noted that this seems excessive. Chris Anderson, 22 Leamer Court, University Heights, stated that she sent an email Wednesday evening to the Planning and Zoning Commission Members. She stated that the parcel in question should be reviewed as far as police protection, that it has been part of the University Heights patrol, but that Iowa City will have to police this area if the development goes through. She strongly supported the previous speaker, stating that connecting Olive and Leamer Courts is a bad decision in her opinion. Renee Goethe, 103 Highland Drive, University Heights, stated that she lives on the west side of the ravine in question. She stated that this ravine has had a lot of problems with water retention, and she noted the developing wetland on the west side. She added that this developing wetland is the result of a poorly planned and executed landfill. The ravine on the west side was partially filled many years ago, and the tiles that run underneath that part of the fill were not properly placed, according to Goethe. She stated that this means that her property, which borders on the west, always has water in the ravine now. She added that they have a lot of mosquitoes in the area, and she questions more water retention in the area. Goethe stated that another issue she would like to raise is about the animals that live in this area. This development would be inside an urban habitat, according to Goethe. She shared with Commissioners the amount of wildlife they see in this area, and her concern about taking away this habitat. She asked the Commissioners to strongly consider these concerns. Amy Moore, 77 Olive Court, University Heights, stated that she has a letter from neighbors on Leamer Court who are out of town, and that she would like to share it with Commissioners. The letter is from Adrian and Sarah Lee Shulamaker of 27 Leamer Court. Moore read the letter, in which the Shulamakers ask the Commission to consider this project strongly before they give their approval. Moore shared that she would like to summarize other residents' concerns, traffic being the main concern. She added that there is concern, as well, about the consistency of design with the surrounding area. Moore continued, pointing out that the proposed designs are not truly in keeping with the surrounding homes. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 9 Anna Olson, 79 Olive Court, University Heights, said her home borders the property in question. She expressed her concerns about the setback numbers, and asked why her setback can't also be at 33-feet. She asked that this be done for her property, as well as the other homes on Learner Court. Olson then asked why there is a large retaining wall being proposed along the entire length of her house. She stated that she also wholeheartedly supports the concerns about traffic for this area. Chris Luzzie, 338 Koser Avenue, University Heights, stated that she wanted to address the issue of traffic on Melrose Avenue. She added that University Heights has struggled with traffic issues on Melrose for years, and that they believe increasing the traffic will destroy the neighborhood. She stated that it may not seem like a large increase in traffic with this development, but that another two or three hundred cars per day will be very damaging. Doug Moore asked to speak again. He invited the Commissioners to come out in person and see their neighborhood during the peak times to get a better feel for the desperation of the University commuters. Elizabeth Gatz, 107 Highland Drive, University Heights, also invited the Commissioners to come and walk the ravine in this area. She added that her house is three houses to the west and directly on the ravine. She stated that this area does have water backing up, and that the development would create more dams, more water, and more backup in the area. Audrey Knox stated that her question is in regard to the retaining walls and walkout basements. She added that this area north of Tower Court is fairly flat, and she questioned if the proposed buildings are going to be really tall in order to have walkout basements. Renee Goethe stated that another concern she has about this development is that the developer is planning to build very upscale buildings. She noted that the proposed garages are bigger than some of the surrounding homes. She questioned building homes of a half million dollars in value in a market that is crashing. She asked what would happen if the developer starts to develop this area and then realizes that the market will not support this range of homes. She questioned what would become of this development — if they would be looking at 31 units of foreclosed homes, and how this as a whole will affect the housing market in this entire area. Elizabeth Gatz stated that she is speaking on behalf of her neighbor, Harold Plate at 50 Highland Drive. She pointed out Harold's property, right on the curve of Highland Drive, noting that he already has a lot of trouble with people cutting through his driveway to access this property. She asked if there is going to be a wall on the west side to prevent this from happening. Mark Kamps, 1104 Tower Court, said that he used to live on Olive Court. He stated that his concern is that he won't have 600 cars behind him during football season. He stated that he sees this as an opportunity to get rid of the partying that goes along with the parking in this area. He also stated that he believes a $500,000 home in his backyard is a blessing. Kamps also added that there is a home for sale currently on Olive Court for $390,000, and he shared some of the home values in this area. Kamps also stated that the housing market is doing very well in Iowa City, and that he does not have any concerns about these units selling. Kathleen Renquist, 1000 Tower Court, stated that she walks through this property to get to work, and that she is pleased to see the route change, but that she is not very pleased about the dams being changed in this area. She added that Monson is working to keep the environmental areas intact, and that basically this parcel is going to be developed. She stated that she would rather have it developed by someone who cares about the environment and who is trying to make this area very livable. She said she also preferred the proposed development over the football parking. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 10 Aaron Olson, 79 Olive Court, University Heights, stated that he hadn't planned on speaking, but the last two speakers motivated him to defend the neighborhood. He pointed out his home on the map, and stated that from what he understands his home will be only ten feet from one of the proposed homes. He stated that he would welcome the football parking and partying that occurs seven times a year just to keep the open green space here. Kevin Monson stated that he wanted to correct a couple of things that may have been misstated. First, the setbacks that they are proposing are ten feet from the property line, which is considerably more than the neighboring setbacks. He added that some of the setbacks currently are as little as three feet. Monson was then asked if he would address some of the concerns about the retaining walls. Monson noted that as far as drainage, he will not be draining any water north of this property — that all of the runoff will be going south. He added that on the northwest corner he would be adding a retaining wall, as this property will be lower along here. This will keep his property from draining across to the neighbors. Monson noted that they will be doing regrading in this area and will be very sensitive to these types of issues. Brooks noted that he has heard concerns from people living in the southwest portion of this area, and he questioned the amount of water accumulation in this area. Monson noted that there is a storm sewer that comes out of University Heights that drops off at the property line, draining onto this property. He stated that their intent is to keep the ravine in a very naturalized state. Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants addressed this concern further. He explained the fill area in this ravine, and how the detention basin will be situated. He was asked if this will help to enhance the drainage of water coming down from the west, and Amelon stated that the way it is proposed currently, they are leaving everything natural down to the detention basin. In order to enhance it, they would need to put a storm sewer pipe through here. Plahutnik asked a question about the loop street being proposed, and whether they had considered making this a one-way street so that it would not be confused as a cut -through. Monson stated that this had not been considered, as they do not believe it will be used in that manner. He added that they did talk about this loop street in the neighborhood meeting, and addressed some of the concerns when coming up with the design. He also stated that having a fire gate might not necessarily be a good thing in this case. The discussion turned to the street design, and the fact that the street will be put in before the development begins. It was stated that this could give them some indication of any possible trouble with the proposed design. City staff was asked what their stand would be on this. Howard noted that the City has a traffic- calming program, and on any street that meets the criteria for this, the residents can petition for traffic calming measures. Another question asked of the developer was whether local residents would still be able to access the open green space. It was noted that this is a private development, and that currently it is private property. The public hearing was closed. Freerks stated that she would entertain a motion. She noted that there are many questions and concerns still apparent on this development, and that they usually take at least two meetings to review this type of application. Brooks moved to defer Rezoning Item REZ08-0001 to the May 1, 2008 meeting; seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 6-0. A brief discussion ensued, with clarification being made on setbacks in RS-8 zones. A brief recess was taken at this time. REZ08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 11 approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 22). Howard noted a slight correction to this. She noted that it is not north of Liberty Drive, and she shared a location map with Members, adding that the lots are both north and south of Liberty Drive. Howard shared some history of the Scott Six Industrial Park, noting that it was annexed into the City in 1997, intended largely for industrial uses. Parts of this property were zoned Intensive Commercial to allow for a quasi -industrial, but commercial uses, on smaller lots. Subsequent to this, Howard noted that Fareway located in this area. She noted that this makes Fareway non -conforming currently. The rezoning is for development of the remaining six lots in this immediate area. The applicant would like to create some retail -type uses that might locate in this area, in conjunction with Fareway being close by. Howard stated what the question for the Commission is to consider, and that they need to decide if rezoning is warranted at this time. If so, she notes that two things need to occur — one being they need to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and secondly, a rezoning. She added that this would need to be deferred, regardless of tonight's decision, to the next meeting. Howard noted that staff feels there is a compelling reason to rezone this at this time, given the existing development on the site. Things have changed over the years, and properties may continue to develop east, making this a commercial node at this intersection. Miklo added that in terms of future development, there is also the potential of serving the employees who work in the industrial park. Koppes asked the Council about not having a sufficient amount of land zoned for CI-1. Miklo stated that this is a difficult question to answer, but that this is a fairly small amount of land. In the scope of things, Miklo added, this would not be a concern. Howard added that there are a number of vacant lots in the CI-1 zone to the north of this area. This led to a brief discussion of the concern for the CI-1 zonings. Public hearing was opened. Mary Jo Streb, Manager of Streb Investment Partnership, stated that she would like to add that the lots along Scott Boulevard, north of Liberty Drive, are all CIA. She also stated that they have had these lots on the market for quite some time, with very little interest, so they hope that this rezoning will help to spark some interest. The public hearing was closed. Freerks then stated that she would entertain a motion at this time. Eastham moved to defer Rezoning Item REZ08-00003 to the May 1, 2008 meeting; seconded by Brooks. Motion carried 6-0. REZ08-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 11.7 acres from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zone, and approximately 8.95 acres to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for property located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218. Miklo pointed out the location of this parcel, adding that this property was initially part of the Airport. He stated that initially it was put in to encourage development of aviation -related commerce, or other CIA uses. This began in the late 1990's. The City built the road and subdivided the property and began marketing this for CIA uses. Miklo stated that for a number of years there was no interest in the CIA uses, but there was a proposal to rezone for Wal-Mart, thinking that this would attract spin-off development to make this a viable commercial zone. Miklo further explained the thought at that time, noting that this plan did not materialize and the City is now marketing this area. He added that there is current interest in this area for CIA development. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of this rezoning from CC-2 to CIA for the area north of Ruppert Road, and from CC-2 to P-1 for the area on the south of this subdivision. Brooks Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 12 asked for clarification of one of the recent purchases in this area, and Miklo explained that this would be an auto -parts related store, which is primarily warehousing with some retail. A question was also raised about the open storage possibly in this area, and Miklo stated that Members have this concern in writing. He added that the same question came up when the Council looked at the proposal, with the question being what will this do for the aesthetics in the area. Miklo stated that these uses would require S-3 screening standards, which are a mixture of evergreens and deciduous shrubs, fences and walls. Miklo was asked if he could give some current examples of this screening. He referred to Roberts Dairy on Highway 1. A portion of this property is screened with arborvitae. Public hearing was opened. Al Wells of Solon stated that about 60 days ago he made an offer on Lot 1, based on what was originally an excellent plan for this area — an aviation related business. He stated that Iowa City has a very vibrant Airport, and that he proposed buying Lot 1 and relocating the Boeing -United hangar to Lot 1. He also proposed a taxiway access off of the taxiway that was vacated with this development. He stated that the Airport could be an open door to the community, and he stated that his proposed development could increase the traffic to the Airport. He noted possibly 25 more airplanes with his development, more fuel sales, and possible corporate hangar space. He stated that he kept running into roadblocks in pursuing his proposal. He suggested breaking up the acres into smaller parcels. Miklo attempted to steer the conversation back to this particular rezoning, and Wells stated that he would like to point out that when he made his offer, it was based on the same price that ITC was paying, and that the City did not respond to his offer in writing. He claimed the price nearly doubled when they did respond. He stated that this historical hangar will be torn down, never to be seen again, if this proposal is not accepted. He believes the City made an error in allowing ITC to come into the area. Wells also handed out some information on his proposal, stating that the City doubled their price when he tried to purchase this lot. A Member asked for clarification on this proposal, asking about parking space for aircraft outside of the Airport. Wells explained what his proposal would do in this area. The public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to recommend approval for REZ08-00004; seconded by Plahutnik. Motion carried 6-0. OTHER: It was noted that this is Dean Shannon's last meeting, and he was thanked for ten years of service. He stated that he has enjoyed his years of service, and that everyone should try this type of service. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 20, 2008_MEETING: Koppes moved to accept the March 20, 2008 meeting minutes as presented; seconded by Plahutnik. Carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. s/pcd/mins/p&z/2008/04-17-08 pz.doc O .y N E O 0 •O c o •� d O N d p 06 C tm N C � a V tts O I i X X X X X X I M X X X X X X X i i I N X X X X X X- M X X X X X N X X X X X w X C�O�-OONOdOr- Lam.-O-�O� - N x0000000 , to . L75 to +O to to to F' E Y = N N N d C O Gf o L ea E E mwwYacncn z 6ci4ui36� i I i I I :zxxxxxxx I N 0 X X X 0 p X N X X X Xwww 000 E �O�OON000� O x Lo to In In to LO U-) i- ui 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Y C N N `(a N O C O= O N EmwaLYCLCOW O r 0 2 O L r E zootidu 3:16