HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 14, 2006
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 14,2006
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. EP06-l5l Tollefson Development submitted an application for a Planned Unit
Development Final Plan for Hickory Shores of approximately 80 acres to be
subdivided into lots for single family homes and townhomes, common open space
and parkland. This property is located south ofMN TH 13, east ofIda Circle, west
of Crystal Lake, and north of Rice Lake.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. EP06-l56 Consider vacating a portion of the road right-of-way located adjacent to
the City-owned and County-owned property located on the west side of
Northwood Road and a block north ofCSAH 12.
B. 06-153 Ryland Homes is presenting a concept plan for the development of
approximately 47 acres to create a PUD containing 94 single family residential
dwelling sites. This property is currently known as the Radanke property located
north and west of Mushtown Road and west ofFish Point Road.
C. 06-154 Ryland Homes is presenting a concept plan for the development of
approximately 11 acres to create a PUD containing 35 single family residential
dwelling sites. This property is currently known as the Monnens property located
on the north side ofMN TH 13, east of Pheasant Meadow Lane and south of
CSAH 12.
D. 06-105 Tree Preservation Task Force presentation.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSIONlAGENDAS\AG0814~. cityofpriorlake .com
Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 14,2006
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the August 14,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 24, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved with
a correction on page 5, under Lemke, second item, second paragraph should read "staff
does feel it is a show stopper. . ."
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. EP06-151 Tollefson Development submitted an application for a Planned
Unit Development Final Plan for Hickory Shores of approximately 80 acres to be
subdivided into lots for single family homes and townhomes, common open space
and parkland. This property is located south of MN TH 13, east of Ida Circle, west
of Crystal Lake, and north of Rice Lake.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14, 2006, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tollefson Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Hickory Shores on the property located on the south side of TH 13 and north and west of
Crystal Lake and Rice Lake. The proposal calls for a residential development consisting
of 80 single family homes and 38 townhouses, along with parks and trail on a total of 80
acres.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN08 I 406.doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
On May 20,2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance #106-07 amending the Zoning
Ordinance to designate these 80 acres as a Planned Unit Development. The ordinance
listed the elements of the PUD as follows:
a. The PUD is a single family development consisting of 80 lots for single family
homes and 38 townhome lots. The PUD plan provides a minimum of 27.44 acres
of park to be dedicated to the City, 6.35 acres of conservation easements over
wooded areas, and the funds to construct a fishing pier.
b. The total number of units on the site will not exceed 118.
c. Density and impervious surface within the Shoreland Tiers must not exceed the
totals identified on the plans dated April 14, 2006.
d. As part of the park development, the developer is responsible for grading, topsoil,
turf establishment and construction of the trails to the specifications provided by
the City.
e. As part of the development of the site, the Developer will construct the
connection of Ida Circle from the existing Crystal Addition development to
Hickory Shores, which will eliminate an access to TH 13.
f. The Developer will dedicate a drainage and utility easement for the future
construction of the CSAH 12 and TH 13 intersection.
g. The elements of the plan will be as shown on the plans dated April 14, 2006,
except for modifications approved as part of the final PUD plan.
The developer completed several of the outstanding requirements and is continuing to
meet the remaining few issues.
The Final PUD Plan is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plan. There
are still some conditions of approval of the preliminary plan that must be met. Most of
these are relatively simple, but they must be completed prior to final plat approval. Any
of the conditions that are not addressed by the PUD plan, such as engineering issues, will
be addressed before the final PUD plan and the final plats go before the City Council.
The staff recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. All remaining conditions of approval must be addressed before the final PUD plan
and final plat are considered by the City Council.
2. The PUD Development Contract must be signed by the developers and approved by
the City Council.
3. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
Perez questioned if the table for the impervious surface is new. Kansier said it was not,
however it enables staff and the developer to keep track of the status.
Lemke questioned the phasing and overall density. Kansier explained the staging and
noted the over-density is about 2 units per acre. The net density is 1.7 units per acre.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
Billington questioned who would be responsible for the fishing pier. In terms of legal
responsibility, is the City going to be held harmless if any accidents occur on site?
Kansier said the City will design and build the pier. The City has built them before and
we know how much it will cost. The DNR will work in conjunction with the FIN
Program (Fishing In Neighborhood). It will be similar to the pier at Lakefront. The City
will be responsible.
Comments from the Public:
Todd Bodem, project manager for Tollefson Development said Kansier did a great job on
the report and would be available for questions.
Stamson questioned what was going to happen to residents with the connection on Ida
Circle during the construction phase. Bodem explained the process. There will be a plan
for the residents to come in and out.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 6:16 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Going to trust staffs assessment the conditions will be met. The items are minor.
. It looks like a good development. No surprises.
. Will support staffs recommendation and approve.
Billington:
. Has liked the project from day one as it has been presented. Support with staffs
recommendations.
Lemke:
. This is a good project. Like the 27 acres of trails and parks.
. It is generally consistent with what we saw before and will support.
Perez:
. Agreed with fellow Commissioners. There have been some hurdles to overcome
but it has progressed well.
. Agree with Ringstad with the outstanding items. As long as staff doesn't feel
there are any outstanding issues.
. Will approve with the three conditions.
Stamson:
. This is consistent with the Preliminary PUD we looked at a long time ago.
. In the long run this will be a nice development. As staff mentioned, the final
issues can be cleaned up before it goes to City Council.
. Support with conditions.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14,2006
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING
APPROV AL OF THE FINAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on August 21, 2006.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. EP06-156 Consider vacating a portion of the road right-of-way located
adjacent to the City-owned and County-owned property located on the west side of
Northwood Road and a block north of CSAH 12.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2006, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City of Prior Lake and Scott County own 9 lots, described as Lots 10-12, Block 20,
and Lots 7-12, Block 21, Spring Lake Townsite. Although platted, these lots are not
buildable since they consist entirely of wetlands. The lots were acquired by the City
through tax forfeiture.
The City and County are working to resolve some encroachments by private property
owners on Spring Lake Regional Park. As part of this process, the City and the County
are proposing to add these wetland parcels to Spring Lake Regional Park. There is also
dedicated right-of-way adjacent to these parcels that could be vacated and attached to the
park. To facilitate this process, the Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the
subject right-of-way on July 17, 2006. The Council will be conducting a public hearing
on this request on August 21, 2006.
The existing right-of-way is unbuildable since it consists entirely of wetlands. The
vacation ofthis right-of-way will further protect the natural environment.
There is no public need for the portion of right-of-way to be vacated. In addition, the
vacation will further protect the existing wetlands. The staff therefore recommends
approval of this request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Questioned how this will solve the problems with the garages in the right-of-way.
Kansier explained how the strip ofland will come out of the park land and swap
another parcel for the area. It will eliminate the encroachment. The intent is to be
able to take the strip ofland and swap with the property owners for needed right-
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14,2006
of-way for the County Road 12 project and also provide the property owners with
a little more back yard.
Billington:
. Agrees with staff and it takes care of the encroachment. Support.
Lemke:
. Agree it meets the Comp Plan and protects the natural environment. Support.
Perez/Ringstad/Stamson:
. Agreed with staff and fellow Commissioners. There is a public need.
. Support.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to City Council on August 21.
B. 06-153 Ryland Homes is presenting a concept plan for the development of
approximately 47 acres to create a PUD containing 94 single family residential
dwelling sites. This property is currently known as the Radanke property located
north and west of Mushtown Road and west of Fish Point Road.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore stated the applicant requested this item be removed
from the agenda.
c. 06-154 Ryland Homes is presenting a concept plan for the development of
approximately 11 acres to create a PUD containing 35 single family residential
dwelling sites. This property is currently known as the Monnens property located
on the north side of MN TH 13, east of Pheasant Meadow Lane and south of CSAH
12.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 14,
2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ryland Homes has submitted a concept plan for the Monnens property to develop the site
into 35 single family units. This site is approximately 10.5 acres (net) in size, and is
located on the north side ofMN TH 13, east of Pheasant Meadow Lane, and south of
CSAH 12. This property is presently vacant land zoned C-l, Neighborhood Commercial
and designated as C-NR, Neighborhood Retail Shopping on the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map.
For discussion purposes, the staffhas identified the following issues:
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14,2006
Parks:
. There is no public park proposed within this development. A neighborhood park is
located northwest ofthe site. The developer will be required to pay a cash parkland
dedication in lieu of land dedication.
Stormwater:
. The project will be required to meet all stormwater management rules in affect at
the time of the application submittal. This may include stormwater rate, volume,
and quality.
Design:
. The design along CSAH 12 and MN TH13 maybe modified with future realignment
projects. Adequate areas for landscaping should be provided. The trail location will
likely be impacted as well.
. The narrative provided by the developer indicates the project will use a clustered
neighborhood design. Staff does not see a clustered neighborhood development
pattern within the provided concept.
. The developer is suggesting the use of the PUD to allow for private streets and other
modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. How does this proposal meet the PUD
criteria? What are the advantages to the City at large?
Perez questioned the proposed density in the 2030 Comp Plan. Kansier responded it was
Rl.
Stamson questioned the tiering. Kansier explained.
Comments from the Applicant:
Brian Sullivan from Ryland Homes, explained the concept plan noting the following:
. The market is continually changing and how neighborhoods are put together.
. The home design is becoming more moderate.
. A garage concept that is actually 3 stalls with only 2 doors. This type of home
has been successful in some of their other developments.
. Pointed out development layout does not have backyards facing Highway 13.
. Homes would be modestly priced.
. Would like to have a PUD overlay.
Stamson questioned why a PUD? Sullivan responded it was necessary because of the
private streets and the size of the lots. Sullivan also noted to purchase the property it is
necessary to have a certain number of lots to make it worth developing. Mainly to reduce
the right-of-way.
Billington questioned the County's concern for Lots 1 and 2 and what has Ryland done to
address the concern? Sullivan responded.
Billington questioned ifthere would be a homeowner's association. Sullivan said there
would be a concept for a homeowners association.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
Lemke asked if the applicant has seen the County plans for the road realignment and if
there has been some kind of agreement with the County on the stormwater ponding.
Stamson questioned why the Pheasant Meadow trail corridor has not been included.
Kansier said there is a street right-of-way; however at some point an agreement was made
the street would not be constructed. They are showing a trail corridor which would be
appropriate.
Lemke felt it looked like a huge one-way cul-de-sac and would be a safety concern.
Kansier said it would be similar to the neighboring Pheasant Meadows development with
only one way in and out. There are other similar developments.
Stamson noted there was almost an access off Highway 13. It's almost the old time farm
style road. It's a grassy area you could drive through if you had to.
Comment from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. This falls way short of the intent of a PUD. It looks like the applicant is trying to
get more density on site to create the economics the developer needs. That is not
the intent. No trade offs of saving trees or setback from lakes which do not apply
in this case - there is no give and take. Don't see benefits.
. It does not meet the PUD criteria.
Billington:
. I like it in principal but the applicant has a way to go. There are issues that have
to be addressed prior to going forward.
. A development on that site is important but there has to be a way to figure out
how to make it work.
. Open to further discussion.
Lemke:
. Agree with Commissioners. Ringstad is right - this falls short of the PUD
requirements - what is the benefit to the City? Maybe the moderate home prices
which is a goal of the Comp Plan.
. It is not a bad plan but not sure I can reconcile this with the PUD process.
Perez:
. Agree with Commissioners - there is no value to the City.
. Agree there has to be more work done. Work with staff. Hopefully when we see
this again it will be closer to what we are looking for.
Stamson:
. Asked staff to read the PUD criteria for the t.v. audience. Moore read the
requirements.
. Agreed with Commissioners that it does not a fit for a PUD.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN08 I 406.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
. The Commissioners look for more concrete items like saving trees, trails, parks,
etc.
. It is tough to build a $250,000 house in Prior Lake. Like the concept and the
design is good. Like the idea of the third garage tucked in behind is a great idea.
. It is getting harder and harder to build moderately price homes in this area under
our development standards. Not saying PUD is the way to do it.
. Like the concept of allowing a little bit smaller lot sizes with the trade offwe get
reasonably priced houses.
. There should be some discussion on getting a developer to come in and build a
$300,000 base price home. It makes some sense. Overall it is a good
development concept, although it does not meet our standard development
process nor the PUD.
. Do not want to turn it away - it would be a benefit to the City to build reasonably
priced homes.
Open Discussion with comments:
Billington:
. Agree with Stamson but it is a concept plan and the applicant has a ways to go
with it. Work with staff and you will come to a good solution. Encourage to
continue.
. Sullivan noted the concept sketch does not show the berming and landscaping.
. What time frame are they looking at? Sullivan said hopefully next spring.
Lemke:
. Agreed with everything Stamson said especially the moderate home. Just does
not feel the PUD process is the way to go.
. Kansier said it would be helpful to outline the benefits for a PUD. The City looks
at what it would get over and above standard development. Kansier then
explained the PUD benefits.
Moore pointed out the applicant's lot proposals - 65 foot street widths, private streets,
smaller lot areas - 7,000 square feet.
Kansier said it is up to the developer to be creative with the development. The benefits
do not have to be on site.
The Commissioners would like to see more open space and/or additional trees and
landscaping.
Sullivan felt they could improve the Highway 13 corridor with some upgrades.
Ringstad:
. Looking for substantial benefits. The tot lot in the middle is not going to carry a
lot of weight.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN08 I 406.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
. If the applicant hasn't met the 11 criteria you might want to take that back with
you.
. The key word I am looking for is "substantial". A little something here and there
is not going to do it.
. In his own words the applicant says he needs this many lots to make it work. That
falls way short of a PUD.
. For face value the applicant is speaking of financial benefits, which is not part of
the PUD process.
This item will go to the City Council on September 5, 2006.
D. 06-105 Tree Preservation Task Force presentation.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2006, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On January 18,2006, the City Council approved the formation ofa Tree Preservation
Task Force. The purpose of this task force is to look at the tree preservation requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend modifications to the ordinance that will
better preserve the urban forest.
The mission of the task force was to review the existing ordinance, compare it with
ordinances in other communities, identify shortcomings and recommend ordinance
amendments. The next step is to submit these recommendations to the Planning
Commission and, ultimately, the City Council. If the Council deems such action
appropriate, it will initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and direct the
Planning Commission to conduct the necessary public hearings.
The tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were originally adopted by
the City Council in January, 1996, in an effort to preserve our urban forest but to also
recognize some tree removal is inevitable. Since then, there have been some minor
revisions to the ordinance. On at least 2 occasions since 1996, the Planning Commission
also asked staff to review these requirements, especially as they compared to other cities'
requirements; no changes were made in these cases.
The ordinance proposes a mechanism intended to provide flexibility in areas identified
high and moderate quality natural environments. These are specific areas identified by
the Natural Resources Inventory recently completed by the City. The intent ofthis
section is to offer a process that will provide maximum design flexibility, without the
need for a full-fledged Planned Unit Development. This process allows the developer to
modify street right-of-way and surface widths, lot areas and lot widths, and structure
setbacks. Its scope is more limited than a standard Planned Unit Development in that it
does not allow increased density or unit types not otherwise permitted. For example, if a
property is zoned for 30 single family residential lots, this process would allow 30 single
family lots, but with smaller lot areas, and narrower streets. The idea is to preserve the
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
natural environmental features. The developer would still have the option of pursuing a
full PUD to allow other design flexibility.
One of the questions the task force could not reach a consensus was the percentage of
caliper inches that may be removed, without replacement for building pads. The task
force agreed this question should be discussed by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Questioned staff's point of view in reviewing street widths and other issues, is
that something the Planning Commission is going to look at? Kansier responded
"Yes".
. Staff would be looking at the Public Works Design Manual, Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, basically the ordinances overall.
. Stamson said after reviewing a recent development that was not approved, it may
appear some of our streets/cul-de-sac might be too wide for what we need.
Kansier responded we probably do in some areas. There is a balancing act
between public safety, public efficiency (snow plowing and street cleaning) and
environmental protection. Staffhas talked internally about these issues and will
be coming before you eventually.
. Stamson pointed out how the Commissioners look at impervious surface and yet a
cul-de-sac can take up a lot of asphalt.
. Kansier said stormwater management and runoff are big issues. Staff talked
about "islands" in the cul-de-sacs. Perhaps we should start allowing islands in
cul-de-sacs. We're going to look at all those issues.
. Kansier noted another issue to look at is the disease tree section of the ordinance.
Dustin Kern, Arcon Development (representative from the developers' side) thanked Jane
for her outstanding job in putting everything together. Kern felt the task force was made
up of a very good cross section of people and thanked all members involved. There was a
lot of give and take. It was a good method of working things out. The solution on paper
is something everyone can live with. There are benefits to all. Look forward to hearing
comments.
Billington:
. Questioned where does he come down on the caliper percent removal? Kern said
there are certain things that have to be done to develop but looking at other city
ordinances helped make decisions.
Kyle Schroeder said he wanted to echo Dustin's comments in support of Jane. From a
personal standpoint he came into the meetings with a biased opinion because of Crystal
Bay. After this process, he realized he did not understand the process or the history. He
also came away from this process understanding the developer has a right to build.
Schroeder would like to point out the focus should be on preservation rather than
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14, 2006
replacement. He also felt the policy provides some sensitivity to infill-type
developments.
Kansier explained the Golden Pond development with the tree preservation procedures.
480 caliper inches were saved with this process as well as $80,000 in tree replacement
fees.
Lemke:
. Praised Jane for her involvement. Lemke questioned the bare root stock deadline
for May 15. Kansier said it had something to do with the tree stock itself. If trees
were planted before May 15th there is a good time line for survival.
Dustin said bare root trees would not be planted in the boulevards or areas in the public
right of way. Staff would inspect.
Kansier explained nurseries give a warranty. Another commitment for this is contracting
a certified forester to do the inspections.
Lemke:
. Felt there were compromises from all sides including the City. In terms of
narrower streets and reduced radiuses in cul-de-sacs it will be harder to plow
streets in the winter but we'll get a better project out of it. Lemke said he was
proud of what has been accomplished.
Perez:
. Questioned what the percentage would be with the public improvements and
utilities. Kansier replied with a typical development about 25% to 30% of the
land area is taken up with those type of things.
Stamson:
. Questioned the current tree replacement requirement. Kansier answered.
Perez:
. Felt there was enough incentive and flexibility in the ordinance for a developer.
. It's a big leap forward for everyone involved. Comfortable with the 30%.
Stamson:
. Agreed - the people who worked on it should be commended. It is a very
comprehensive ordinance. It will be great for the City. The improvement on
Golden Pond made it worth while.
. Agree with the 30%.
. Maybe on vacant or redevelopment lots the percentage could be different. The
building pads are already in place for teardowns. Could be 15%.
. What about a heavy wooded lot. There wouldn't be enough room for
replacement.
. Overall, very impressed and a great plan for the City.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 14,2006
Ringstad:
. Thanks to Vaughn for representing the Commissioners on the Task Force, Jane
and all citizen representatives involved.
. It is a giant leap forward for the City.
. Lean toward the 30%.
Billington:
. In looking at the work effort - thanks to everyone.
. The results are super.
. How do you satisfy all the interests on the caliper removal? It's a tough one.
Given what has been discussed, I can endorse 30 inches.
Will take this to City Council on September 5th.
Lemke said he is leaning on 35% to include a driveway.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
There are no items on the August 28th meeting, therefore the meeting will be canceled.
Stamson asked if the notice for applicants for the Planning Commissioner has been
posted. Kansier said it has not been posted at this time.
Met Council has accepted the 2030 Comp Plan Amendment and the hearing will be on
October 11 th meeting. After that, staff will start looking at the Zoning Ordinance. Staff
is keeping a list of concerns. The process will take 3 to 6 months of reviewing.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN08 I 406.doc
12
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
';"1,U'Jlli I L . o-Ql)~
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
NAME
-1oh~ '-peSO\.S
I I () l'\ i") R ..., b G: "-'(
~ I <~(c. =>c,~
.c.,t ~ ~L1 /) I ~
--.Du.sn Ai ~ G1I2~
-1(r I~ ~(,llilk-
J -
"~L~'€. Sr~Vvo~
\J()G~~~ ~lf
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
ADDRESS
IrP(P27 ~-Ivclf/ Ave f-4ev.//r Jv1/11 55ZJ1'1
---/: / /e ,c[/,.- Z4-- ~ /oi?/YU~ t-;
1? r)"u ~A- ~ (,. _ -
~ 1\.kJ ,D-v i' i~.~",-:t- _
~'J~ DS1Je(,.c)Pl"'\€........ l
E,,- / c;.-J th9A-€'>
I
\)J (v) () ,- 0" J-e;~ \
\
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc