Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT June 1, 1998 9A Jenni Tovar, Planner....j)Q CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INC. Historv On April 13, 1998, the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider a lot coverage variance of 1.2 percent and County Road setback variance of22.54 feet for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. who were proposing to construct two four-unit townhouse structures. Section 5- 4-I (M) of the City Code requires structures to be setback 85 feet from the centerline of a County Road. Section 5-4-1 allows for a maximum lot coverage of20% for townhouses in the R-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission continued discussion to May 11, 1998 to get a majority vote and input from an absent Planning Commission member. On May 11, 1998, the Planning Commission continued discussion. The applicant has revised the setback to 72 feet from the centerline of the County Road rather than the original proposal of 62.46 feet. The Planning Commission concluded the applicant has control over the design of the structures and the elimination of a unit or reduction in structure size would eliminate the variance requests. Reasonable use of the property exists if literal enforcement of the ordinance is made. On May 12,998, Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. appealed this decision to the City Council. Current Conditions The site is located at the southeast comer of 160th Street and Franklin Trail. Both of these roads are county roads, requiring an 85 foot setback from each centerline. The property consists of 33,220 square feet and is the site of the old Ready Mix plant. The legal building 16200~@t~.~4~~o~lRttitIDdal.ke, Minnesota $5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: envelope is approximately 15,702 square feet. The ultimate development of this site involves the construction of the two buildings. The applicant has applied for and received a permit for the first of the two structures. This structure, currently under construction, meets all zoning requirements. The Issues The City Council must determine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision in finding the proposed development does not meet the four hardship criteria. Franklin Trail is on the turn back list to be given to the city. If the road were to become a local street the setback would be 25 feet from the property line. However, this has not been turned over at this point and has been on the list for at least two years. The city and county have yet to work out the details and conditions upon which the city will accept ownership of Franklin Trail. There is no timeline as to when this will occur. Conclusion The petitioner argues that if Franklin Trail is turned backed to the city, the setback would not be an issue. They also contend that under the proposed zoning ordinance, the centerline setback and lot coverage limitations do not exist. The proposed zoning ordinance eliminates the centerline setback from county roads and lot coverage. The proposed zoning district for this property is R-4 High Density Residential. The proposed ground floor area ratio is 35%. Cluster housing (townhomes) with a minimum of 5 acres is permitted with conditions and multiple family dwellings (apartment or condominiums) are conditional uses. Staff and the Planning Commission are of the opinion that the proposed development does not meet all four of the hardship criteria and the variances are unjustified. The granting of variances based on speculation ofthe proposed zoning ordinance or proposed turn back of Franklin Trail to the city do not comply with the current hardship criteria as set forth in City Code. Future tax base could be lost if the variance is denied and the number of units is reduced. 1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variances requested by Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040CC.DOC 2 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 2. Deny Resolution 98-XX and direct the staff to prepare a resolution overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the requested variances. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX upholding a decision of the Planning Commission denying a 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead ofthe required 85 foot setback and a 1.2 percent variance :taest to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent ~~h~.than Ae axUn~/ allowed of20 percent for Eagle Creek Villas, 'W ~ , L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040CC.DOC 3 RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF 1.l1E PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INC. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, on June 1, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to setback from the centerline of a county road and lot coverage maximum for the property legally described in Exhibit A (survey); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. applied for a variance from Sections 5-4-1 of the City Code and Section 4.1 of the Zoning Code in order to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback and the modified setback request of 72.00 feet from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance request to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent as shown in Exhibit A on property located in the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District and as described in Exhibit A. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File #98-040, held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998. The Planning Commission continued discussion to May 11, 1998 and denied the applicant's request. 3. Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 5-6-3 (A) of the City Code. 16200 E~~r~lei~~~r);~-8~~~~~~'i9iior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612rg447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The Prior Lake City Council considered this appeal on June 1, 1998. 5. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship, was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a hardship. 7. The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the vanances. 8. The contents of Planning Case File #98-040 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby: 1. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback and the modified variance setback request of 13.00 feet to permit a 72.00 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance request to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., as shown in Exhibit A, which exhibit is incorporated into this resolution. Passed and adopted this 1st day of June, 1998. YES NO Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake I: \98 fi les\98var\98-040\ccres.doc Page 2 ~ - u z en LU i:!!~ .Ii ~ ow> >LU I iJ I /::-..:: .- : a,C 3: CI:~ ~ h!lJ ...J:EZ <( . ""- :;3.1 ~; 1 =>0 !l!lj , LL1c..<( ...J ~ ! I ...-- r- 0' ~o It li~~ u:ga. 852 'lil~ 3 . O-~ cll:.. ... 1 . a:W:E a: !Um , ..- :i jl U!~ ...J:J: 0 l~t!!~ j d. I~ ~ r-a- (I-~:il ~gE LL1>O dO a: t ~ LL1w ~lnl. I 00(,) It- a.. . I c:--- _. !---: : ,- g .., ... ~- ", .--. 1i2. '" ,,' ~ ~ (2" 0 oS Ei . tl ~ -.- ! ~ ~ 1 ~ ; z r:::::_ ~ ...... ~ie 2 ~ ~ I L-_._. ~. ;~:i: I ,.. '~ ~ IW'\. ::t:: ~~~ ~ j < . -...---. '.- ~S~ .., ...;.~ ir~ e'2!~ ~;5~ ': ;; i:~ I ~ c ... <( l.i3:;;1 2U::. ~i J =~> ii5~ ~ ~. j '" UU ~ == 'loI a~~ w~...~ : .... -~~ ~;~::, II I is . ,~~ ~ aj <t. J~i iii~ z < ,=:: ::i~ ~ i=~! oCOl>X,}9-v ~. 2 ~ _A~_ ~d ,.2 hi~ II I w t- ~ ...~ .,.. ~~h .!~iJ. '" z~~~I~~;. V1 i-<C J. <t r- - CO - J: >< LU >' 4) > '- ;:, en - o 4) .... <0 o .- - .- .... '- 4) () :/ \ \\\\(7 , lil'~~~~--,-~/ .L',",,,-<',. -\ ~~" I .A' -:J II r---- ,- i\~~~i~1':."- .-- ~( \' ij f\' I :~ ,i.,,' I) I ; I ~ , '.'~'" ; ~ ; // ~ ~ ~ : l', ,~r:: i'~~.~}~*~~l' ~ .. 11 ...t \ ill: L -.- I. : il IG I ::. -\- - - , .' I '4 i z' . !rq.: - ~./. I ' :' J II ~ I ;~:.:~ ,"--<t~l <- ~+ I , Ii ! I o v, f+ ", t" ) It <( , i e I ,,:- :(' : ~! I .....;) j ~; -I f. \1 II --\-_~~~~I ( I ~ , ~l " \ 1;i ~ . I '-vJ" I \ · >- i I . I I 1. f' w~ / : -.nr ~\ I I ~ '\ ,~,._;~~ f(:- ~' !~.~ I 1 :j ...J - - , ,'~. .:.___~___.::. "":"~...- I! I 0, I'':''! . ~,___:___,JJ I ';1 O~____._ \:'~:G'~ \'1 '~.'., \ +~I~J f' J::.::~~_::~O l:-:'i: <~/7 I.,;.' ~1!1 ~O 1 ~. .lI '\ ~. . r\~ .\ : "t -''I- \ , \ ~';.: -" , " ' \ \ \ a .~... '. .. .."'" ", .. . ~"4 \. \ i _:...-- ___' \ A , I, "... \ "" ""'f \'" I \ \---::-::-..,..- - - I ~ \' '~..i \ :'i+.. ~s:=-=- \ 3. t 9.., \ ',.\\ ,1~;,~'/cP , ~. I \ ~-'~~A\U ~ fRANKUN Ii \ t t/ .....~__ _ _ _ ~ - - - -_7 .;; J~a. d ~1I3~~;:! ~~~~~;= .I~.~~i ~~~; H i~*i~;' ~~-I.ci ~SalS.~; ~I!I!!~i~ = --. I ;l:'ISSi!. ~~~i;a~ ~~:=i!~ -..c';l!i!!_,!! ~ii;~~B~ 5!!~b:~: ~!iI!'p~. - .-.~~~ ~ ~;i~~i~! ~ ;~2n~~a : !:~:;i;- t ~=a=_~~~ i !i~!iii; I) I - t.' ' (; (LL. r. I ,J ~ 1'10 ,''-I-.Jt... _q!~ 11 -.___%. I ' / '-'- /'J.,.:.. i- I' ,::I I' - ...-- .' '.iff- ~ ,; I , ! \ -__4--",1, -- / /I ' ' Ii ig r~!' ro \ 'S.3~' ;/ -:;r--. ~,'. (I' ; · \ ""fur " ,0' ,~< ,.' ' ( , i' ,,,,,i ..; . ,r \ /.1 .1.1 I (I .; I " " .' <j , .' ...- -' i : :~. I ~ ' , ' v, / / "'. ' ii I c'-t' - / / / I I' 'r\ ~\ ~ ii i ~~ i / / < I 17 I' i ' )- "i L-V : , I ( : .' '" I ' I: ~ ~ ", '< · I:' _, Ii " ~- I ; 'I T' <y..! :- ..,.:. . ~1!" ", \ it ___I '" 1<' \, \ I ;,i ~ ~ '.! r-tJ :'\I: i ~ :! I If "'- :--1 ' J i : ft i ! i i 1/-) 0: ! I : / ui : i ! uy frl r-"'~. ) ::!j ,:~ I i I 001 i ~.e " ' "",,:" .~ I · -I "_ '.' I -' .i. ,~'_ - I I I.I! \I CO'l _ '" ; 1 . "' d : (-y-~ <( : ,-' !j .;+-_._ ( '. 5 ; C-~ ~'i ! (' + 'j',. I ( ) '}-7 " ' _ ' "< ,t ---. , I I -;>.-' I '-< \i~; ';;i ' ,-' / .;! : (,,' , ,; 1 .;" ;::' ...! , "y- ' ' .,. , 91 i ~;: ~ +~ \ ~ l\ \ '_'1" ,,1' ' ~' " , __ , " . e---- ~,"'--' - " , ,J 25' BLOG. Sb1BAC" ~l ...~. 4., _<.....)~ \ .... ~ '1...../ m (_"'':,:)., II' ,I , ....~C'\ to'. \ ., I i .. ,~ I~ .. \ '.. ',...-" "T' \ .....:j .- '-)' ,il \:\ \ r\ .t- \:{ ~' ~ ,10-," ... \,.... ,__I ': .", " ',.' .. .. ,a -, , "" : ' ,'^' ...,. .. , --..'.' 7~.-' , \\ ,. '<....,/ . .. . . m," .,... , \~, ~.$'c ~.('. \,.;: e"'" \ ';; '. ......,'...".- I \ "" .. . .. ., ,.i<,.:"<" ", ,.l.. ,:; .. ".. .I... ' ....~ ... / !. ~~ /--....... ~c:f..~ I,.' <; ... :)'..,. ..... ........ ..... ... : "" " . . ..,- t~....... . ' .," '\ -. . ,.--..-- .--- -.' - -...-,. ',,>-, ''-_ __ _._,-....-. _''.. ." ,:,<,~....._.",__ ".'0':;;;;''-''''' -----.. - io --,; 1"2 .,I. .........' '. .. I ...~-::::.-_._,::~..--_<<.l- _- ___..-" ..' .. ......_j-...-._'-- ._-- .-.~.\..._..- --\Cl\--\-/-- ...-- .. -..' -...- ".------ . .-;: " c. i @\ '. ~ .'-'>o,~~,~~.,='~~~~,,,.-;~,~;:J~~:~:~~:="'.:,^.;;J~\~~~J~.o"C'~ .;~;,O~;:c.'> . U ) J ~ '-::-'. ._\::~., .; '':;, .., . " ' ,_ (,' c.. , , ., -- = . ' '" I > ~ "" '. . ., \" . ,. . -' . . " " ~.=@~.~~..~ ~_==-~i:~::?;'~ ---l ~ fRAN'fL\N lRA\l '\ -' (J /11 -iJ I I )~ (\ II ". \ll ,1\\ ~:j ~. ~:" \. '1' 'J; I (\" _.~~ cd _ ( ,. :- (-)h........~'-. I (": ,"',j ", ..t. ..~j + ~ / 11 i '-..y.) "' -,', '- 1::., , _\ I \ . o N /'-' c<.t ,"- ...1. " 'I \ W ..' ,_ C/l ) ~1,~:..}1 l:l.. :41- <-.., .. ~ .)'.....,,;S (. . \.i J. J-" ... . ... I .. '..... ::;-1 !a ( -,'*-_/ - oo-os~ ,; ~ u ~ ~ t..J VJ \ \ "' \ ~ C'I N ..... en c3 a ,..,J (C ~ u. an ~ \, , \ / .i / t '\ ., I I I l l ~! ~I 0' , o < ~ w VI >- < ~ w ;:. IE o '1 ' t-= ;'.J, t.... ~ an ~:': ~ \ . \ .. ..):, (..,: -~ .,;,; May 12,1998 The City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Variance Denial for Eagle Creek Villas, LLC Case Number 98-040 Dear Sirs: I am requesting an appeal before the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision May 11, 1998, denying a 22.45 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent. I am requesting a change to a 13.00 foot variance to permit a 72.00 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent. , // PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 The April 13, 98, Planning Commission meeting ~ s called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:31 p. Those present were CommiSJiOners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Dire or Don Rye, Planning~ordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secre Connie Carls n. 3. V onhof Kuykendall Criego Crame Sta on Absent sent Pres t Present Present 2. Roll Call: The M' utes from the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meetin pres ted. ommissioner V onhof arrived at 6:34 p.m. " 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #98-040 Eagle Creek Villas, Inc., is requesting a 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center line of a County Road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2 percent variance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20 percent. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. Eagle Creek Villas is proposing to construct two 4-unit townhomes on the Apple Valley Ready Mix site. A demolition permit has been issued for the structures existing on the site. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and is designated as R-HD Urban High Density in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant is requesting the following variances: . A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback from the centerline. . A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20%. I :\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc The lot is a comer lot approximately 223 feet by 150 feet. The total lot area is 33,220 square feet (0.76 acres). Section 5-4-1 (M) of the-City Code requires structures to be setback 85 feet from the centerline of county roads. Section 5-4-1 allows for a maximum lot coverage of 20% for townhomes. The maximum permitted density for townhomes in the R-3 is 14.0 units per acres. The applicant is proposing 10.5 units per acre. The applicant will have to subdivide the property prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed townhomes. As the lot exists, only one building permit can be issued on the lot. Staff has concluded that as submitted, the proposal does not meet the hardship criteria. The site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance requirements. Comments from the public: Attorney Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, representing the applicant, gave a brief overview on the proposed townhomes. The intention of the developer is to develop this as a condominium which would address the 20% versus 30% impervious surface coverage issue required for townhouses. Huemoeller explained the double frontage creates additional issues. By combining the buildings and moving 10 feet to the east, the setbacks would be met, but it would not be a reasonable use of the property. He feels there is a hardship and the proposal is reasonable. It is a key intersection in the City and the applicant would like to build an attractive, cost effective building. Moving the project to the west allows the developer to do several things that are beneficial; enhance appearance, allow for windows in the interior buildings, yet be cost effective. They do not feel the movement of the building to the west will interfere with public health and safety. It is an R3 project and allows adequate view for the intersection for access and safety. Mr. Huemoeller quoted the Rowell case. He also feels these issues would not be a problem under the new zoning ordinance. They also feel this meets the City's Comprehensive Plan. Larry Gensmer, a partner in the development was also present for any questions. Pat Sotis, public housing manager for Scott County HRA, manages Prior Manor adjacent to the lot in question. She said they do not have anything against the variance requestand would like to work with applicants. She was also representing the residents of the Manor and asked the following questions. Would there be fencing along the parking lot property line? And, because the grading has been changed would there be runoff on to the Manor property? Kansier explained no fencing is required by the City and the developer has to address the grading runoff to adjoining property. It is not allowed unless there is an easement. The public hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 2 -,.,.,...,- ---- Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . Asked staff to respond to Huemoeller's question regarding the setback from the county road under the new zoning ordinance. Kansier said they would have to go through the conditional use process under the proposed zoning ordinance. Rye said a potential ordinance does not provide legal basis to approve a variance. . Regarding the setback from the county road, a hardship could be madedue to the uniqueness of two county roads. That in a sense, might constitute a variance hardship. Criego: . Question to staff. Because it is two buildings the lot would have to be divided in two. If it was divided in two, would there be a variance on the side? Tovar explained the applicant is planning to plat as a condominium. Kansier said they would not need to go through the subdivision procedure even to create the envelope lot. They could plat one large lot. A variance would not be required if they create an envelope lot. . Tovar read the definition oftownhomes. . With 33,000 square feet one could still build 6 to 8 townhomes. The applicant is creating his own hardship by splitting the building. Cramer: . Agreed with Criego. The hardship is created by what is being put on the lot as opposed to circumstances being unique to the property. The building envelope is very large. There are alternatives. . The 20% lot coverage should be met. . Do not meet the variance hardship criteria at this time. Stamson: . Agreed with Cramer and Criego. The ordinance does not create an undue hardship. There any number of reasonable uses that can be applied to this property. Just because the ordinance does not accommodate this one particular design does not create an undue hardship. . Concurred with staff. V onhof: . Disagreed. Although the lot size is substantial, in view of the spirit and intent of the ordinance, one large building versus two smaller building, and the fact it is on two county roads, if you looked at it without the roads, the setbacks would be met and there would not be a problem. The hardship criteria have been met. Stamson: . By using a different configuration the townhomes could be built. V onhof: . Comer lots with dual setbacks are an issue. There are unique setbacks. I :\98files\98plcornrn\pcmin\rrm041398.doc 3 Criego: · Understands Vonhofs comments. In most cases, it was almost impossible to construct a building without the variances, but here a suitable housing configuration can be achieved without a variance. That is the difference. · What are the new setbacks and coverages with the new zoning ordinance? Kansier explained the new changes. · Under the new ordinance it would be a conditional use permit, but the setbacks would be met. This proposal was not reviewed under the new ordinance. · When is the new ordinance going to be passed? Rye said it would be close to six months. · If the applicant wants to build under the new ordinance, he would have to wait. MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98- IIPC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE AND A 1.2% V ARlANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%. Discussion: Criego understood Vonhofs concern for two county roads creating a hardship. Criego's concern is the building on the west side is five feet closer to the road than he would like. The east side building is 15 feet from the property line. Criego would consider some type of request if approved to move the building over. V onhof pointed out the Commissioners could approve a variance for less than requested. Tovar said the applicant has the choice to remove one of the units and still meet the lot coverage. Cramer noted in the past the Commission has asked applicants to reduce the coverage and therefore not need the variance. By reducing one of the building units by one, the developer could create what the developer is aiming for and meet the requirements. Stamson feels this is a design issue. Not comfortable passing a variance on that basis. V onhof believes there is an argument for hardship, as proposed. Cramer feels the hardship is being created by the design. Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson and Cramer, nays by V onhof and Criego. MOTION FAILED MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING, MAY 11, 1998. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 4 Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A. Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front ge variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue. 5. Old Business: Planner enni Tovar presented the staff report dated April 13, 1998 on file . the City er. The Planning ommission originally heard this request on March 3, 1998. The item was continued allow the applicant time to revise the plan and ariance requests. The applicant is reque ing the following variances: . 12 Foot Front yar setback variance to allow front yar the required 25 foot etback. . 6.5% Lot coverage v . ance to permit lot coverag of 28.5% rather that he maximum coverage allowed of 22 . The Planning Commission als directed staff t prepare a resolution of denial relating to the applicant's original request. "esolution # 8-10PC was drafted. The lot is a comer lot 40.0 feet by 1\ 0 Ii t. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that comer lots maintain the required fron ard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the required garage setback is 25 feet 0 \ the property line facing Duluth Avenue. The requested variance is to allow a nt y~" setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum required of 25 feet. The applic t is also" equesting a variance to lot coverage for the proposed garage. Section 5-4- of the City de allows for a maximum coverage of22% (structures only) in the R-2 ban Residential ning district. The applicant is proposing building coverage of 28.5%. The survey indicates t revised layout of the garag and driveway. The applicant has significantly reduced e size of the garage from 792 s are feet to 484 square feet. The garage now faces outh, rather than west in the origin proposal, allowing for a turn around and elim' ating the overhang of parked vehicles int the right of way. Staff conc1u d the revised proposal meets the four hardship en 1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn041398.doc 5 uykendall: · orts the two car garage because it is consistent with setbacks fr house no se they could not live adequately with a on garage. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECONu ~E , 0 ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-13PC GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE T b AN 8 FOOT SIDE YARD.. "::"'::'::.:'::::::.':::::'::." SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE D 10 FEET; A 1.65 FOOY"VAKlANCE TO PERMIT DRIVEW A TBACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTE ..:::::::,W@ REQUIRED 5 FEET. ALSO AD HE AMENDED SURVEY DATED M1\X:::,fT~.:.::::::::::,:.:,,::.. EXHIBIT :. ::s:gn::::s:yes by all. MOTION CARRlli~ .~ "::;::::::':':'::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;" A. Case #98-040 (continued) Eagle Creek v;:;la~::{fl~~~m!'!:!~::;::~'~ting a 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center IiD!iii!!.. a County Road (Franklin Trail) instead of the require~ki!?::{~.~t and a 1.2 pef.Gip;t:y~riance to lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather than tIi~jIIEi'_~.I:jj,t!::~::::.~d..::~~;J9;:liercent. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning li!.P9f:aated'::N,fiii'A:t 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. ....::",:,:",:,:";;,;,,,::::::::;,::::::.. ':::::jij:::i!?;::' .:::::::::... The Planning commis~i4A:!!~:::;~:::~~~;iii~equest od:.i~pri.J 13, 1998 and continued discussion until May 11, 1998 .:w:i.iB:.all ofth~,:::..Manning COl~H:;i:ssioners would be present. The original request indtideQ:iiii;g2.~fMiiiyIDifmIMt!9:,Jbiir:setback from the centerline of Franklin Trail, and 1.2% variance Hi:il~JluixiinufH"'t8F2'overage requirement. The applicant has since revise4.::h~~J?J.ep.s showH1i:ii~,::~etback from the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72 feet rathe~::,::0:,::Jh&"HH'gi~I~II~~:~uest 'B~j'lii,~:.feet. . As.::vii#::yiously stated, theii:~t~ff cori€luded as submitted and revised, the proposal does not mMF'~mhardship criteri~i:::::::,he site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance require~rl!~~::;;:: ../:!lllilii?: "::r~:~:~:~:!:!:!::: . .;::!=!:!:?' Comments 'lt~ ';:j~~':::IHibliC: Bryce HuemoeUiBr, attorney for the applicants, stated this parcel is unique because it is bordered by two county roads. The problem is not the owners'. The setbacks are 85 feet from the center line. It is a substantial increase in the normal right-of-way which turns out to be a 25% reduction in building area. The County has offered to turn County Road 39 (Franklin Trail) over to the City. Once this is complete, the road will be a minor collector street with setbacks less than 85 feet, therefore, a variance would not be required. The applicants feel, with respect to the variance from County Road 39, the County will tender the road to the City, and the Planning Commission should evaluate the matter under that transfer. Under the lot coverage issue in the ordinance, townhouses can I :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\1lU1051198.doc 3 have 20% coverage, multi-family dwellings can have 30% coverage. These buildings have townhouse qualities but will be considered condominiums. This lot would easily conform to 8 townhomes. Huemoeller quoted Rowell vs. City of Moorhead case. Comments from the Commissioners: Cr~go: ......... . Questioned the County proposing to turn the road over to the City. ..::~ye::safd::1t is not a done deal and has been going on for a few years. .:.::/?f?i... . Was there some discussion at the last meeting regarding the qr4j,#an~~::::::B:-ye responded one cannot evaluate a variance request based on wl\~~: may 6Hm~y. not happen. ..:::::::::!i:i'?:::::::.:':::::::::: "::::::::::::::::::::'::.: ". . Kansier said under the proposed ordinance, the setback:3h:'ii.'sid:e street would\M!~)l5.:?:' feet and the ground floor area ratio would be 35%:.::::::::::::::r:::;::-' .(t::. ...::::.:::::::::?::::.. . This is an adequate use of the property. Two bW:J.~19:~ will ~!~::::~ better look t8::the property. '.:, ..::::::::::::::::t::::::.. ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:. . There is a future possibility Franklin Trail may becOInl{~::B~~Y street. . The proposed ordinance will probably.JR~ke this an acceI)t~IJ,~i:~se:.: . Allow the hardship to carry because dt~n.i::gHi:!:1 county roadS:}::::::::::::::::::::::?:::: ....... c..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.... ramer: ". ..:::.:::.:..........:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;::::::.:. .. . Agreed with Criego that it .1.9R~s like a gd9q:::;eYelopni~pJF: . However, the hardshipj~:::JSig~~::RR the desl~n:' "::::: . Reasonable use can 9~:::fuade or:~p;is propertY::r::::a9:.unit townhome would be better. . Deny request. ... '.:.:::::::::::::::::::.' ,':::::::::::::::::::::::::::" ................. ..... ........... ..... .......... ..... .......... .... .......... ... ... .................. .................... ... ............. . . Kuykendall: . .:::.::.:.::.. .. .... .::' .... · Kansier aJ}5.LIHyar expllHilm:::!he setbacks. . If th~.::f9~{f{Fi~IUH.TrailfIs:::~9:~H~:to be a minor collector street, it is low volume. . It.~Jf'feasonable.:u~'~:::P.ut note~:::gi1it it has not happened yet (road transfer). There are ..::::ff:~~onable altematiViI:h .. .:::: 'i~it~tis no hardship.':::::::::::::: . ThM~~Yr:loper shoulg::'ait until the changes take place. . UnfoitUiji~&:!y the~K::'e two jurisdictions. . Support st~t'~T~p6inmendation. Tovar pointed om under the proposed ordinance this would not be a permitted use. Stamson: . Does not believe the existing ordinance denies potential development. . There is plenty of space to create other designs that would work. . Opposed to granting variances. 1:\98files\98pIcomm\pcmin\mn051198.doc 4 Open discussion: Criego: · Other applicants have had two frontages and this is no different. · What would be better, apartments or townhomes? '::;::::::::':'" ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.... ..::::fr~:::::::::::::::::::~:~~~t:: ................................. ...... .......... ...... .......... ..::ff:::" ..::::t~:rr:::.. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO 41:RO~.~:::~::::::::!:::::t:::::.. RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT V ARJ& NGe:::ro PERMlttA 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A cgF~Y:::ROAD (F~:.:/i=. TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT 8.J:grtlACIWi\ND THE MOD~ll1!D SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT V ARIAN:Q,lOOQ PE~~i:::.A 72.00 FOO'f'". SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A CdbNT~:::RP~JY:~IN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2%..'V:E;tANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 % ~THER THANl~::\MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%'::::::"1111!11!!!::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::}~::::::::.,... '.::::~::::::::llllll.::!::::::~/}:: Vote taken signified ayes by Cramer, Kuyk~ndall a.n9t~.~R!h:::.Nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED..)~:!!::::::.::::::::::::~:::r::.. ....::::::::::::!::!:::::::::::r::.. "::::::~:::~:~:::~:::::::::~:~::::::" "=;=;:;:;:?' .:::::::., ,';':';':';':';';';';':';';';';';';';';';';';', ':':':':', Kansier explained the.::jj:;~Fpro.2'I~e':\:::::!!!i:\::~:~:/::::. B. Case #98-04a}:::(~9.ntinue4.):::Consider aQ.J.Uiiendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the perJhiit~~'~'ilt:::j:Ji:::iu.i:::IM~~IIJiPark Zoning District. Planning C2:9I9.i.~rn!l9r.Jenni":f.6.~#:Lpresented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on file i:~~:~:~WPtfi:2e'8Fl~I.II~:~~ Plaiffi~~~'.i::::::::::}::. OI,}Aliril 27, 1998, the Pt,lnning Commission reviewed a request to allow gymnastic s6fio'61i.:iJJ.tthe B-P (Busirl,iis Park) District. It was the consensus of the Planning Comml'~~!9.nJhat this uS~:::$hould be permitted as a conditional use in the B-P district. The PlaruiiRg::S;pmmi~!!bh continued this request to allow staffto address the conditions proposed by lR~::~l~mjnhg Commission. The apPlicant's:::~!;~nal proposal would have included gymnastic schools as a permitted use in the B-P District. However, the Planning Commission felt this use was more appropriate as a conditional use. The Commission also suggested the standards for maximum floor area occupied by the use, hours of operation and required parking must be addressed before the amendment proceeds to the City Council. Cramer: · There are apartments next door right now. · Make a decision on what is before the Commission today. Maximum Floor Area: The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect ofthis limitation is that any 1:\98files\98plcomrn\pcmin\mn051198.doc 5 RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.46 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND THE MODIFIED SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT VARIANT TO PERMIT A 72.00 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (FRANKLIN TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Eagle Creek Villas Inc. has applied for a variances from Section 5-4-1 of the City Code on property located in the R-3 (Multiple Residential) District at the following location, to wit; 160th Street, legally described as: Commencing at a point 25 feet east of the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1, Costello's Addition to Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the county recorder; thence south parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet; thence east parallel to the north line of Section 1, T. 114, R. 22, a distance of 300 feet; thence north parallel to the east line of said addition a distance of 150 feet;. thence westerly along the right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 13; to a point of beginning, Scott County MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in Case #98-040 and held a hearing thereon on April 13, 1998. The Planning Commission tabled the discussion on the request to May 11, 1998. 3. The applicant submitted a revised plan on April 29, 1998, increasing the setback to the centerline ofPranklin Trail from 62.46 feet to 72.00 feet. 4. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the request and the revised plan on May 11, 1998. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL:AL OPPORTUNITY E1vIPLOYER 5. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and lot coverage variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The granting of the setback variance and lot coverage variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has alternatives to eliminate the variances. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant. 7. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship through the design of the proposed structures. 8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be met if the variance is granted. 9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property without the variance. 10. The contents of Planning Case 98-040 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances for 5255 160th Street, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal description); 1. A 22.54 foot variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback. 2. The revised 13.00 foot variance request to permit a 72.00 foot setback from the centerline of a county road (Franklin Trail) instead of the required 85 foot setback. 3. A 1.2% variance to permit lot coverage of21.2 percent rather than the maximum allowed of 20%. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1998. f-wt(f-~ Allthony Stamson, Chair L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE9811 PC.DOC 2 -..rr ~ J- - :c - I: X lJ ~ : - ~ r:Ll:: .1 r .".. .: _ j~lli 'i ~ o ,...olj'; h>~ eCI ~ . .,~ S- ~ :~Iil HI:. ,_ ,. _ ==!.! 3,,':; ~~:js i~z: .. ....::: >. 4) > ~ ::::l (J) - o 4) - ~ " .- - .- - ~ 4) (.,) I- cffi ..J:E> 1JJ:l..Z u:o< cr:-lCl. 1JJW:E 1JJ~O COe,) CJ) >-W ex:~ ::::l0 (DI CJ)Z ....J3: dO It- w ~ <( ....J ex: o a: a.. II : ~~ 0..,9 tlns ~~ ft1'" t- "" J \,I ... <t: ~ .,.. Vi " ! . . ~ j .; ~i V1 ~g;~ ~~ '" Wl~ ~ 5i U'I thl a 'i~ <( ::::: ~ 01 ~ i~:::~ VI: 3i~ w ~- i &=-~ '11 .p~ ~ <:~ ....:I(;lI~;SSii ::i i;2 ~3;:: e;~ p p~ ~~~ Ii;, :€3 p~~ ~a- ~:!: h3 !i~f" !;~! ilo~ 31:~ a -~.. ~~3. .;;!!!:i i-~~ i-':e';' "1 oem, P;H ~ ~ ~. I: I 1/ r I ;: \\\\(7 # ., /~\\l\':\ (/ ~c.' J:~ ~=-- _.~.,.~'" r 1 t7"~ "" .:~" -~ _I I :f\ I, ~"i~1)IA'\ I.~' ~'I I .u_t! ;trli~'c ,..;) - 1/ , ~ \ ,I,.,' " . :: "I ....Y ~ I: !i~~ \ "\ ~,rJ;1ifJ" /1 ~ , g\ ~\i~ \ 1,:::kf4_1,,:'1 'J \ I ! ~ ~~ ~a.'_ ~ V;<<~;' i;' (I ~ ,\',~ ):~ ,I O I' ,~ \ ....1 T ," '\ · a:::' I . " '. .'~ ! '{ r: ,! \ : i ~ I > 0 'I'" f : ~~l :: r' I ~, ; 'I - _: ~I' ~ \ I I-- "," ,- - " -. ( , Z I ' I 1 : ", """,,. \, I '-:,;; I ,'i; \ ::) I '~' .. ,-~~~;/ 1 I' ""i>i"1"" "I i \~\, o - ' " ,'- _.-.." ." \ U' ,L:~" 1:J/ =~""r;.':::-:.} I M,I\', , I- . . --.-- '" ; ~ ' \ r-.---;,~ Dl \ I~ '; - - +::'-t-' ~ I ,~t \~~ f.;;;:-~..'rtl~~~~);/:~'i J i": ~"-- '\ . \ 1\ ,," \:s;:<--" , . ", /J, ~ i ~ \ ... iN _ ., I ,;' I 0U JE<'- ~ -.-," _.' \ \! .~ .......,,-_. ,. -' \ " ',' '."; '.",., .. , ;. I" ". I ','I ' "..' \ ~ilt' \ \,h\~~~.- .1, .=-=O~._,~'~;- ... ',' fRAt-tKUt-t lRA\\J , " -~-- - __~~I ..1'" ; iJ~'~ 1'1 if .'.11 mij ~ljli :~". 11.{H; ~H!e t . : z .; -;:~~ - ~ll~~S~~ ~:z~~i!i ;i.il'C:. 'a>- ;;~i=~Ii t~.=;~i ~~.'~'! _~~;=i: ih~:1~ ;i,.g:lI ~~~i:.~: ~~i~3~~ 31.~~~! a~~;,:a ~f...';:i!g i i3~:i=f! ~ !...=~~'~ ..~ ._;'0 o -~_.,..... ~ ; ...~~==_t . ~"'i~g~;;; i z" ___1. -='==1"' !~~~i~~; , . s - ! : ! j 3 ~ l I ; : ~ J, 1 B ~ ~ I I /-- . ,:~ I. - '0"- I -; ~I~i a ; c.: -' : I~': ,:c~- i"- -- f ~ ....' 1(':::;'\, ri..:"':'-; ~i ,~:.- -=-.---"-' ----- - i,1: I " .1 ~ , ~ 111': ~'I 1 1 - _Ii ~ r-'4~,-;1% A d "'! i ~ L / "'-'- ~ I' ::J, I ___ ,.1 I ....3. ,;' I ~--' ", 'I j/ I' _ I . .. A-S---~--""-=\-_.-' /' /1 ; .: IF r ....-t. II .... ..32.' (~-" ' 't ,~. "c.J . I : !: I o"~ f~".{ \" / , I': I VIII ,'! . (I~ \,.,,/ /"./ . . .', " " . - .. ." . : :! " 'I. ',. \/ /, '" I ,', r'y....- / / I I .... . Ii! i \ ,/' .;' (/ 1'1\ , : i I )--,,-, ,,' \ LY7',~:. I!r,' \. ~ r''' I ./ ~: :' . I I' ! (:. . I en I l; ~"t" '. ,;l;. I _ l Ii " ,,-- I "'" I T' 0-' ;-.~; ! ~'I' (' ,. '.'" -, ..,' I ... ,.. I ,r" ,..;... : 8i I ;., \) 0'>' ,,: _ " --1.1 ,,) i ~ ..! I I'> ,,,' i :ll . I ' ;-:.... i i z I I If " fti ! i I - ) 01 ; I ! I J / 1J i ! ~'...,..:!! f 4V 'f'J'"'~ .r'~. ) :!l 1 I i.Il r iJ '," ~ . I .."i:" )0 ; , rei I 'J'" . . ~ 11 0';;'; --=- '" 1 ~r I:J ' ("'-- < .. , , ; ;; t - ("~ '. J Q: "I t(,(.:.J~t.j~.~~,..,.t'~-7 I ~! ; t' y.. . ~Ii I --;..._~ , ' ....' . ;; r ; I , (I:; ~: I al i (~-., '0'. , . (C!,): 1. .~t.:J, (_,~ 25 . \B;C;- - 1- ~l\- .t'~ . \ '" '. ;.' .' "" / m' . ) .il \\ \ ,;;.( .to....,) \. ~'~--..~ ,;;;.;-i ,. "J' i ~ \..... p . , '., ._ I"," , " '~ oX ' '.., m , . 0'-'-.''' \'.:.. ,. 0'" '" '" .... ;:; \ . '",..t... \~" "'?.-"(" i;;' r-~ \ '; . ."............. ..... . 1 \ -- ". -. .. .rJ .. ,,'S.4,~_2' : ,.' \,..1, ',,) . II ~ ... '" ... ' . --. ~ 1'}- / ." - I' . '\ -- ... : .... --. -0,;'" ' ,..,., ....... ..' . i~.....' ., . ; - -.""""" - .' ' ' ". . - ' ". " ^", ......_ _.....,...__ _,,_ ;,-,,<,+-..' _...,--"s.o>.'sii'w''''--''- ..-;01-'( ,2.18' ......... -"." ... -- -' ~'~'--:'~'-.I ~'- __" J . ,,' " .' . . "'-"'_._-. _0..----". _ __ ....._... .' .. ........-;--...-.-- -:". "'-Y'"'' ,,- "("1\--;7"" ..'" .. - ....- .. .- .. ..--" . .-::; '. " fa\., ~ ".", ':"~=; =,~,o."=,,,;~::~;~~:;::;~~~:~~;,(;<;,~\::~~,J", ,;;;:", . 7:~-'''''OC;~;~'':''- i U) ~~ .. 0:'0'.,. .J';.;..,_;. -\\' \, ...:>.:,- " -r' ~ = _ " ' ,,\ c" i...~.=i:=~-~~ ~ ".J ~_=--~:?~gg~lt~ ---f ~ fRANKl\N I ; ( '\ :'j lr.. b 0;0.1 /--c<t.,- ..... . "' \ W .... , C/l \ I <( . ...." ;:r;z--) a.. .... - OO'OS'~ ~ "W (\ ' ~ ~. /11 \ - \~ I I I '\ t-. <--, .. l:.. .f..... ..is (. , \.i ... J-" .... . ... I .. '-...., ,.'!a I _,.....-1. I //:,.11 " "I\i I ~:3 ~. en:u '. -r '1' I .r.\' -~':. cd _ ( /:- ()....:..~o I ('; :.,) .."",\. "'l; \. . ~ . !""~/' ') , 11! "'-J-y ...- " - ; .....' D -< ~ !.oJ VI \ i I \ . ! I I \ \ I \ ..... ..... .-. N ..... c:n d 9 co ~ u.. tn ~ \ I / I j { "- ., : I I l ! ~! ~l o \ Y' {:5 <: ~ !.oJ VI >- <: ~ W :> liE. o I. po: ~:..l w. :;111 "!:-:: \ 1R A \ l --"