HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. Variance
~
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 15, 1998
9A
Jenni Tovar, Planner
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 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 FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS, INC.
Historv
On April13, 1998, the Planning Commission held a hearing to
consider a lot coverage variance of 1.2 percent and County Road
setback variance of 22.54 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 ofthe 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. This item was originally scheduled for the June 1, 1998
City Council meeting, However, upon request of the applicant, it was
continued to this agenda.
162QO.<j&BQIEs@8Wk~.:&l(l4<figEQ,4iOO:.mooke, Minnesota $5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
f'
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 ofthe old Ready Mix plant. The legal building
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 that the proposed development does not meet
the four hardship criteria.
Franklin Trail is on the turn back list to be given to the city. Ifthe
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 back 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 ofthe 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.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Future tax base could be lost ifthe variance is denied and the number
of units is reduced.
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040CC.DOC
2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the variances requested by Eagle Creek Villas,
Inc.
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 ofthe 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
the modified setback requ st of 72.00 feet from the centerline of a
county road (Franklin T ) instead of the required 85 feet and a 1.2
percent varianc eque 0 permit lot coverage of 21.2 percent rather
~ the ti all ed of20 percent for Eagle Creek Villas, Inc.
,~
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\98-040CC.DOC
3
RESOLUTION 98-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
l.tI..E 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 T.tI..E REQUIRED 85 FOOT SETBACK AND Hili MODuruD
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
RAl.tI..ER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20 PERCENT FOR EAGLE CREEK
VILLAS, INC.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on June 15, 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.
16200 Ek~rJil~~i~~~r~~i?~~:g~~'i!S>r~or Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612jl2f47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,.., .d_.~
," :". '~ '. 'It ~~nlim'l<"""",""':"'.''''.''':''''''':'!!.''' ~~
" ..~ . ',,"1:.-. .,
3. Eagle Creek Villas, Inc. appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 5-6-3 (A) of the City Code.
4. The Prior Lake City Council was to consider this appeal on June 1, 1998, however, at the
request of the applicant, the City Council heard this request on June 15, 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 15th day of June, 1998.
YES
NO
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
I: \98files\98var\98-040\ccres.doc
Page 2
I"
l-
t!
..
I
.,
(
I
,
~
I
.
I:
It
~
EXHIBIT A
Certificate of Survey
--:,:___-I1'-f9UNTY ROAD NO, 44
_.::~."'.._..... ,^ I' ....._""'_.~----
::!ll I - - - -
, '-f < ----rl. -----
~ ,,:,,' r'---- , I~~
\\ ~V ' "" 'I ~~".._.- . , ' !J'
6/ 'Q~ O"H~~"-' . - , ~-~- . - ~ - ,-
", ..' - ..) , --
. ..... r. .~.. . -::=:r.: -
...... . . \ '$"
I ' :, " '?'. ~- ----------- ~ '~\..... /'"^
'" \ ,'-/ ,,(0) _.- -. - ,. ../ -
;0 i<:' \ :.,_l~~r;~.-~ - ~\~~ ~".uL! ~~
)> '. ~.. ~-:-i': -. -<~ - -- ../"..
-z.. '. \ i \c, I , " : /~ ~r . ,- , .- ~.,.,.- '"
~ ~~ I \ ~ .____Li.-:f~-: ",,,' m~ t,;.:.....e....'X~ ~ .~,..~
,_ . . \. , " \ZJ'"------. ,.1_' i==:/~' I t
~..' '" . _'-' I . ----- -. .~
~ /" . ,. '.. ,', ' r---' - · .,
~-'- _. ~ "., \.. ~ ...... tl( ,/
_' " . ~_. _ :c' "'; i'>Cl", / 0<' ' · ..
~., g:r;..., ~::._ ~ 1-- ---~ -~... ,,' ij ~ "\ II
-\ .~' _ _ _ 'P- - - . ," S14- . i
;0 , - (9 · -., : I : ,
'e;~'" ' y~~ v2~ ~-. - .'.. ~c
C ~- ...-........ .........-.- - ~
.' ~ -'~ - .
___ ~... _ _ J ______ - I I
\. _, ~,,_.... _ _ ~ ,-; f!
.,\\ . ~ -.. '- ..
~r'
~
("u
,l--
'I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
,I
\.
u. ..~ ,AIOQMG
"
NKI'P.... IKSCWIDei
.. ". I 41 A. POMJ 2t fill WI t'lIF 1M( _HASr COAItOI ,. LOT 1. .oat t.
cos.-ucn IMAIluN 10 f'IIIQlI IMI. ICOII Udll'f. .....tOtA.. ~ 'W ... tuT
HIlI(J" (II ""1 AM) Of KClC4m .. al[ UfIe( IJI 1M( COMA.COIIO; h..IKI. sou..
.....11 1U ... UU lJN[ OIF S.t.D ........ .4 II:U~ . IW 101: BMt:( (Mi.
,-...uo. Ml .. ..... IN Of SlC..... t. 1 1f4.. J2. ... 1IStANa: .-: ]QO tm:
lI€1C:( tOI* ,INUU. 'W) Ill: USI Uti: Of ~ #IllIlI"ION '" casfNG: " I~ un
1It:HC( \iIlSIDI.' HOIC ... aod-Qr-WAY" .....aD.'" __ ttIGttlr4Y IIIQ. 11.
10 "'..... 1Jf'''''''''''
SETBACKS
.-J ....IRlIll!oaH......
,...1 B '1. SI'1aAQ(
..... II ,.. Sl'BACI
$Ill( "".SE~
..........
9Q( . n. K-..oc
co..., ao..os
1Ft n "110& cu.... "" lIaMlUa 111 .........
.. PUllED HtlIoS ... v....,
S;4~ A((c,.. ~3, ~~O JlJ
. j "alP AlYd
--
10' ... ........1 at" at( SOUIM [Ail
:-u::.:. c:::.....~_ t~~a:1II)
...,.,
.... ANt ... ....1CIlN1 lMU."S (IN ilK
1o$.~""_Wl.l."~"''''''
....AIIl:l ... U*ol QIY o;K $lClKlll
i-i-M ADQPIU ./1'116
LEGEND
o
o
o
l:I
*
""
-1-
-<;-
-<<-
.
_ ......-...
.........O..E
CA1Q'IIAWt
",1)AANT
...... VAl-\/(
UQII t"Cll~
........ NlL
..-
SANI/OAY 51:...
s.'Ufg,f~_"
..u.
N
..
....
I ,
.. ..
rll'
.
?u
~:".:::. 1'l:.~ "'c.
~............
.--
JIIoS~"""Q_
,.... ......... ... ".lu_J6U
('12) .2II_.'HlI
FAI (..J) .u- ,lOt
DEE RFIELD
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
HILLSBURY
TOWNHOMES
PRIOR LAKE
1_...'_........._.
- ........ tIt - .. -- -,
...................-....,
'........ ... ...rw..... .....,
......-. ......... ........ .I...,
"~I.
... ,.
.....
-...r
... (I)-U-..
.....,
r,~~ ff~ (c~ r;.~ r \'\17/0 "/-. \
, .' L.... \.. .., \ \
: I, F"---'.' '-.---.----.., I,
'<'1 I !) I' "-'il.
I ;i:
\1 1-
d I~ f.'1 1 "
1\ I __"1.... ~ I ,.,-
':! I~ ;~ i ._.:::::- l I..' r- ~ '"
'i' ' , T------""--',l. ,. / A. t\ ! ~
:' I~' , \ 45,32/ ..,.--" ' ' lli
., ,F Y""-' " I '(j ! "
;! ,'5 1: \)...... ~ '\ / /' · ( I
,',: ;(1)'1' ..\'. '. ~~ \./;' / / \ (,
.,' ". " ' ~ "'./ / / I '
! i },>> ~ v / / / I I:~-' '" ~
ii lJ // /,' (/ I I.t" "\ \'k11
; i ~)- / / L-Y! \ \'\ ,I
J (J + \. _ ~ J I ... \ \ \ 'W
"., ~ I ' '
:..:., lv-J '-" -... ; ! \ \
4J ,I # \" \---;( "\
:nl : '" \ \ i -; I
...;""" I 81 in '\. I ~i 7) \
~'~ _ ' I W
"\I \ j ~ : i \ \ I" I~~~',~ \. ~
..:.... i i ~ ,/ i " " ~ , , /
:r ,! i i I - , ) \~ IX "( "\ \ \
:;): ! 1 ! I i / '--~-' I - \~ I
~.ir')," I i Lf"1 " ~, ! ~
__....1 I :. .&.(' " · ., '"
_ I \J. ';' ,.,. 1 \ /:., ,..,.0 ' "
- ,'' } ~ ' .' -
>I' ,)" ' -' ',\'" "'
U: \ I~~'_:" I \ - ( ,':- \,'?h""\~'-'
___ 00 · ." J". , ). ......
" ,'L ~ ' -' I" ," . \
0:' 'r-:,.,g i (.<h I ,..t.)e + j
~: T .. - l ~ J., i ~ ,.I ~ '::~~-7 I _/ 11! -.....u
~, I -"..' ' ---'
"I. · ~.. ... '.
. I ,- <.:.. . J
..; i I '.' .J ' ..:> :.
.' I ," , ' "
5\ i ",r"-, 0' \ ? :\
_ i ,i I ;;i'. + ~ ' . , , ,
, ,,1" ' ~ ----'
(C\.~\.!) l\ .... ,~;t...-.y ,.... (._.. L,"" 25 , . : \ ......n. fit ~~r,,-"i.'4)
.. -:t " '\->"" " -'~ tII> I ".;..' )
U: \\ \ 5\., 'f' \.:J '\ ~.... " .. '" '," 'O~~,-~"
" ~ '. -.." ;;' . ',",.{.
'(-' "v,j-' '".. ~'" ,"
.~\ ~ C?... ~,,/ ~ ,'-"'-' \.s:' --.......-..-.. ........ L \
'" ",' " ,[; ,. '.'. I ~ ..'
" , . ,,&::'? ' .., ..:' ...' '" ." " , .......
,,:-.___ '0,;'" \ '.. \.. ' ~ ,... . .', . .' .-..-
,~ '. _'. : .' ~. _,,,... ..... ....._..-.-\-..~.._........,..., .0' ........,-...-. .._-- - . ".-.. 1
I ,,0;,....." .. _,~..... _".." -"''''''''-'''_''',-''8'0'''8''. 10 \ 12..28...'
, '~ ~_,_.., ,) ..... ............L..-.--..----' --.~_.,,- ,.' --\"1\-\-7'......... . - ...-" ,,, ..-'-"- ' '~ .."
, "" """" _..--.....-". \ '01' '. "
! o\;~~~:_'~.., EAS' U"E r ~^:'~~~:^-\-:=.. - _.J~tl,.~ """,~ .. -:=,;.;;:..d;~"''''- '
" -=- -=-. _",_ ,..",.." "_:_",,, ."",'.=o-..''''c.. ._ _,-.-'.. ...; .",...,: I '
II'''' nnn --"" . ..._" ...,__.....- ",' ...,.- \, I '.' \ .
!.l,.I , = . .. .. -'" .'
U) SA,,;;' ';'~"_.,,, ,J:,,,;, \I \ "~.
a<'::: ~ . ' '"
. __ ,=' \ \. '\\' ._.".. .~' .c'....., ",,:-.\.
. > <\nn . ' " ,.. ,.'", ,..' '" ....'.
~~ l ~@'., ;: \9 ~,,,..,,.:,:.\c.... ! ..._'''-.--,,---.5~:::~:.-::::-.~
.,,,..,, .~ ,~.,j" _~ ,,' . . "..,,_" _ :::=- _ c.----"T' "....-"" -,-.-""". j' ...~",
--=:: p...'
.-1 (,,~,..J fRAN\<L\N 1RA\L
.....
-
OO'OS~
.......
l"- <--.. ...
\... .t..... ,.;S
( \.i
+ >( ..-
r- ,.
'..... ,.'!J:l
'_ _::...1
-
:r::
u
<
~
r...J
,tA
ci
9
co
..,.:
1..1.
\
\
\
\
,
\
; -
\
.
\
,
\
\.
\
i
/
I
~ N
.
ell en
o.n
C'l
\
I
,
.i
j
{
"-
--
:
I
I
I
, l
M!
"!l
01
,
o
<
~
LoJ
VI
>-
<
3:
l.L.I
>
ce
o
r.
.
I.
-t-=
:.J, "'-
:10
..,'
\
.
\
l
--"
) [g (G [g 0 \I,IJ ~ \-,
MAY I 4 1993
~
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.
,
!' 1""
-,.~-:]'..' .
I. 3: 0 .
. ~. .' '1..1 :,.:;J-=~ ~
'Jl~', . '~'~,.Mii.,.iIifr.J..ioo.:.oj;f"...,.,. .... ." . _
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 13,1998
./
/
1.
The April 13, 98, Planning Commission meeting called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:31 p. Those present were Commis . ners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Dire or Don Rye, Planning ordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni
Tovar and Recording Secre Connie Carls .
The M' utes from the March 23, 1998 Planning Commission meetin
pres ted.
V onhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Crame
St on
2. Roll Call:
3.
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 ~e
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:\98fiJes\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
2
"~i 1';_
-.g~,j, . 111 ...~...."'...... [Je
';-'J:~,,~..... ~II .. .......... .
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:
. Corner lots with dual setbacks are an issue. There are unique setbacks.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
3
Criego:
· Understands Vonhof's 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 STAMSON, 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%
VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 20%.
Discussion:
Criego understood Vonhof's 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. Vonhofpointed 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.
Stamsonfeels 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:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.doc
4
.....>~i:~'~lm':;:~rk;.Jj~;.,....:~U\.. I'~'I ' ~)&';~"k"'lt,~&~ ~ .'r
.' ,...~iilU!!iI~.... ~ .., . ""'- . .. .
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Case #98-039 (Continued) David Berens requesting front yard
ge variances for the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
5. Old Business:
Planner enni Tovar presented the staffreport 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 corner lot 40.0 feet by 1 0 fi t. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that
corner 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 of 22%
(structures only) in the R-2 ban Residential ning district. The applicant is proposing
building coverage of28.5'Yi.
The survey indicates t revised layout of the gara 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 conclu d the revised proposal meets the four hardship cn
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm041398.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, SECO RIE, 0 ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-13PC
~~~C;:Si:Z;>~~~51O FE~ 8 FO~TI~~~~CE
TO PERMIT DRIVEW A "lHACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTE ".4f.IW REQillRED
5 FEET. ALSO HE AMENDED SURVEY DATED MAX:~4f:r.'.:::::;::::">"" EXHIBIT
aken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
.:=I:j:j::::..
5. Old Business: ..:tf~~:;:,.
.:::{~~~~~I1I~!~I1~~IjI1t:::..
A. Case #98-040 (continued) Eagle Creek Villas, '"fiti$;::~~~~:;eq~:~:~ting a 22.54 foot
variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback ~rom the center iHi;'!!!Rf:., a County Road
(Franklin Trail) instead of the requiredt'S::f~et and a 1.2 pef.~ijb.t.:y~riance to lot
coverage of21.2 percent rather than th~~~:~ercent.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning '11t.p.2pNratea:;:~~~f:'::fl, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner'..:~:~tf~!!::::::Ii:iii!:i!!II!!!!!lliliiii:}: \:iilllll!:;;::," .::ff::"
The Planning Commis~i41f:heard thi!.:::~equest ori~::.priJ 13, 1998 and continued discussion
until May 11, 1998 wHih all of theiplanmng Conili'ssioners would be present. The
original request inc1tid&ljIII!!:f:~.?~m:i!I.IMMm!B!::Mf~r~~tback from the centerline of Franklin
Trail, and 1.2% variance ta!!m":;~axIlliillfr'l6t":e'overage requirement. The applicant has
since revise4.,:.b.i~::plyps sho",'1riii:i~:::~etback :from the centerline of Franklin Trail at 72 feet
rather..:~~:,:!mg:~X~:~~~I~liit.~uest'''8~i'i~~~~:' feet.
A~.::e!'~yiously stated, th~::itff cori@~~ded as submitted and revised, the proposal does not
nt~et\.l ~::hardship criteri~@Jfhe site plan can be modified to meet all ordinance
:~~c:
Bryce HuemoeU~f:::"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
1:\98fi\es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn051198.doc
3
) '~'-,;.:' ..1''''.-.- ~ ".... > '~'" 'ftilt. .:. .T'i .'I...iWli...... ...
'".~I_~__''''' .- '.'" '11lI'"
.--
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:
Criego: ,':::::::::::::::::::':'"
. Questioned the County proposing to turn the road over to the City. &#&::S'~la:~~lt is not
a done deal and has been going on for a few years. ..::::~{:::::::::L:..
. Was there some discussion at the last meeting regarding the Qr.d.ii'fui~~t~::Rye
responded one cannot evaluate a variance request based on w'~::"may cir.::.x. not
happ~n. . . ..:::t::::::::::::t:::k~:;:;![I}: "::::\l::::::::::\::::...
. KanSler said under the proposed ordmance, the setbasW::bff a SIde street would:::1I:::1i::::r:'
feet and the ground floor area ratio would be 35%...:::::{:r:::" ":::::::" \:I::{::::"
. This is an adequate use of the property. Two bqiJ.al~.~ will"::q'9::::~ better look tarilie
property. .-::;::....:::tt::::::::::t::::.. ..:::{\\J~r::::::::~:~t\}::.
. There is a future possibility Franklin Trail may becom&i:\jUy street.
. The proposed ordinance will probably..make this an acc~~t~b.l~..use.
:ra::~ the hardsmp to carry because ~;;::y
. Agreed with Criego that it .1.2P~s like a gdgH::~9EYelopnillt::"
. However, the hardshipj~:::~lm~f;::RP. the desil9: ":::::"
. Reasonable use canJ~~f.\:ifiade 0 ~:~ms propert9::t:::~~:.unit townhome would be better.
~n:k7:d::~est. ~
. Kansier ~5LI:2'yar explilii~:::!he setbacks.
. If th~J9~a:::tFr~~Un..Trailf'is.:~:a2ip:~:Jo be a minor collector street, it is low volume.
. It j$,:::i'+easonable::ult:put note:~::\t.1.llit it has not happened yet (road transfer). There are
.4~:~:~=~:t '
. Th~::a.i&~loper shoul4.::'ait until the changes take place.
. UnforlilatelY there.::I~ two jurisdictions.
. Support Vrnmendation,
Tovar pointed our 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:\98fi1es\98plcomm\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?
::::::~=:::;:::=::a~~A
RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING A 22.54 FOOT V ARI.ArNGBlro PERMlitA 62.46
FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A cOdNTY:::ROAD (F~lN:::f::'
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT SE.#BAC&:AND THE MODIFIED
SETBACK REQUEST OF 13.00 FOOT V ARIANas::~Q PERiiIX:::.A 72.00 Foo1:::"
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A cdtThri:i~iii:l)P~;;:(FitANKLIN TRAIL)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.2% VIl!ANCE REQUEST TO
PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 % ~THER THAN iri#!!~
ALLOWED OF 20%':!!illll.fli!:!::::::i:iii!:ii:::::::::I:::f!t::::::::::..... "::::!!!!::if::lllI11:J:!!!!!!!}
Vote taken signified ayes by Cramer, Kuyk'dalf~~j!::~mm~R!k:::.N'~y by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED. \::illl..!..::::.!:.:.!::..::::.!:.!:!.{!!!!!!i':::" ....::::::::::;.1.I.lI11i:!:!!!ff:..
..::::::!@1~~j~!~~1!~iiIi1i~iii1~~~mt::::
Kansier explained the appeir'proc'&ture.:tIt.
B. Case #98-~tinne~nSider a.)r.ndment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the per:fuitf@qlll'r:11:!j.b:::tiji!i!U!!~II,FPark Zoning District.
Planning C2:9fmMt9!Jenni ';5i!@;:::presented the Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on
file i~.:::~~!,!:pm'tg'8F:Ul~!llt:~~ Plait~ijjil:l:::::t!!J:'
o~1,I~il27, 1998, the iillmng dg~ission reviewed a request to allow gymnastic
s6Ho'&li::!in,::~e B-P (Busi41's Park) District. It was the consensus ofthe Planning
Commis~!I\:!hat this u~:9iii~hould be permitted as a conditional use in the B-P district.
The Planri1niijipmm~~~i6h continued this request to allow staff to address the conditions
proposed by tliffiP:a.rWing Commission.
"::::!!!l:!:l:::::f!f:"
The applicant's'::6nginal 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.
Maximum Floor Area:, The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area
for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect of this limitation is that any
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm051198.doc
5
l:a.<-,"--=- ~;~ ""i:':~ .. _: t,_ .lIIiii...Jiil ~~,__".~.M..,u~, ".... ~"
'-""__~(~,lh~..."....-_.iJ< ~~_
1.'._'
4.p~~
t,~~
~N~;9
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 1 HE 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 ofthe 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 corner 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 of Franklin 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 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 of 21.2 percent rather than the
maximum allowed of 20%.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1998.
,~
Anthony Stamson, Chair
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE9811PC.DOC
2
::"':' ~~:ai.~~:j...':"'f~
"".~ J!" """''r~,...-,.~..,~.~~. ~.
'1,,~ '-''''r~~.il.~~~ "t,~, ~,
L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-040\RE98 1 1 PC. DOC
3
J. i
;~
!;'j s; I
r-o~'h ~~H
r-- ~ !;il U~i
f-I-l J -!!l_ HE
:::(
-
-
I)
-
1: >
< 4)
>
1.1 ~
-
..J
en
-
0
G)
-
<a
.sa
-
.-
-
~
4)
(,)
I-
%
Q~
..J:E>
UJ:l.Z
-0<
u.....JQ.
a:w~
UJ>o
UJw
QCe.,)
en
>-w
a:~
:Jo
ffi~
;j~
II-
w
~
<
...J
a:
o
a:
a.
I.
~~
O~
. tl t'l
I' ~ ~
, --c-
i ~ .
'.
~i
~ 1; J
~ i!,U I =; t
U I .. I !, <t
~ i~~;!I:U, ~
t:l 4. . .~~
(Jl I~,~ t- i-~ -r
:!Ui.g" Iii
.
i ~. h
i~ .~ Zli~
H Ii hili
:1 :U
~~" ~~:
I~ jla
~I~ -i;f.
Ii; '1~:lls
iSI ~;i=
I:il in!
:ih i!m
III
.CC):lH;f~-' ~.
III
1- ;
it:f~
1011j
J~lh
i"lJ1
: In' -12
11. ! ~
~I f ~
t
1
z
!/ \ \\ (( (7
\ "q."l~~. (
, I ~... \ ""
, ~"II,~~tl -\...- ~~.
L1l t~~ ~-J!!"----'
fl, .,.:...~~~; ~I" F\' i ~j~ ;~tl-:J~r '- ~/
_ ...l, ~ 'I \'.l ..:.. " ~ I
.. .,.. I ~ ... , / .
.q-: -I' ~~-; \ '.\' ~q~&!' ~ ~ i ·
.q- : Jill,' . / i / )f-.T -:---:J, ' a I
o \ J~ I 1,:,( r 1 \ -: i.' j ~\ . !
z' 1\ \L~+?iJ V,//(:fi;t (<l , , ; \! ,:
9l, 'I' J(\-" I "T ,. \,
.......... I i I. I - " .., i ~':-' ., \ \ i J:
o. J il::'"1' i\j"l : \. -::rT ('j: i
e::: i " I' . )' r - r',- - \ ' ,~. ,J '\' I ; ~'
& J" :' . ,I . ~ ( I ~~ I ,I '. ~'
>- I 1 J:. ~>)\ : -...rr',o 1\ l
l-- , I f,., ',a i 1::__ ~ !J I II. ;~
Z I c' ;; ,--;~1;- . .~ ^. 2 i. "
I I ".1...... ...--.rr- ,J
=>, 7. L-'I \ \ ::..:..---:!_-_'::':.,~~ '\,.11 \'
0, j:"'. '1";---:_- ,"~' !~: ~~
U ! \ ' -i'" ?-..l I;: .J!1- \ 1,!
1----.-fl.1::~, ;, ~. : .' i. " I ) I'
I __;J I_~&- ~-~h '~"r-::l- r:-.
r.~<-:i::ll ltJ~... ~ ,k.c:. .~!1 ~''''';
1 ...." !~ ~.. ~ \. "! I ~.. " ,
; ~ I \:1 ... "f r. .': . \ \
I . '~~ . \
! 2 - .~............... .. i '-t', : ___
J \' .-\~,\.,.. ! \ _~
I i- l .~ ~ 1", \\: ,...~~1-
... ",\ ~\~> I
~ ;. I '\ ~':==N iRA\L
~' fRANKU i,'
\ , t/
'.......~__ - ,.-. - -_7
-
~ ~:~~~;;; ,~--;~
," lll';;i >'" \
. ; 8..J..'::iJII~ ~;'
J~i... ~
~1l~d5}!
~~=~j-!
;1.... '!I <
- ~::171
. 3.o_i
it"i!St
~:!=-l.j
-'a'~h
:M:1!
;d.,.:!1
.~ . - .
=~~r:3-
!~~ii~~
!!.iia~
ail;!:!
A@a":!a.
.,.:1:"
51:5:~i'~
a ;i2n;S~
: 1:4~~H'
r i:O=:i~~
I )i~iiJ:i
. :
; ~.. ~
: 3 J ~ ;
In i i
1..-:::--=
"--'
l-r- -
'0-'
/. .'
-.'
.. .....~!
tlI':>"!
a ic:.;.-.
1'--' , .-
.... ....; -
1("::::'
~-~!
~i
,<==.-
_.._-_:.:
-I
1 .3
I
..
I ~
i
',IIr.:~-.:;'- ,", ~
(l -
1\ ~ [:1, I ,J
.1,1 WJ l--i).... %.......1 I -..
: % II I ____/ L ~/ ,'.t...:--.t..,
I.,i ::J i ,i _ r I ~
I - ...-- .' ,.,' '1 I Y I
;. F- I . " A-S-.3--;~--"~l..-''/ i /1 I
" " . "Z' ,"'- _", · I'"
:1 ," ,.." '" ' ,,' ,!' "lJJ
"loJ ,"'. ,'" /' '
" i ~ " .1 . ~ \.';' / I ' ( (' '
,'I '* ., . (.) . ,.' ...' / / I '
: l' I 'I.' ',' if /' <: :
:i! i'-T' / .' / I I'~:'~- '" ...\
'I' · ' / I ,I -..:-
"i i i / / { I I .-7;,/.. ~'.';t /_11
P i r"} 1/ / .. LV
.1 I (: ' , .m I . I I
" ~ ~ .. ,; J' I ~ \ 'W
. ". 1 ,', ' ( ,
~j fV-' ~ .,\1 \.. 1--) - \ I
.,' 1 ... . ' -\
, ,do · \ · ' I
i)! ~ ~ \' IN! j \
'Ii 1 i I ~ ',,! r
...' ' ~ . ' '"
..:....i ! ~ i i I I..i '" I r~",l..
...' I ! I ,\ ' ,
.. 1 ! 'i ( ) I, ~ .; t' II
~-i ~+ '. \1 I Ljv/ ~~J'I'" "il i~
~ i ~ ,.lg ~I i ; L.. ~, ", .
'Jd! r-'-'" "I I I.(S"-~, ~~
;: I CO'l _I . . <I - (^ i" ()<:,'"
r'! i J ~ ':' \" !:i I '.' " J "'\
~ : l'~ "/ i (Jtl':>, I I "r, .;.~~
&;; ,_~." ". I "1 7' " - I I
; i ! : '_l" V ~ --.
_' ' OJ _ ' J
J..; i ! ('..,.."" 0, \ - - ~, :: .'
. 'j , ' , "
. $1,1'.'" . · '
..'!:! ..' ; 1 '
"" ~ , ' ' ' ' ,
~;,; ",' . , ' ,
-\I' t, . ",--,--'f I - <----'.----
~., ,.. (_..,_...... 2S
J......:.,\,)' \ '" \. " ,I ..0 ~',' " ) i
.. d,' \. '\ ". ~. ~ __,-,~ ,:;;p , "J'
\'\" \ f'i'. · v' , '" ,- ' " '- , '
: '~ .x ' "-' ~ , . ""j-""
\\' ..,--,../,,' ~, . '..,,"
\~\ ~ c.>(' i:~":; ,~__ \~.~., -...........-.. 1'" \ .~c..l..-__..._._.
" $'- ,;, f;; ". ,\. · .,; h".. . ,,' " .. -. · '"
:;, .s....." " " "\.' ~ -'" ' .... ,; /
",,---- ~"-. !.! ;, . '". ..~. -'" Q)' ". ~
,~' -. -. .. -> ' ' . ..~
\ ."', ."....._' _..__,'"'' _", "~-,-~,+-." _....,-;;ii,O"5.".... ---' -\oI-~' ,-':416' -' -" .....,..-- .._.- -'r'~ 7;.-:-'~'-i
,,~,::::.,:- __"_,, I .. ..:" ._""'--'" ".~,_."_'" ....~'..J-,-'.~._..._. . - -:....-.-. .. _----J. -- ~....i
, '" .. .--". ---_..~...."..-...' )' ~ . ' '
C}." r; .".~',~ ~ _ EAS! U"E ~,"'A~':"~,,~TI'~\~- __,J:},:L .L"".. -<",;~
ill"" nnn "'_ L.- _........-......".-. - - --...-...... ........- ..r-'- ,.;.;d.c- ""-,,,' -..,," - I
'0,~ .-" .--..,...-" ":;:-. -" .,," \):' ~:' \ '.. <, '
ub ",.;.--- - ,.. "',. \ \ " "/.'."
,.= - ~", - '" "
> ~ ... . '. \ ' ' .. ,. ." "'. . " "
~_~~~~@~~'~-C:" ~ ...J :==:====-==-~.;~~=~~'~
-5" W fRANKl\N .j
"'
{~- <--.. .
\.. .r.... ,;s
(. ,.'
j. J ..;
... . ...
I ..
" :.:,..1,."",
.....,. ... } ..-
..;.-..,1
-
....,.
::..:
<..>
<
a:I
I-
c...J
en
\
\
\
\
,
~
,
,
.....
~
CIt
N
...
ClJ
c.:i
q
Q
...,;
L.t..
10
C'/
.
\
,
\
\
\
\.
I
I
.i
i
(
'-
..
l
I
I
l
l
)(!
~[
C \.
'0
<
~
t..J
CI'l
>
<
::-
W
>
2.
o
r
.
I.
t-=
. _ 1.0-
:.10
.......
~.' .
,
\
IR A \ li
....
--
OO'OS"~
--...
"...;1I.,AlM
"'-~Im';tl!tt~L.;, "
'z&: .iI~!t::::~c~~'~'! ~1.
,ll!lllll,
lII.r'I'!^j~ "
,
t!r....