Loading...
10-24-1995CITY Of R10HRELD PLRnrnm commission nanDA October 24, 1995 6:00 p.m. Special Meeting ITEM #1 Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan Fred Hoisington and Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler Group Presentation of Alternative Plans Roll Call Approval of Minutes Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 1995. Planning Commission study session of October 10, 1995. Public Hearing ITEM #1 95 -CUP -4 7608 Knox Avenue South Minnesota Taxi, Inc. Conditional Use Permit to conduct repair and service of taxi company vehicles ITEM #2 95- APUD -1 98 West 66th Street Bradley Midwest Management Amend Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Hub Shopping Center to expand restaurant building ITEM #3 95 -CUP -5 1201 East 66th Street The Custom Shop Conditional Use Permit to operate an auto detailing business ITEM #4 PC Letter #9 Ordinance Revision Sixty Day Time Limit for Zoning Applications Old Business ITEM #1 Comprehensive Plan Update Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Draft Plan 1 -494 West Revised Draft Plan 66th Street East Revised Draft Plan Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission H RA City Council AdHoc 135/1494 Traffic Committee Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 26, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Postudensek COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Erlander, S/Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 1995. Motion carried: 8 -0 M/Stokes, S/Dmytrenko to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session of September 12, 1995. Motion carried: 8 -0 OLD BUSINESS ITEM #1 Comprehensive Plan Update Don Brauer explained the spread sheet he had put together that shows the net change in dwelling units under the draft guide plan. Under the guide plan, there would be a net gain of 1,022 dwelling units. September 26, 1995 Page 2 Commissioner Wasko asked if Mr. Brauer would also be looking at the fiscal impact of the guide plan. Mr. Brauer stated that this is something that should eventually be considered. Mr. Brauer explained that the only change made to the Penn and 66th area was to expand the RMH (high density residential) area on the northwest corner of Penn and 66th Street. He also added a commercial designation for the dentist office at Penn and 70th Street because it's relatively new and is not likely to be gone anytime soon. Chairperson Linnihan questioned why the plan was still showing RMH at the southeast corner of Penn and 66th where the homes were in good shape. Mr. Brauer explained that the area was chosen arbitrarily as a place to create a buffer to the commercial area. Chairperson Linnihan pointed out that in terms of tax base, it would be better to keep this quality housing stock and reclassify the northeast corner instead, where the housing quality is poorer. Mr. Brauer stated that he would also take out the neighborhood commercial on the south side of 66th Street because it wouldn't be supported without the RMH. Chairperson Linnihan reported that he heard from a neighbor in the Sheridan Park area who likes the idea of connecting the school and the park. Commissioner Gepner asked how this plan considers alternative transportation forms. Mr. Brauer responded that the north -south trail would be placed at the lighted intersections. Mr. Brauer pointed out that the street parking on the southwest corner of Penn and 66th was inconsistent with parking in the rest of the City. He eliminated that parking to be consistent with the policy of no street parking on arterial and collector streets. Mr. Brauer explained the changes made to the Cedar corridor. A community commercial area was added west of 18th Avenue along 66th Street. This would cut 17th Avenue off, so the plan also shows 17th Avenue being cut off on the south side of 66th Street. Limiting the number of accesses to 66th Street creates a greater area for development and defines an entrance to the neighborhood. The question was raised why Cedar wasn't redirected all the way to 77th Street. Mr. Brauer stated that, south of Diagonal Boulevard, there isn't land to be gained east of Cedar. North of Diagonal Boulevard, there is land east of Cedar that could be added to create a buildable area. Mr. Brauer stated that he believes MNDOT will likely move Cedar over, north of Diagonal Boulevard, when they upgrade Trunk Highway 77. Community Director Wallace stated that BRW, Inc. did some designs for 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 in the last 1980s and asked if Mr. Brauer took these into account for the guide plan. Mr. Brauer explained that he used the plans from the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Mr. Brauer also cautioned that freeway expansion plans are in a state of flux so the group should be cautious in basing the guide plan on the expansion plans. Mr. Brauer explained that he made a couple of changes to the I -494 West corridor plan. September 26, 1995 Page 3 He reopened Newton at 76th Street to provide access to the church and school and added a combination service road and ramp along the freeway to increase access to the park. Commissioner Erlander asked the group to consider reclassifying the Colony apartments area. Mr. Brauer explained that the Colony currently contains some townhome -like units which the group has indicated are needed in the City. Commissioner Erlander stated that they aren't in good shape and he would like to see them upgraded. Chairperson Linnihan asked if it was possible to expect high value single family housing to be developed on the site given the proximity to the park. Mr. Brauer stated that he felt it was too close to the freeway. The group discussed the viability of redevelopment on this site and decided that the west half of the site could be designated single family and the east half high density housing. Commissioner Dmytrenko pointed out that the RMH area to the south of 76th Street should be patio homes or RSF (residential attached single family). JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, HRA MEETING Chairperson Linnihan provided a brief explanation of the Planning Commission's progress on the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan. He stressed the importance for all the groups to move forward with the process to reduce the uncertainty that the planning process has introduced to the area. Fred Hoisington, consultant to the Planning Commission, gave an overview of the problems and patterns in the area. He pointed out the different issues in the commercial area from block to block. He reported on the neighborhood meetings. He found that overall there is a positive feeling toward the area. There are concerns about appearance but low rents and accessibility draw business to the area. The businesses are concerned that the City's interests and the interests of the individual businesses are different. Mr. Hoisington handed out a graphic that showed the responses from the individual meetings. The graphic illustrated that the businesses and neighbors experienced different problems but had similar suggestions for improvement. Many of the residents stated that they would like to see the boundaries of the commercial area stay the same, but a number said they were willing to sell their home if they were offered the right price. Mr. Hoisington explained the guiding principles that he developed based on the public and individual meetings. The guiding principles are as follows: open the gateway to Richfield, keep the "smallness" feel, improve the function of the area, invite the pedestrian, make existing business persons and land owners a part of the solution, serve the neighborhood, make good neighbors, involve people, make it connect, make it happen. Mr. Hoisington stated that the newsletter, explaining the guiding principles, would be mailed to the neighborhood that week and asked the group for comments on the newsletter. Commissioner Wasko asked if Mr. Hoisington could incorporate the handout on the individual September 26, 1995 Page 4 meetings into the newsletter. Commissioner Stokes commented that the dates and places for the meetings should be made clearer. Commissioner Wasko asked how the public hearing process would be structured. Jim Prosser, City Manager, cautioned the group on using the public hearings to steer public input. The neighborhood meetings being provided would be the best format for soliciting input. City Manager Prosser also commented that he hoped the group would explore a variety of alternatives and not limit them to only those based on the perceptions of the residents and businesses. Mr. Hoisington explained that they would begin to develop a variety of plans in the coming month. He stated that his company would use their expertise to say what will and won't work and what is and is not a good idea. Commissioner Wasko stated that his earlier question was an attempt to find out where the process will end. Chairperson Linnihan stated that, ideally, there would be one public hearing but that the group shouldn't limit the number at this point. City Manager Prosser stressed the importance of holding a manageable number of meetings and bringing closure to the process. Mr. Hoisington reviewed the upcoming meetings. On October 24, the Planning Commission would meet to talk about the alternatives. On November 8 or 9, the Commission would hold a corridor meeting to explain the alternatives to the public. On November 14, another workshop would be held for the Commission, City Council and HRA to review the alternatives and the public's feedback. The public, City Council and HRA members are welcome at all meetings. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko reported that there are 4,388 students enrolled in the district this year. Commissioner Dmytrenko explained that the Board is instituting an academic achievement program in the district and that the major portion of the remodeling work has been completed. The Board approved the maximum tax levy for this year, which will result in a 4 1/2 percent increase. The Board did not use the maximum levy last year. Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes explained that she talked to the Commission about their involvement with the Comprehensive Plan. They are willing to have a joint session with the Planning Commission on October 10. The joint session will begin at 6:00. Dinner will be provided. HRA: Community Development Director Wallace explained that the BRA had no quorum at the September meeting. Ralph Robinson of TOLD Company gave a presentation anyway, and he was given right of entry to the Cloverleaf property to do some environmental work. The BRA items will be acted upon at the City Council meeting on October 9. September 26, 1995 Page 5 City Council: The Council approved the purchase of another home at 69th and Penn Avenue. The Council also directed staff to put in a temporary parking lot for 11 cars on the northeast corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, Zoning Administrator Urban reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming City Hall Open House on October 14 from 10:00 to 3:00. There will be a planning and zoning booth at the open house to provide information on what the Planning Commission and planning and zoning staff do. Zoning Administrator Urban asked the Commissioners to sign up for an hour time slot on the 14th to staff the both. She explained that she will provide handout information on what the Commission is and the various projects it's working on. Commissioner Stokes added that the graphics that were done for the adult uses ordinance would be good to display. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:35 p.m. Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Study Session October 10, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL LIAISON STAFF PRESENT COMMUNITY SERVICES David Gepner Martin Kirsch, Mayor Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Elayne Gilhousen; Commissioners: Arnie Auchstetter, Dave Delzer, Jim McGinty, Joe Sausen, Denise Schaefer, Lou Stocco STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Bill Kilian, Bob Nelson, Sue Sandahl The Planning Commission study session was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 6:00 p.m. JOINT MEETING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Don Brauer, planning consultant, presented the proposed parks and open space component of the Comprehensive Plan update. He explained that much of the proposed parks and open space component of the Comp Plan is similar to the 1989 -90 plan that was adopted. Mr. Brauer went over the main features of the plan. He proposed that the plan not show New Ford Town, Rich Acres and Apple Blossom parks. These could be sold or traded for revenues. Land could be "traded" from Washington Park to Wilson Park. This trade would make valuable land at Washington Park available for commercial development and add to the amenity of Wilson Pond and expand the park area available to Centennial School. Mr. Brauer proposed purchasing the row of houses adjacent to Roosevelt Park as they become available. The area between Portland and Nicollet Avenues in the southern portion of the area is not currently served by a neighborhood park. Mr. Brauer suggested that neighborhood park programming could be provided in conjunction with Hope Church's programming. The City October 10, 1995 Page 2 Hall/Memorial Park area could be expanded. Lincoln Park could be expanded when the mobile home park turns over. Mr. Brauer recommended closing West 65th Street between Sheridan Elementary and the Park. Mr. Brauer pointed out the bike and walking paths indicated on the draft plan, explaining that they are similar to the 1989 plan. Community Services Director Fondrick brought up the issue of connecting Monroe and Fairwood parks through the acquisition of one lot. Mr. Brauer agreed with the idea and suggested that the plan could show two lots and that the loop street to the south of Fairwood could also be closed to add to the park land. Sue Sandahl asked if the bike paths would just be paths marked on the street. Mr. Brauer explained that markings could work in some areas and in others a boulevard might be created for the path. In other areas, the sidewalk could be used for the path. Commissioner Erlander pointed out that showing a bike path on 76th Street west of 35W would violate the plan the City Council recently passed and stated that 73rd would make a better east -west connection. Community Services Director Fondrick stated that'staff has asked MNDOT to make the 73rd and 76th Street bridges pedestrian compatible when they are redone. Director Fondrick pointed out that Apple Blossom Park couldn't be sold or traded because it would revert back to the State if it's not used as a park. Director Fondrick stated his concern about the loss of acreage at Washington Park. The land added to Wilson Park would not make up the programmatic loss at Washington. Sue Sandahl suggested adding to the trail system by connecting the main trails to some of the other parks, Nicollet Park, for example. Dick Walker asked for a review of why the schools and parks should be connected pointing out that schools and parks have different recreation needs. Mr. Walker also suggested that the street closings indicated would make it more difficult for the buses to maneuver. Chairperson Linnihan explained that 65th Street currently serves as a shortcut for 66th Street, Connecting Sheridan Elementary to the park would lessen the amount of traffic in the neighborhood and add ball fields and other park space to the school. Bob Nelson stated that the connection was aesthetically positive but emphasized that there are also negatives to the idea that should be considered. Gretchen Blank, Leisure Services Coordinator, pointed out that Mr. Brauer didn't show the space that was added to Washington Park with the 77th Street project. This added space was not part of the replacement calculations. Ms. Blank added that she was uncomfortable with the idea of a land use plan including programmatic components in the case of adding programming at Hope Church. Chairperson Linnihan stressed that this plan is a working document. The Planning Commission is continuing to consider the issues, and needs to know where the problems with the draft plan are. Chairperson Linnihan also emphasized that not everything that is put in the plan is likely to happen, but we might like to see it happen if the opportunity arises. October 10, 1995 Page 3 Elaine Gilhousen, Community Services Commission Chair, suggested that their Commission could think about and work with the information they had received that evening and possibly come back together with the Planning Commission in the future. Community Services Commissioner Dave Delzer asked to see some of the other parts of the plan to provide a context for the parks and open space issues. Commissioner Stokes reminded the Community Services Commission that everything is a working draft at this point. Bill Kilian pointed out that there is a larger context to many of the issues that had been discussed. For example, the Washington Park idea came out of a discussion regarding Cedar Avenue and trying to increase the tax base and encourage commercial development. OLD BUSINESS The group discussed the best way to present the plan to others. Bill Kilian explained that he had brought some of the draft plans to the economic development committee. He found that he needed to first explain the ideas behind the plan and then ask if the plan met the objectives. The group asked staff to send the Community Services Commission the larger parts of the plan regarding the Cedar Avenue and Penn and 66th Street corridors. The portions of the minutes regarding these areas from past meetings would also be helpful for the Commission. Sue Sandahl recommended eliminating the idea of adding programming at Hope Church. The group agreed. Commissioner Erlander suggested that the trail west of 35W on 76th Street be eliminated. The trail could connect to 73rd Street at Logan. Mr. Brauer pointed out a change on the I -494 West plan. The cul du sacs would be eliminated at Oliver and Morgan and instead suggest right turns in and out at these points. This plan would still minimize traffic conflicts. Bill Kilian asked if the group should consider designating the Century Courts site as higher density development. Mayor Kirsch pointed out that if that area were ever redone, improvements on 76th Street would be easier to do. Mr. Brauer suggested classifying the area as part regional commercial and part high density multiple family. A transition area of townhomes could be added at the edges. Mr. Brauer explained his recommendations for the 66th Street East corridor. The commercial designations are similar to what is currently there. He added RSF -H (high density single family residential) to the north of the commercial area for a transitional use. The single family to the south of the corridor is left single family because it's good quality housing. Finally, City Hall and Memorial Park would be expanded to create a plaza -like area. October 10, 1995 Page 4 Bill Kilian suggested moving the city complex to Veterans Park. Mayor Kirsch recommended that Mr. Brauer ask Director Fondrick for copies of the County's plans for Portland and 66th Street. Mr. Kilian recommended designating some of the area south of the park as townhomes. A number of the apartment buildings are aging and the park provides an amenity that should be taken advantage of. Commissioner Stokes asked if the small area of land south of the Crosstown, that's currently Minneapolis, could be designated as an area to be annexed. Mr. Brauer explained that the only way the City could annex that land would be to trade some Richfield land for it. Commissioner Postudensek suggested that moving the city hall and expanding Memorial - Park could provide the land needed to make up for a loss of programming at Washington Park. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:40 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING October 24, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Russ Susag; Mike Sandahl; and Susan Rosenberg. COUNCIL MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Don Priebe. HRA MEMBERS PRESENT: Joan Helmberger, Russ Susag, Mike Sandahl, and Vern Luettinger. HRA MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Thomas Harms. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel Linnihan, Chair; David Gepner; Kristal Stokes; Paul Wasko; Pamela Dmytrenko; Timothy Erlander; Mitchell Hadley; and Kevin Hansen. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Dawn Postudensek. STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director; and Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission Study Session was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 6:00 p.m. A quorum of the City Council and the HRA was present for the presentation regarding the status of the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Process. Chairperson Linnihan introduced Fred Hoisington and Michael Schroeder from the Hoisington Koegler Group. They presented and answered questions regarding the range of alternatives developed for the Lyndale Avenue commercial area. Mr. Hoisinger reviewed the schedule for the planning process for the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Process mentioning the following upcoming meetings: November 9, 1995 Corridor Meeting #1 7 :00 p.m. Oak Grove Lutheran Church Hoisington will present the alternative plans to the residents and businesspersons and provide an opportunity for public input. Special Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 24, 1995 November 14, 1995 7:00 p.m. City Hall January 18, 1995 7:00 p.m. Oak Grove Lutheran Church Planning Commission /City Council /HRA Workshop Hoisington will report to the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA on the results of the Corridor Meeting and provide an opportunity for input from policy makers. Corridor Meeting #2 Hoisington will present the preferred plan(s) and provide further opportunity for public comments. Mr. Hoisington stated that the Hoisington Koegler Group will work with City staff and Publicorp to determine the feasibility of the preferred alternatives. ADJOURNMENT The concurrent Study Session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Thomas E. Harms Chair James D. Prosser Acting Executive Director CITY QF RICFIFIELD Knnnm commission Action Requett - Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #95-CUP-4 Date: October 24, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: Gholam Shahrokhi, Minnesota Taxi, Inc. Location: 7608 Knox Avenue South Type of Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow service and repair of taxi company vehicles. Zoning: C-2 (general commercial) Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 526.27, subd. 16 546.05 ACTION Proposed Change: Approval of the conditional use permit would allow Minnesota Taxi to repair and service company vehicles on site. Staff Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit request with stipulations. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on October 24, 1995. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of November 13, 1995. ANALYSIS Background: A conditional use permit was approved in 1991 for an auto tune -up and brake shop at 7608 Knox Avenue. The property has since been sold, and the current owner has made several improvements to the property. The owner plans to lease the space to Minnesota Taxi, Inc. Proposal: Minnesota Taxi, Inc. received an off - street parking permit on October 9, 1995, to operate a taxi dispatch business at 7608 Knox Avenue. In addition to operating the dispatch business, Minnesota Taxi is proposing to repair and service company vehicles at the site. Minnesota Taxi is applying for a conditional use permit to add auto repair to their business. Issues: The building covers the entire width of the property. Seven parking spaces are provided in the rear of the building and the only access to these spaces is through the service bays. To ensure access to this parking and to meet the requirements of the fire code, the owner and tenant are required to leave the third bay empty. The trash dumpster will be stored inside the building to accomplish the required screening. Several conditions were placed on the off - street parking permit that was issued to the dispatch business and should also apply to the conditional use permit. The conditions include installing landscaping, re- striping the parking lot, installing full perimeter curb and gutter, and keeping the third service bay empty to allow access to the rear parking. . RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: that the City Council approve the request with the following stipulation: L. That the-conditions of the off - street parking permit, approved by the City Council on October 9, 1995, be met. 2. That the building meet all building and fire codes that apply to the type of repair work to be done. Basis: 1. Adequate employee parking is provided on site. 2. Taxis will not be stored on site. 3. The proposed business will make use of a vacant building. 4. The configuration of the site limits potential uses of the property. The proposed use is able to operate within these limitations. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 16. Public- mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met: a) the use site shall not abut a lot which is in the R or R -1 District -- for the purpose of this subdivision, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner shall not be deemed to abut the use site; b) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church, or hospital; c) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from any abutting parcel; d) vehicles which are inoperable shall not be stored on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City; e) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited; f) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and g) all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding windshield wiper fluid. SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 120 days of submission of a completed application or such longer period not objected to by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. 3nN3A`d XONN - zz I 3Nil 1a3d0lid N _ U O CLn N Q Q 3OddS g dvo4aN WH Z , I x a a Q U g T z f O m i fly-M j 4 W H- 1 1 N CL ORI CL I ( a s vds t 1 3Ml ua3doad Arts Q O J cn CL W W W fl W Cl) x O O CL z O d N u CD W J U to Z Z D 0 ti N V u L Z OZ r V a CITY OF R10HRELD PLnnninG oommission Action Request Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #95- APUD -1 Date: October 24, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: Bradley Midwest Management Location: 98 West 66th Street (the HUB) Type of Request: Amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan to allow an expansion of the existing Hardee's building. Zoning: PC -2 (Planned General Commercial) Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Central Business District References: see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: Section 536.21, 536.25 ACTION Proposed Change: The amendment would allow an expansion of the " Hardee's" building to provide a children's play area in the restaurant. Staff Recommendation: Approve the amended conditional use permit and imal development plan request with stipulations. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on October 24, 1995. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of November 13, 1995. ANALYSIS Proposal: The Hardee's currently located in the Hub Shopping Center is going out of business. Burger King is planning to take over the space and incorporate an extensive children's play area. The front atrium area will be expanded to create this "kid's club ". The expansion will add 940 square feet to the building. The building will extend an additional 18 feet to the south and 3 feet to the west. The expansion will remove 5 parking spaces from the front of the building. Issues: Consideration of the total shopping center parking supply and observation of the parking area immediately surrounding this outlot building, indicate that there is ample parking without these five spaces. Design standards were established for the Hub area in the 1970s. Staff feels these design standards are dated and should not be applied to this expansion. The design of the expansion should, however, be consistent with the design of the entire planned unit development. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for an amended final development plan and conditional use permit with the following stipulation: 1. A stormwater drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer. Basis: 1. Adequate on -site parking is available. 2. The expansion will improve the visual image of the building as a retail use. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 536.21. Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan. Subdivision 1. Changes. The development of a PUD district shall be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final development plan, and conditional use permit. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if there is: a) more than ten percent change in floor area in any one structure; b) more than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings; c) any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines; d) more than five percent change in the ground area covered by the building; or e) any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to gross floor area. 536.25. Plan amendments. Any amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall require a two - thirds vote of the Council. The Council may hold such hearings on a proposal to amend a final development plan and conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held. The Council may consider all factors considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing the conditional use permit therefor, as well as any other factors relevant to the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, or general welfare and to the protection of property or improvements in the neighborhood. lU ii V) 4 J 4j° --N3Ad z rrOIN W a A e 9 9G 0 ! C Z A s 0` 4 C` 0 bbl l Q d Aa s G 5° iu of ,r 0, s• s A eel, aG oti a aoo b a A GA JA t c J.NV'JVA aoc g_onE BOB _ r Aa \ 4R A o p to Sj EC;S3Ej,( X sa - vg Qa J Z, 5 0 ti 0ad Qy7 24' 5 D ya' spool moquzag sd-rT m I G U y.r W W c L U-1 cn ha aj r- 0 T m 3. 1 m y p L a n C ro y u fl L c> W Gz. L ":7 4N uax zu: PROPOSED PLAY ROOM ADDITION VA 5O. FT. CzFWW NET INCREASE %do 8a FT. EXI5TNG SOLARIUM ADDITION 316 Sa FT. GR055 TO BE REMOVED f`H EXISTIPIS BUILDING PLAN LINE OF FLQO}'t \ r- SHOO- ONNE- D-- - - - - -- -- I 42' -8' O Ar-; -------- ° - - - -, EXI5TNG BUILDING LOBBYI LEASE SPACE U111 'I11 I II L -- -------- - - - - -- I Ie son I i• UJI I NEW VESTIM LE I I EX18TNO RESTAURANT SPACE I I 7 I I e I e 7 9 J EXISTNG FLOOR PLAN W/ NEW PLAY ROOM 717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 507 - 288 -6464 FAX 507 -288 -5058 YAGGY ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS COLBY SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ASSOCIATES I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SCALE: VW' . I' -O' BURGER KWG at THE HUB WESTWIND GROUP" R10*1EIA, MINNESOTA EXISTING BUILDING PLAN WITH NEW PLAY ROOM ADDITION EXIST. DRIVE -UP WINDOW t YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES i i I I- ------- -------- --- ---------- ------- NEW PLAY ROOM EXIST. ENT.RANCE SOUTH ELEVATION UJ/ NEW PLAY ROOT" i SC.4LE: vino• = 1'-0' r--------------------------------------------- - - - - - NEW l NEW PLAT ROOM ENTR.NJCE WEST ELEVATION W1 NEW FLAY ROOM 717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 507- 288 -6464 FAX 507- 288 -5058 ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS ARCHITECTS SC ,4LE: vio' 2 r -©' BURGER KING at THE HUB K10443 WESTWIND GROUP RK341RD, NW4WSOTA EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS WITH NEW PLAY ROOM ADDITION II 1 EAST ELEVATION W1 NEW FLAY ROOM SG -ALE: I /Io' = 1' -0' UANDOW NORTH ELEVATION W1 NEW PLAY ROOT" i SG:»'LE: 1/16' = 1' -0' 717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST BURGER KING at THE HUBROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 507- 288 -6464 KEN WESTWIND GROUP FAX 507- 288 -5058 RIQ-UM, MBVNESO7A YAGGY ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS C O L BY SURVEYORS - PLANNERS EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATES I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WITH NEW PLAY ROOM ADDITION n:;-`..` 01TY OF RIOFIFIELD PLnnninG oommission diction Request Item: #3 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #95 -CUP -5 Date: October 24, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: Jerome Clark, The Custom Shop Location: 1201 East 66th Street Type of Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow an auto detailing business. Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Medium density/buffer References: see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: Section 526.07, subd. 13 Section 546.05 ACTION Proposed Change: Approval of the conditional use permit would allow Mr. Clark to operate an auto detailing establishment. Staff Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit request with stipulations. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on October 24, 1995. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of November 13, 1995. ANALYSIS Background: A conditional use permit was approved for this property in 1990 for City Auto Glass Company. The business was not successful at this location and closed. The building was originally designed as an automobile service station and it was operated as such for a number of years. Proposal: The Custom Shop proposes to operate an auto detailing business on the property. Much of the business will be a retail operation where clients order accessories for their vehicle. The Custom Shop contracts with other businesses to do much of the installation work. A portion of the installation work and clean up of cars will be done on -site. No changes are planned for the existing building. Issues• There are currently four drive entrances into the parking lot, two of which are in close proximity to the signalized intersection. The location of these two driveways creates a high potential for traffic conflicts and accidents. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following stipulations: 1. That the two driveways nearest the intersection of East 66th Street and 12th Avenue be closed and replaced with curbing to match the existing curbing. Basis: 1. Adequate on -site parking is available. 2. The proposed business makes use of a currently vacant building. 3. The business as proposed would be consistent with other uses along 66th Street and create minimal impact on the surrounding property. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 526.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C -1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 13. Automobile detailing establishments licensed under Section 1195 of the City Code. SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 120 days of submission of a completed application or such longer period not objected to by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Subd. 7. Recording of CUP. Upon commencement of an approved conditional use, a certified copy of the conditional use permit shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. The permit shall contain the legal description of the property. Subd. 8. Expiration of CUP. A conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless: a) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the CUP, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Subd. 9. Term of CUP. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed, unless specifically stated - otherwise. A conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Subd. 10. Amendment to CUP. Holders of a conditional use permit may propose amendments to the permit by following the procedure set in this subsection for issuance of a new permit. Significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the use shall require approval of the Council. Such changes may include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, increase in number of employees, expansion of structure or premises, or major operational modifications, as determined by the Director. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may impose, additional or modified conditions as a result of the amendment. ' Subd. 11. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit or amendment thereto is set by Appendix D of the City Code. 1201 E. 66TH ST., PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXHIBIT "A" F EAST 66TH STREET — —. _. e 104.58' 26' EXISTING SIDEWALK' EXISTING SOD N 0 1 Li ° EXISTING PAVEMENT N, r i O O r 1201 EAST 66TH ST. f w EXISTING " co i° BUILDING ] FT. N 1380 S 63' -3" 49' -4" 26' 138.58' . 1201 E. 66TH ST. EXISTING SITE PLAN 27' -6" O I I i I d I' gPUV Q'•+44r,•a crag V 1 i 8 ' s' I I I I s° su„,uu ea. rT• °O 4 — - l I 1 0 4 CITY OF R10HRELD PLANNING COMMISSION LETTER Item: #4 Agenda Section: Public Hearing PC Letter: #8 Date: October 24, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to establish a deadline for zoning cases that is in compliance with state law. Type of Request: Recommend adoption by the City Council References: (see attached amendment and state statute for excerpts) Zoning Code: Section 526, 536, 546 State Statute: Minn. Stat., Section 15.99 ANALYSIS Background: The 1995 Legislature passed a law that requires all governmental agencies to approve or deny "a written request relating to zoning" within 60 days of receiving a request. If an agency fails to meet the deadline, the application is automatically approved. An agency may extend the time period by an additional 60 days, if the applicant is notified in writing of the extension. The applicant has to approve an extension of more than 60 days. If an application is incomplete, the agency must notify the applicant within 10 business days of what information is needed to make the application complete. The 60-day limit doesn't start until the application is complete. Issues: Staff has reviewed City procedures for processing zoning applications and determined that most applications are currently processed within 60 days. The zoning ordinance, however, contains language that is inconsistent with the state law. The inconsistencies and suggested changes are as follows: I. Section 526.43 provides the Planning Commission with 45 days to conduct site plan review of applications in a C -3 (high density commercial) district. The length of time the Planning Commission has to make a recommendation to the Council should be based on the 60-day time limit. 2. Section 536.17 provides the Planning Commission with 45 days to review planned unit development applications. The length of time the Planning Commission has to make a recommendation to the Council should be based on the 60-day time limit. 3. Section 546.03 provides the Board of Adjustments and Appeals (the City Council) with 45 days to make a decision when an appeal has been requested. The length of time the Board has to make a decision should be based on the 60-day time limit. 4. Section 546.05 provides the Council with 120 days to make a decision on a conditional use permit application. This time limit should be changed to 60 days with the option of requesting an extension. 5. Section 546.07 allows 120 days for a decision on an ordinance amendment application. This time limit should be changed to 60 days with the option of an extension. An amendment would be automatically approved if the deadline isn't met. 6. Section 546.09 provides the Hearing Examiner with 30 days to make a decision. An applicant can currently request that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals make a decision if a timely decision is not made by the Hearing Examiner. The time limit for making a decision should be based on the amount of time remaining in the 60-day time period. The applicant should no longer need to appeal if a timely decision isn't made; the application would be automatically approved. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amendment that establishes a deadline for zoning cases that is in compliance with state law. Basis: 1. The zoning ordinance contains language regarding deadlines that is inconsistent with state law. 2. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the recommended changes. Alternative: 1. Conduct further study and discussion of the issue. Bill No. 1995 - Amendment to Appendix B of the City Code of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1 Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.43, Subd. 5 to read as follows: Subd. 5. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The hearing will be held no less than 10 days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site. Within 45 days aftef the elese of the publie heafifig, the The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations to the Council. Following appropriate review, the Council shall make a decision regarding the application. Section 2• Section 536 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Planned Unit Developments" is hereby amended by amending Section 536.17, Subd. 2 to read as follows: Subd. 2. Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the PUD application and serve mailed notice of such hearing to the applicant and all property owners situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district. Withift 45 days aftef adjeurnment of sueh publie heafing, The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission may recommend approval with or without modifications, or may recommend denial of the PUD application. Section 3• Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is hereby amended by amending Section 546.03, Subd. 7 to read as follows: Subd. 7. Procedures. The Director shall prepare reports and other necessary information for the Board. The Board shall within , make a decision regarding any matter before it by adopting findings_ within 60 days of submission of a written appeal, unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Board fails to make a timely decision, the appeal shall be deemed to have been approved. A copy of the Board's decision shall be served by mail upon the person requesting the adjustment or appeal. Section 4: Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is hereby amended by amending Section 546.05, Subd. 5 to read as follows: Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 420 60 days of submission of a completed application objeeted to by the applie&W unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length. which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. Section 5• Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is hereby amended by amending Section 546.07, Subd. 4 to read as follows: Subd. 4. City Council consideration. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council shall consider the matter at a first reading. The Council may offer whatever public notice of its first reading review that it deems necessary. If the application is approved for first reading, the Council shall set a date for a second reading and public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper. Notice regarding an amendment which involves a change in the boundaries of a zoning district shall also be sent by mail to the applicant and all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall act upon the amendment within +20 60 days of submission of a completed application the- appheant- unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated lengffi. which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the amendment shall be deemed to have been - denied approved. The Council may adopt an amendment to this code only upon an affirmative vote of at least two -thirds of its full membership. Section 6: Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is hereby amended by amending Section 546.09, Subd. 5 to read as follows: Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 30 60 days after the elese of the hearing or- afly eentinttanee whieh is fief appealed by the applieant receipt of a completed application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable criteria contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. if th applieant may pfesent its applieatieft to the Beefd of Adjustments and Appeffis for The Hearing Examiner of: Bettfd may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent properties. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Article 18 DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION Section 1. [15.99] [TIME DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION.] Subdivision 1. (DEFINITION.] For purposes of this section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory or home rule charter city, county, town , or school district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any other political subdivision of the state. Subdivision 2. [DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE.] Except as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written'request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. Subdivision 3. (APPLICATION; EXTENSIONS.] (a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the 60 -day limit starts over only if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch, the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agency. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required. c) An agency response meets the 60 -day time limit if the agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of receipt of the written request. d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law, or order. Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph. e) -The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if: (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted. f) An agency may extend the timeline under this subdivision before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. Section 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] Section 1 is effective July 1, 1995, and applies to any written request submitted after that date. 111 ; JFA 107A, P A "* 11 1 6655 ...!., 11 1111.11 MMOOM 1111111 IIn1111 111 o1•.,.., IIIIIII 11111111 r :. ° 111111111111111 1111 .. 1111111 1//11111 INI 1111 r; " -: r= 1111111 11111111 IIIIIIII ® QII1111 11 3 ;,. 1111111 11111111 11111111 1111.50 X111111 ik 1111111 11111111 11111111111 15111111 MIN IIIIIII 11111111 1111n11 11111,x1II111I 111111 ; 11111 11111111 1111111= 1111 11111, 11111 11111111111111 1111 1 r Illy 11MINE 11111 IMINE 11111 11 r° ELMI1 I C IIn1111 111n ,Ii I I „ I nI1 II111II1II1 i P 11 nn u th N NOW&L-L-1 u-! 4 PLrz 71'Ll o w 21'N I