Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-17 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 17,2010 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. RollCall 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 20, 2010 6. Public Hearings a. 7:00 pm or Later: Kingston Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation. Request by Richard DuFresne, 1721 DeSoto Street. b. 7:00 pm or Later: Metro Transit Front Setback Variance and Parking Stall Width Variance Requests for a Proposed Parking Ramp at the Mall Area Park and Ride. (No Report-Item has Been Withdrawn) 7. New Business a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas b. Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan and Zoning Update c. Comparison of Zoning and Land Use Maps. (No Report-Discussion Item) 8. Unfinished Business 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner Report: City Council Meeting of August 9, 2010: Commissioner Pearson was scheduled to attend. The items for review were the Shores Senior Housing Development proposal, the rezoning of the New Horizon Day Care building lot from R3 to LBC and the rezoning of the multi-family housing on Van Dyke Street from BC to R3. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of August 23,2010: Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. A possible item for review will be the Kingston Avenue right-of-way vacation. 11. Staff Presentations 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 20,2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner AI Bierbaum Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Tanya Nuss Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present at 7:03 p.m. City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Citv Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant Citv Manaqer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes - Boeser, Fischer, Martin, Nuss, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Desai The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Vacations of Edgemont Street and the Alley to the East, North of Roselawn Avenue. Request by DeSoto Associates Limited Partnership LLP Planner Tom Ekstrand explained that DeSoto Associates Limited Partnership LLP, the applicant for this request for vacations, has requested that this item be tabled until a later date. Mr. Ekstrand said the attorney for the landowner to the west, Kathleen Delaney, has also asked for this item to be tabled until the attorney can be present at the meeting. Commissioner Boeser moved to table the request for vacations of Edgemont Street and the Alley to the East, North of Roselawn Avenue until a later date, due to the applicant's request and staff's report. Commissioner Nuss seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Planning Comrnission Minutes of 07-20-10 -2- b. Rezoning of the Vacant Parcel South of the New Horizon Building from R3 (multiple-family residential) to LBC (limited business commercial) Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request for this rezoning of the undeveloped property located on the west side of Van Dyke Street, south of the New Horizon Child Care building. Mr. Ekstrand said this R3 zoning must be changed to LBC zoning to be consistent with the commercial comprehensive land use plan designation. The public hearing was opened for comments. There were no comments; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Boeser moved to approve the rezoning of the vacant playground property along the west side of Van Dyke Street from R3 (multiple dwelling residential) to LBC (limited business commercial). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. Commissioner Martin seconded The motion passed. Ayes -all c. Rezoning of the Multi-Family Housing on Van Dyke Street from BC (business commercial) to R3 (multi-family residential) Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining this request for rezoning for the developed properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street. Mr. Ekstrand said the reason for this rezoning is to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the MDR (medium density residential) comprehensive land use plan designation specified in the city's comprehensive land use plan. Mr. Ekstrand said the R3 zoning classification is equivalent to MDR land use plan designation. The public hearing was opened for comments. There were no comments; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood moved approval of the rezoning of the multi-family properties along the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B East from BC (business commercial) to R3 (multiple dwelling residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. Commissioner Trippler seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) Request for The Shores Senior Housing Development- Joint Review with the HRA Assistant city manager Ahl gave a presentation explaining this request for approval of tax increment financing for The Shores Senior Housing Development project. Mr. Ahl Planning Comrnission Minutes of 07-20-10 -3- explained that the commission needs to determine if the TIF plan is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Tom Deneway of Springsted Incorporated, the city's public financial advisor for the TIF funding for this project, gave a presentation explaining how TIF funds are generated and calculated and the process for creating TIF funding. Commissioner Martin commented to staff that the commission's approvals given previously for the planning issues would include the determination that this project meets the city's comprehensive plan. Assistant city manager Ahl responded saying that the commission's previous approvals acknowledged that the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Ahl said the financing now needs a separate consideration from the commission to determine that the TIF financing is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the resolution of the planning commission finding the development program for municipal development district nO. 1 and the tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing (housing) district no. 1-10 conform to the city plans for development of the city as a whole. Commissioner Trippler seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. July 12, 2010 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Martin reported on this meeting. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of July 26, 2010: Commissioner Boeser will attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. August 3 - National Night Out Planner Ekstrand asked if the planning commission wishes to meet on August 3. It was decided by COnsensuS to cancel the August 3 commission meeting to take part in National Night Out. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP Planner DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Street Right-of-Way Vacation Kingston Avenue, west of DeSoto Street August 10, 2010 INTRODUCTION Richard Dufresne, of 1721 DeSoto Street, is requesting the city vacate a street right-of-way. This right-of-way is for Kingston Avenue. The portion of the Kingston Avenue right-of-way the applicant is proposing the city vacate is west of the DeSoto Avenue right-of-way adjacent to Mr. Dufresne's property. Please refer to the attached maps. DISCUSSION Mr. Dufresne is requesting the vacation to increase his lot area. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use this right-of-way for a public street and it is not needed for any utilities. In exchange for the right-of-way vacation, Mr. Dufresne is proposing to grant the city an easement over the portion of DeSoto Street which he currently owns. The certified survey that is attached to this report shows a portion of Mr. Dufresne's eastern property line extending to the centerline of DeSoto Street. Within this request Mr. Dufresne would grant the city a 33-foot-wide roadway easement for the section of DeSoto Street his property covers. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution attached to this report. This resolution is for the vacation of the Kingston Avenue right-of-way, west of DeSoto Street. The reasons for the vacation areas follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street. 3. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access on DeSoto Street. This approval is subject to: 1. The dedication of the 33-foot-wide roadway easement for DeSoto Street should be a condition for the approval of the vacation request 2. Comply with any other requirements contained within Assistant City Engineer Steve Love's report, dated August 4,2010. REFERENCE INFORMATION Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this request on August 2, 2010. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by October 1, 2010. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of an application. P: lsec17\DeSotoVacation_PC _ 081710 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Site Survey 3. Area Map 4. Assistant City Engineer Steve Love's comments, dated August 4, 2010 5. Public Vacation Petition 6. Vacation Resolution 2 ." - ________________..__..____.____.____n_'. Attachment 1 Attachment to "Public Vacation Application" We are requesting iliat ilie City Of Maplewood vacate Kingston Ave. East lying west of DeSoto Street giving us (Dufresne) title in exchange for an easement granted by us to the City for the DeSoto Street Right-Of-Way as it fronts our property. Both the Kingston Ave. parcel and the proposed easement are located on a steep embankment behind a retaining wall system constructed with the reconstruction of DeSoto Street in 2007. Attached is a proposed "Certificate of Survey" showing the proposed vacation and easement. It is our understanding that the City has done a search and no recorded easementlRight-Of -Way exists for DeSoto Street across my property. We are in the process of combining boili registered and unregistered parcels into a single registered property and boundaries. It is my understanding that the County encourages property owners to register property such as this to clarify ambiguous titles and "to clean up the plat maps" eliminating abstract property. Obtaining title to old Right-OF- Ways which are small and have no developable or other value would put them back on the tax rolls to iliebenefit of the City. We believe Kingston Ave. East lying west of DeSoto Street is one ofthose situations. An application for this registration has been filed on Nov. 4,2008, with the Second Judicial District Court, file # 62-CV-08-l1382. I believe this to be a "common sense proposal". , , I i , !is"".~~:;-PV'' iH!! Ht~~cl~ ~f~q"1n~~~H! ;r~~~ E~g~~!r~ ~;;~i5~~~~;~i!i t~F~ ,jf~ir~l; O"~o~""I~~"-i~ 35'~= ",~,1?$O/:"" ~!~~~tf~~~I~~t ~ir~~ ~titj~t~ ~~f~f.~~~f.liwr[ ~g~~! gi~~f~~: ~~~Il~llllll~i irrl~l! i<h"~,,7.1!...f"-'f ~"70 '''!fOO/:O l!iIUl!i'II!1Ii!! wm fi![~ii[tJw{I!~ "f,.!",,"H. ,'''0'''''''' g ;;:"gI~p~~"n iiHHh~UHf !hE1Fn~~br ~~~hrJ~~~ H~~ H~H~~Hi .~~i limum III hiH~H.H }{ jU!!Um il ~<I1!ii:Lt~"t"- ~r ..~~ ~'~i g.. ~ ] t $- l! I;;;; if .' , " '. ['It (1, , ~i ", ", \ , , , , ~\ lfl " ~~~~ <~. .~.., f'" )- ___ J___ __....----~ MXJWYf,rw 267.oJ \.~- ,J ~~;':;:"'Jf~ _-.J _uu~ ~ ~ ~ <.T ~ \\ ~ ,T) I>i u__~ ~ ":J-... ~ ~-~ -- ,- < ~tt !I' " ,I I; , ~r ',' ~lt ,~: !:l ~~~ h \.\'., -- , ! , I , , l --,--- , , , I "'~ : i~~!: :~ i:~: :~ u~! I i~ ~_._)t y{n Hf~; Ftlt I,~tt~ , "J~J , 70.01 -" SOO';;o1Y)!~E \ - -- --- -- " 0"\.. ~~~ " 8:"1..\\' t ,O!..: ~'"::- ~ g re 0' Q) -{ ~ ;..? g. CO g: 0 CD ~ g~ (tl @ 3 ;E fl) ::r ~o ~ ~ ~ c: ~ Q. ",~i ~ a - (tl (tl ~ o"! o' :;t ~ g (il * ~! ~ (I) g Q. :;t en ~ "" Q. 0:: ~ ~ :;t g -< '< w ro i flW 1 ~,~ ~ ,,'lI} " HII IH .i ! ! .1 ~gr h *~ , ~ , . " ' ',0 ~~;- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NOl-ob'Z5~W ri )/r~;,.::;;~(::::':'oo"oo,oooooo,,;" , ' , ' , ' , ' .------r-.=,,~ .----: , , : r'.,: I 'at '"l : f~tt : I ~~., fd ' ~iH : , , , , , , , , , mmmmllmm !~~1~~~1~~i~r~~li~~[ ~~ limilimmmm _..:! irH-~A~pt~[~",r~fl;:O~7.;'.r - Iml!lill!llllllijl 'i " ""I,K, /k.;;:;;~ )'-~'7..~..;;......- i~ 1 ''''<'''''' ~ ~~~r ~f *i ~r.t :' it ::.::1 ~ ~ 'l ," ,. ~\ r'"\ o ~:;;. <:.1 () o <..h ~2 --I 'J> J> t'J gln -::.~ 0 ~l -" ;--~ :\lll J ~,t ..,l ~(: f' ,!, :~ ' : " ~ ~ ~ , , , , , "".., I',J I"" ~t ~,t ~.~g ~~~~t--~- '1'1' i ~ !I~ L ~ i ?H r~ ~ tlf ,. -' ~>.. -,,-:J /-1 'd i ~ ht i ~ ~" ~: ~ ~~~ ~i ~ ~~~ ~i t "j ~ , ~ ~'~~ dSw , ~ " ; i !~n~ i ,'(f .1.,' ~1i~lt \ , ~?i t~t ", ." ,i\ ," " " , ~q' ~~~ i i ~ t ~~ "--\ -~o t= = = =-~~~-- -'\ ~~ ~ (; 1','.-=-'1 5' -l Co"" 0' ro ~ Q. ~ a ~ ~ "" ID ro " @ re ~] :;t~ ~a(tl"E c 0 Q. o' ro~-<fl) :;0 S. <: ~ cO' :;t ~ iii' a:ro~"O g,c;:.g ~~ ~::r ~ 0 S' ro . ~ '" ~~ ;J H 'r~r~[~~r~~~~~ ~~ ~igr~li hp-i!~ ~~ ~~ ~ if[ ~~ a~ f"" 'T~;]. ~~[Mf~t!~ ;-[~~~;-;:n !~f~f~ ~~~~~f~~~!~~~~~~~1~?~~~[~ j!i~f[~~~!![;i~t[~~i~~~!; ,,'.o""'f,oo'-"'I""" ~!~!~!!~!i~i~i~!~~I~~~~~~ i ~ h 0 lP "~. g O''il ~o f~f"-h ~ ;r~& ~~~~i>~2~~~~~~~H~'~~~~~~& ~~~~~eu~~~~t~r~g2~~~g~o~~ ~r~~~~:~i~lr~ifi~;~Q;~!i[ ,,""if"8:<1 ~;:E~f~2~"". ~~~:. tl\!~ lf~" ~ir~&]:l O:~~d lfg~~"'Ji ::'~z~ 11 ~i ~:JE-;!~i;;'1 tl:'gg~" ~r"'~ ~h ~:~~i~~i{i1~!li!il!ii{~!! t.~.~~l~~f~flf~~~~[f[~~E~~ ~ ~~~j~l~:~~!~~i~~f~t~it ." "~;:~-~ <"~', '" -)> -- u,\:.l ,0 'i;--=-~ lJ'\() -,;:': IJil : ~~ , !' 1 r S:?, lJ'l C' r~ .18 i'l~ l:l j! , ; ! j i . , , , ! 'U )> ~:o ~ ~ ~~ ~~Io " t! :\,i:l 1II~ ~ ~!'! i~E I\!!i! .~ ; il~; ~ '1. "'- . . Ii II i: ~ :\'i ~ ~g !l qg . . Attachment 2 :>:::;~ ~ ta. ~n\:l H~ ~ r '. ~ l rl o >-,rj t-.;;; ::0:::'0 ~ ~ go ~ ,-..; ~UJ>-3....:J Ng :o-.~ N~'" ~ :::J~(D ..::~ t"Pt"P~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.J "QI;?P-.""- "" ~ tP.... o ~ ....:J ~~ g )...J ~a,::l '-'-] "a.W 0... 0 ~ ("J ~ ~ <t." ~ g g --< ...a..] p.~:::o en ::0. (1) ~ >-l(JQ f""'( ~o ....:--...~ ~~UJ ",,,,... ()~ " ~ oEtlll ",'" ....lo..l ::I N 0 \..1.] ""z::l ~ o ~ pc =J I'~ "" !;" ~~ !-~ ~~ f~:e ~p ",,,,"'lSl%j ~~~ t5~. *~"'~. ~ .,2 ~ci eog ~p =>~ 1:1.... ~~~ ~~ '" o c ;0 n "' '" ;0 ~ . n o c , '" > '" c n t" "g-i:; "'''~ ~g,., ....1>'.. Oft....., 0."- ; Er&;' . < 3 l'~.g ~ f{V;' g ;; ~. g~'S- o~ ~ ... 8 l>> g S 0- >9~ ~ ~'< 0, ~ftg N~a NO.. O('t>o. O~~ ~g:~ nOO g ~;;; a~~ l>> ~ {tl , -'< 000 g.5'::: ~ ~ e: Q.t:~ ...E.s. ~ fi g' , . . , ""0. ~a.g. f1 5'S 0."",,- 00 _. ~g-g 00. >g~ Coo 00 ,,"0 CO, "~e ~~ ; og.fii" ~fii'~ 8 B~. ;j g-; 3 C 0 "'Wo n.p-.g ;-~~ 5.@ o' ""let'::: ~.g g, g-gg a"d 0 ~.8 g. a&i ~5' ~~S"' >88 ::!...z; ;::;' o' o ' ~ [ ~ n o Q o . ". "- s' o o 1; ""0 -n () )> )> ;:u 0 m ""0 r 0 ;:u ;:u ""0 r ""0 0 :::! ;:u ""0 m :!] 0 ;:u ;:u -n ..,X 0 =<! :!] m o~ ""0 () 0 m ;;; en )> ;:u r .., Z r C rn =<! m ~ en m -< ;:u cO' :=; ';'" o i '< morN $" "o'g ~ ~ l/:> Z -l! 9 !!l: (hCi ;r; z; ~ !:'!'t ~"'8f -0(/1 ~ ~n .. 0 " ~" 9.jj '" o ~ .",\'\ 5' 1115'Q 6' ~ ~ fr ~ <::: IS.::;; '" ~*~ ~~ ~ Ift If ~ ~~5"m m ~ , S Attachment 4 Em;!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: REVIEWED BY: DATE: DeSoto Street I Kingston Avenne Vacation Review Steven W. Love, P.E., P.L.S, Assistant City Engineer Angnst 4, 2010 The applicant, Richard Dufresne, has requested that a portion ofthe road right-of-way, originally platted as King Street, be vacated at the intersection of DeSoto Street and Kingston A venue East. The City of Maplewood requested the applicant to submit the following items for review: . Certificate of Survey showing the following items o Proposed property boundary . Including the proposed road right-of-way to be acquired through vacation o Dedication of 33 foot wide roadway easement over DeSoto Street . Proposed property descriptions prepared for the following: o Proposed boundary description o Proposed vacation description o Proposed 33 foot wide roadway easement description Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., a land planning, surveying, and engineering firm, has prepared the required documents on behalf of the applicant Submittal Comments . Certificate of Survey o Shows the new property boundary that includes the road right-of-way that would be acquired through vacation as requested o Shows the area proposed to be vacated as requested o Shows a proposed 33 foot wide roadway easement to be dedicated to the. City of Maplewood adjacent to and westerly of the centerline of Desoto Street as requested o All proposed property and easement descriptions are shown on the Certificate of Survey . Proposed property descriptions o The proposed property description has been provided and is shown on the Certificate of survey. . The first two descriptions encompass the proposed property boundary and include that portion of the road right-of-way that would be acquired through vacation. o A description of road right-of-way to be vacated originally platted as King Street as shoWIi on KINGS ADDITION TO THE CITY OFst. PAUL, lying 33 feet westerly of the centerline of DeSoto Street as travelled has been provided. . The legal description is consistent with the area shown on the Certificate of Survey o A description for a roadway easement covering an area 33 feet westerly of the centerline of DeSoto Street as travelled has been provided. . The legal description is consistent with easement area shown on the Certificate of Survey General Comments . The dedication of the 33 foot wide roadway easement for DeSoto Street should be a condition for the approval of the vacation request ......, . .. .. . .....------...---_.-.. .- . - - . . _ .......- ... .._...._ ......._...h ." ._ . ....".~ PUBLIC VACATION PEnnON --- - --. - . -- - - - -. - . '-. .......-.-.----..-----...--..-...., .,.._....._-".._~..,.._.... .' Attachment 5 We, the undersigned. are a majority of the land owners abutting on the (street, alley or easement) described as: /);L-J- {)~/4N(?~TfI.tI fiJI}?, $Asr t't'INfd. d/PFf 9~ I)tf1'O'/'(;> $17 We petition the City Council to vacate the above-described area: Sionature Name (print or type) ~,~ -dV~E .4J,~"dO )'1bo ~..r"1"~ Sr: JY)AJdL,!;'l(/t>-C'.I>, J11"J. ..J.!7'1 Number on the Abstractor's List Attachment 6 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richard Dufresne, 1721 DeSoto Street, applied for the vacation of the following: All that part of Kingston Avenue East (platted as King Street) as shown on KINGS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, according to the plat thereof recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies southerly of the north line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; westerly of a line parallel with and 33.00 feet westerly of the centerline of DeSoto Street as traveled; and northerly of the north line of Lot A, said KINGS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On August 17, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 2. On , 2010, the city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following property, which is indicated by its property identification number: PIN: 17-29-22-33-0083 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street. 3. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access on DeSoto Street. This vacation is subject to: 1. The dedication of the 33-foot-wide roadway easement for DeSoto Street should be a condition for the approval of the vacation request 2. Comply with any other requirements contained within Assistaflt City Engineer Steve Love's report, dated August 4, 2010. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2010. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Melissa Wygant, Community Development Intern Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas August 9, 2010 for the August 17 Planning Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION Urban communities throughout the country are considering allowing chickens in residential areas as a way of promoting urban agriculture and sustainability. There has been an interest by some Maplewood residents and the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission to allow chickens in Maplewood for this purpose as well. Maplewood's zoning code prohibits the raising or handling of poultry (including chickens) in all single dwelling residential zoning districts. BACKGROUND In October 2009 the ENR Commission began to review the feasibility of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts as a means of promoting more sustainable food products. Since that time the Comrnission has reviewed comments from residents, the Maplewood Animal Control Officer, Chief of Police, and Health Officer in regard to this matter. Staff has conducted research on other cities in the metropolitan area that have developed chicken ordinances. The comments reflected both positive and negative impacts due to the raising of chickens in residential areas. Positive irnpacts include homeowners producing their own organic eggs and using the manure for garden fertilizer. The main negative impacts outlined by staff were possible nuisance complaints from neighbors. After review of the research and comments, the ENR Commission recommended approval of an ordinance on July 19, 2010, which would allow up to ten chickens on a residential lot of any size with a permit. The permit can only be approved if at least 75 percent of the property owners within 150 feet consent to the permit. The ENR Commission attempted to address all of the possible negative impacts of raising chickens in residential areas with regulations such as prohibiting roosters (noise impacts), requiring chickens be housed in chicken coops located in the back yard, requiring chickens be contained in a fenced area, requiring chickens be banded for identification in the event the get loose, and prohibiting the slaughtering of chickens on the property. DISCUSSION Cities Which Permit Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts 1. Minneapolis . Permit requirements: o Fee- $50 (first year) and $30 (any renewals) o Map showing chicken coop location in the yard o Up to 25 chickens are allowed, determined by a chicken/square foot calculation o Permit must be approved by at least 80 percent of neighbors within 100 feet of the property o Chickens are allowed in garages o Roosters are prohibited . Inspection: required before issuing permit and renewal . The city has not received any complaints about loose chickens 2. St. Paul . Permit requirements: o Fee- $25 (first year) and $15 (any renewals) o Fee increases if a household has four or more chickens-$72 o Map showing location of chicken coop in the yard o No maximum number of chickens is specified in the St. Paul ordinance o Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet of the property o Chickens are allowed in garages o Rodent proof food containers are required . Impounding costs: o Initially: $55 o Additional days: $18 per day . 5 complaints a week-households that own chickens but do not have a permit 3. Oakdale: . Permit requirements: o Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet of the property o No maximum number of chickens is specified in the Oakdale ordinance . Inspection: required before issuing permit . The city has not received any complaints about loose chickens. . Currently the City of Oakdale only has one permit issued for chickens. 4. Shoreview: . Perrnit requirements: o Fee- $30 o Up to four chickens are allowed on residential property of two acres in size or less. o More than four chickens are allowed on residential property greater than two acres in size o Map showing location of chicken coop in the yard o Roosters are prohibited o Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited . Inspection: required before issuing permit and renewal 5. Burnsville: . Permit requirements: o Fee- $50 o Up to four chickens are allowed on residential property o Map showing location of chicken coop in yard 2 a Chickens are not allowed to be stored inside garages or attached structures to homes. a The city provides leg bands for the chickens to be identified if a chicken goes missing. a Chickens must be fenced 6. Rosemount: . Permit requirements: a Up to three chickens allowed on a residential property, no permit required a License is required in order to have chickens and is issued on an annual basis. a Residents must be informed of the proposed chicken coop a Rodent proof food containers are requires. a Map showing location of chicken coop in yard a The chicken coop must be 75 feet from any other residential structure and ten feet from the property line. a The chickens must be raised in a manner not to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth. . Inspection: required before issuing a license . A chicken may be humanely euthanized or sold after it has been impounded for a violation of the ordinance and no owner has c1airned the chicken within five business days. Costs Before the ENR Commission proceeded with the review of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts, they wanted to ensure such an ordinance would not end up costing taxpayers money. They requested that staff estimate the time and costs associated with administration and enforcernent of chicken permits. Following are the costs associated with impounding and boarding a stray chicken, the Animal Control Officer's fee schedule, and estimates on administrative time and costs for processing a permit: Enforcement: In the case of a chicken nuisance in Maplewood, the Animal Control Officer would address the issue. It may be necessary to impound the chicken after a complaint. The City of Maplewood sends all stray domestic animals to the Hillcrest Animal Hospital. Fees for the cost of enforcement and impounding of a chicken are listed below: Fee Charge Animal Control Officer Time (hourly fee) $38.00/hour Animal Control Officer Time (call out fee) $82.00 Impound Chicken (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) $42.00 Boarding Chicken (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) 18.00/dav or $1 02-for up to 6 days If the city had to pick up and impound a stray chicken, the cost would be $82 for the Animal Control Officer to pick up the chicken and $42 to impound the chicken ($124). If an owner did not pick up a chicken that same day, the fee would increase $18 a day, for a maximum of six 3 days (up to $232). After six days the animal becomes the property of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, who attempts to find a home for anirnals. On some occasions, however, an animal may need to be euthanized. Permit: The permit process would include a property owner submitting an application and fee to the Community Development Department. City Planners would review the permit to determine if all required materials were submitted including a review of the zoning and neighborhood consents. Once the permit is complete, the City Planners would forward the permit to the Animal Control Officer for an initial inspection. If the inspection was approved, the City Planner would sign off on the permit and submit it to the city's Licensing Clerk, who would process the permit and ensure annual reviews. Staff estimates that it would take a City Planner approximately one to two hours to complete their work, Animal Control Officer review and inspection would take one hour, and the Licensing Clerk would take one hour to input and process the permit. Overall staff time is estimated at four hours on average. Using the Animal Control Officers' hourly fee of $32 an hour, the city shouid charge $114 to $152 for an initial permit in order to recoup costs associated with processing the permit. Less could be charged for the renewals. If a chicken ordinance were adopted with a permit requirement, the City Council would set the fees associated with permitting on an annual basis. After review of the above estimates, the ENR Commission stated that a fee of $114 to $152 wouid be cost prohibitive for an applicant and the city could probably process the permits for less time and money. They based this on research from cities that allow chickens with a permit. The ENR Commission recommended Maplewood charge the fees currently being charged by the City of Minneapolis, $50 for a permit and $30 for a renewal. Minneapolis representatives have stated these fees cover their costs. The ENR Commission recommended the city monitor the fees to ensure coverage of administrative and enforcement costs. If the fees are found to be too low, the city council could adjust the fees during their annual fee reviews. Since the ENR Commission's recornmendation, staff reviewed the process and fees associated with dog and cat permits for comparison. The city will issue a dog or cat permit at city hall or by mail. An applicant submits an application, fee, and proof of rabies vaccination and the city issues the permit. Perrnits run from January 1 to December 31 of each year. The fee for the permit is $21.00 for a non-spayed or non-neutered dog or cat ($19.00 if the owner is a senior) and $18.00 for a spayed or neutered dog or cat ($16.00 if the owner is a senior). The dog and cat permit process takes less time than the proposed chicken permitting process, which would require verification of neighbor consent and a site inspection. Proposed Ordinance Amendment Residential Zoning: Following are amendments proposed in the zoning code that would allow chickens in residential areas (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken): Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3 (R-1 Residence District) Sec. 44-6. Definitions. 4 Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that include among commercially important kinds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl, pigeons, pheasants and others. Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses. The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 residence district: (1) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487, Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance, except for licensed kennels. Most of the city's single dwelling residential zoning districts have a permitted and prohibited uses section. The R-1 zoning district lists the specific uses, and subsequent single dwelling zoning districts should refer to those same uses as well. There are five single dwelling residential zoning districts as follows: R-1 R, R-1 S, RE-30,000, and RE 40,000). Two of those single dwelling zoning districts (R-1 Rand R-1 S) do not have the reference to permitted or prohibited uses, and as such require an amendment as follows: Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 5 (R-1S Small-lot Single Dwelling District) Sec. 44-192. Permitted uUses. ill Permitted uses. The only permitted uses allowed in the R-1S small-lot single- dwelling district are the permitted uses in the R-1 district. m Prohibited uses. fill Accessory buildinQs without an associated dwellinQ on the same premises. M The raisinq or handlinq of livestock. poultrv (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or animals causinq a nuisance. except for licensed kennels. Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3.5 (R-1 R Rural Conservation Dwelling District) Sec. 44-118. Uses. (a) (b) (c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1(R) zoning district: 5 (1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property. ill The raisinq or handlinq of livestock, poultrv (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or animals causinq a nuisance, except for licensed kennels. Animals: Following is proposed language which would specify the permitting requirements for chickens in residential areas. This language would be added to the animal chapter of the city code. Much of the language is reflective of the city's existing dog section of the animal ordinance. Chapter 10 (Animalsl. Article IX (Chickensl Sec. 10-476. Definitions. Broodinq means to sit or hatch eqqs. Chicken means a domesticated bird that serves as a source of eqqs or meat. Hen means a female chicken. Rooster means a male chicken. Sec. 10-477. Investiqation and Enforcement. Officers desiqnated by the city manaqer and approved by the city council shall have powers in the investiqation and enforcement of this article. and no person shall interfere with. hinder or molest any such officer in the exercise of such powers. The officer shall make investiqations as is necessary and may qrant. deny. or refuse to renew any application for permit, or terminate an existinq permit under this article. Sec. 10-478. Limitations for each dwellinq unit in residential zones. ill No more than ten (10) hens shall be housed or kept on anyone residential lot in any area of the city zoned for sinqle dwellinq residential with a permit as outlined below. ill Roosters are prohibited. ru Slauqhterinq of chickens is prohibited. ill Leq bandinq of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the owner's address and telephone number. @ A separate coop is required to house the chickens. iID. Chickens rnust not be housed in a human use buildinq such as a basement, attached qaraqe. or detached qaraqe. Chickens are allowed inside an auxiliarv structure or qaraqe for broodinq purposes only. 6 Sec. 10-479. Permit required. The officer shall qrant a permit for chickens after the applicant has souqht the written consent of seventv-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of private Iv or publiclv owned real estate within one hundred fiftv (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is beinq requested. or in the alternative, proof that the applicant's propertv lines are one hundred fiftv (150) feet or more from anv structure. Consent is also required where a street separates the premises for which the permit is beinq requested from other neiqhborinq propertv if it meets the distance requirements specified above. Where a propertv within one hundred fiftv (150) feet consists of a multiple dwellinq or multi-tenant propertv. the applicant need obtain onlvthe written consent of the owner or manaqer. or other person in charqe of the buildinq. Such written consent shall be required on the initial application and as often thereafter as the officer deems necessarv. Sec. 10-480. Application. Anv person desirinq a permit required under the provisions of this article shall make written application to the citv clerk upon a form prescribed bv and containinq such information as required bv the citv clerk and officer. Amonq other thinqs. the application shall contain the followinq inforrnation: ill A description of the real propertv upon which it is desired to keep the chickens. ill The breed and number of chickens to be maintained on the premises. .Q2 A site plan of the propertv showinq the location and size of the proposed chicken coop, setbacks from the chicken coop to surroundinq buildinqs (includinq houses and buildinqs on adjacent lots. and the location. stvle. and heiqht of fencinq proposed to contain the chickens. Portable coops and caqes are allowed, but portable locations must be included with the site plan. ill Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the animals in accordance with all of the conditions prescribed bv the officer, or modification thereof. and that faiiure to obev such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of this chapter and qrounds for cancellation of the permit. ili.l Such other and further information as mav be required bv the officer. Sec. 10-481. Permit conditions. If qranted, the permit shall be issued bv the citv clerk and officer and shall state the conditions. if anv, imposed upon the permitted for the keepinq of chickens under this permit. The permit shall specifv the restrictions, limitations, conditions and prohibitions which the officer deems reasonablv necessarv to protect anv person or neiqhborinq use from unsanitarv conditions, unreasonable noise or odors. or annovance. or to protect the. public health and safetv. Such permit mav be.modified from time to time or revoked bv the officer for failure to conform to such restrictions. limitations. prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall be effective after ten (10) davs followinq the mailinq of written notice thereof bv certified mail to the person or persons keepinq or maintain such chickens. Sec. 10-482. Violations. 7 ill Any person violatinq any of the sections of this article shall be deemed quilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction. shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. (Section 1-15 states that a person found guilty of violating this section could be charged with a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both could result in violation of a misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $300 could result in a petty misdemeanor.) ill If anv person is found quilty by a court for violation of this section, their permit to own. keep. harbor. or have custody of chickens shall be deemed automatically revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of one year. Ql Any person violatinq anv conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit includinq but not limited to the pick UP and impoundinq of chickens. Sec. 10-483. Required; exceptions. . No person shall (without first obtaininq a permit in writinq from the citv clerk) own. keep. harbor or have custody of any chicken. Sec. 10-484. Fees; issuance. For each residential site the fee for a permit is as mav be imposed. set. established and fixed by the city council. by resolution. from time to time. Sec. 10-485. Term. The permit period under this section shall expire one vear from the date the permit is issued. Sec. 10-486. Revocation. The city manaqer may revoke any permit issued under this division if the person holdinq the permit refuses or fails to comply with this article, with any requlations promuiGated by the council pursuant to this article, or with any state or local law GoverninG cruelty to anirnals or the keepinG of animals. Any person whose permit is revoked shall. within ten days thereafter. humanely dispose of all chickens beinq owned, kept or harbored by such person. and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded. RECOMMENDATION Review and comment on the proposed ordinance amendment outlined above. This amendment would allow residential property owners to raise up to ten chickens (hens) for the production of eggs with a permit 8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan and Zoning Update August 11, 2010 for the August 17 Planning Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the update of the city's comprehensive land use plan required of all metro area cities every ten years. By approving this plan, the city council reestablished the long-range land use guide for the city. State law requires that the city now revise our zoning map and zoning ordinance controls to be in conformance with the newly approved land use classifications throughout the city. The city has nine months (by October 25,2010) to make all necessary zoning map and zoning ordinance changes to coincide with the land use policies and land use maps in the approved 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Proposal The last area to be rezoned to coincide with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the Gladstone Neighborhood. This area, which is generally defined as properties surrounding the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street, is guided as mixed use and medium density residential (refer to attached Gladstone Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Attachment 1). The mixed use land use is intended for commercial retail or service businesses, offices and high-density housing (6 to 31 units per net acre). The medium density residential land use is intended for moderately higher densities ranging from 6.1 to 10 units per net acre. Housing types in this land use category would typically include lower density attached housing and higher density single family detached housing units. Some forms of stacked housing (condominiums and apartments) could be integrated into medium density areas, but would need to be surrounded by additional green space. The Gladstone Neighborhood is currently zoned several different zoning districts including M1 (light manufacturing), BC (business commercial), BC-M (business commercial modified), R-3 (multiple dwelling residential), and R-2 (double dwelling residential), (refer to attached Gladstone Neighborhood Zoning Map - Attachment 2). The zoning must be changed to reflect the Comprehensive Plan designations, as well as meet the goals and objectives of the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan. Background November 2003 the City of Maplewood received an $8,000 Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant from the Metropolitan Council in order to hire a planning consultant to create a redevelopment concept plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. December 4, 2006, the Metropolitan Council awarded a $1.8 million LCDA grant to the City of Maplewood for public improvements associated with Phase I redevelopment of I the Gladstone Neighborhood. Phase I included the redevelopment of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost Avenue) with a 180-unit senior housing development. On February 5, 2007, city staff presented a brief introduction to the proposed Gladstone zoning ordinance during a city council workshop. The zoning approach included a form- based ordinance which would have enabled the city to articulate and achieve the desired pattern and character of uses within the Gladstone Neighborhood. Form-based ordinances regulate building facades and site frontages based on an overall district character and the interface between development and the public domain (which is most commonly a public street). The city council took no action on the proposed form-based zoning ordinance. March 2007 the city council approved the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, which is a guide to redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood. The plan includes a conceptual redevelopment plan, housing densities, and commercial components which are based on market forces and other redevelopment variables existing at the time of adoption. December 31, 2009, the City of Maplewood rescinded the $1.8 million LCDA grant due to the original redevelopment proposal for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site falling through. January 25,2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which reguides the land use designation in the Gladstone Neighborhood to meet the use and density as proposed in the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. July 12, 2010, the city submitted a new LCDA grant application for public improvements associated with Phase I redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. Phase I includes the development of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost Avenue) with a new senior housing project called The Shores at Lake Phalen. The grant application requests $1.4 million in order to help fund the reconstruction and/or rehabilitation of Frost Avenue between Highway 61 and Phalen Place; construction of stormwater improvements on or adjacent to The Shores at Lake Phalen development site; and the extension of sanitary sewer along East Shore Drive to serve the proposed The Shores at Lake Phalen development. August 9, 2010, the city council approved a tax increment (TIF) financing housing district for The Shores at Lake Phalen site (940 Frost Avenue). The city council determined that the TIF district will afford maximum opportunity for the development of the housing district to occur by a private enterprise. August 9, 2010, the city council approved the land use permits associated with The Shores at Lake Phalen (940 Frost Avenue). The development consists of a 105 unit, three story low- to moderate-income assisted living facility. This includes 32 memory care apartments and 73 assisted living units. Construction of the first phase is currently planned to begin in fall of 201 0 and be complete by the end of 2011. A future phase of development is proposed to include 56 apartments on the southern portion of the site. 2 DISCUSSION Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan As stated above in the background section, the city council approved the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan in March 2007. The plan is intended as a guide to redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood and includes a conceptual redevelopment plan, housing densities, and commercial components which are based on market forces and other redevelopment variables existing at the time of adoption. The forward statement on the plan states "As a guide, the plan should be considered a flexible concept plan which can be modified based on the changing market forces and redevelopment variables." The Master Plan was originally created by the Gladstone Task Force. The task force was made up of 20 people representing the Maplewood council/commissions/boards, neighborhood residents, business owners, and the community at large. The task force met with the city's planning consultants during several meetings throughout 2005 and 2006 to draft a redevelopment plan for the area. The task force plan was met with much controversy throughout its development and adoption. Ultimately the city council adopted an amended version of the task force's recommended plan. Even that version was difficult to pass as the city council was split on its philosophy and approach to redevelopment in the area. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan reguided the Gladstone Neighborhood with a medium density and mixed use land use designation, which meets the basic intent of the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan. But the Master Plan is now over three years old and the city has not implemented any portion of that plan to date. As such, the city should re-examine the plan to ensure it meets the Comprehensive Plan designation and the city's current goals and policies for redevelopment in the area. To view the entire Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan visit the city's website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/planninq - scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Master Plan. Mixed Use Zoning District The existing zoning options available to the city for the Gladstone Neighborhood is the R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) and the MU (mixed use) zoning districts. The city adopted the MU zoning ordinance in 2004. While the MU zoning ordinance was designed specifically for the Hillcrest Neighborhood (White Bear and Larpenteur Avenue), the purpose of this zoning ordinance is to provide areas in the city with a rnixture of land uses, made mutually compatible through land use controls and high- quality design standards. With this ordinance, the city intends to promote the redevelopment or development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential land uses that are within an easy walk of a major transit stop. The MU ordinance will enhance viability within an area and foster more employment and residential opportunities. The placement and treatment of buildings, parking, signage, landscaping and pedestrian spaces are essential elements in creating the pedestrian-friendly and livable environment envisioned by the city in a mixed-use area. To ensure these elements are achieved, basic design standards are included in the district. 3 Because of the October 201 0 Metropolitan Council deadline for the city's zoning districts to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan designations, the R-3 and MU zoning ordinances are the only short-term options the city has for the area. However, because the MU zoning ordinance was specifically designed to meet the needs of the Hillcrest Neighborhood the city should consider other zoning options in the future which ensures that the zoning approach will enable the city to articulate and achieve the desired pattern and character of uses within the Gladstone Neighborhood. Form-Based Ordinance As stated in the background section above, city staff presented a brief introduction to a proposed form-based Gladstone zoning ordinance during a city council workshop in 2007. Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., planning consultants, drafted the form-based Gladstone zoning ordinance for the city. Form-based ordinances regulate the form of development, particularly the structure, based on the frontage type. Required frontages of buildings are based on the type of street a development fronts and the district in which it lies. Each frontage type is described by a set of standards addressing height, site planning, building elements, and use. This approach will allow for the most appropriate development form based on the character and function of the adjacent public street or trail, not on the use of the property. Form-based codes are designed to provide more flexibility and fewer barriers to redevelopment than conventional zoning codes. Cities use such codes to promote redevelopment in a largely built-out community or area, such as Gladstone. The Gladstone form-based ordinance, which was to be called the G-MU (Gladstone mixed use) zoning ordinance, was presented as a unique approach to zoning that would have enabled the city to articulate and achieve the desired pattern and character of uses within the Gladstone Neighborhood. The city council took no action on the proposed zoning code, and the Gladstone Neighborhood remained as a mixture of zoning districts as described above. CONCLUSION City staff will present the Gladstone comprehensive plan, zoning, and master plan issues to the city council during a workshop on August 23. Prior to the city council's review of these issues, city staff is requesting that the planning commission offer direction and feedback on these items. In particular: 1. Should the city restudy and consider changes to the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan? 2. The city must rezone the Gladstone Neighborhood to the existing R-3 and MU zoning districts to meet the October 2010 Metropolitan Council comprehensive plan/zoning requirements. After this rezoning, should the city continue to explore other zoning options for the Gladstone Neighborhood to ensure the zoning ordinance is designed to meet the unique characteristics of the neighborhood? Attachments: 1. Gladstone Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 2. Gladstone Neighborhood Zoning Map 4 ~ 1 j .-., CD '- .-., 1 t) CD <( '- .-., t) CD '- <( '- CD t) 0.. '- <( (/) CD '- :~ 0.. CD C (/) 0.. :J ~ c (/) 0 :J -c- ~ C 0 0 .-., :J -c- CD l.() '- I l.() t) 0 0 N <( ~ (l) -c- I '- ro (l) -c- CD +; ~ 0.. (l) - 0 c ro -c- (/) CD N +; ~ ~ :Q ~ c c Cl) (/) ro CD ro :J "- CD +; "0 +; ::i 0:: c 'Uj c 0 CD ..... >, CD CD "0 -c- ::i Cl) :t= :Q 0:: 'Uj (V) I.L (/) (/) tJ) CD >, CD c .... 0:: 0 "'0 ::::J CD 0:: 'Uj 0 0 >, C >, (l) .... CD "'0 CD ~ ~ ro c ~ ::;: :t= ro t) c:: (/) 0 (/) CD '0 CD ro C'tl 0 c c (/) '- ro E c 0.. ....J E CD :J CD 0 Cl)...J CD 'C C +; Cf) 'Q. -- 0 :J 0 "0 E .... '- :J (ij '5 CD E (/) CD .... ..lo:: C ::;: ..c :J > +; CD C'tl '- OJ .~ '- :J CD 0 "0 0 (/) ro 0.. :E 0:: 0 ::2 :r: ::2 U c C) c a.. 0 ....J DO 1110111 .fl "'c ..-~ ~ ., i c: -S~ .~~ ..j< f' ~~ :: I ~ :.:: - .,.. - W--^-W JV1 .:!p 3 -d c... ~ -tI I tttDiliJ{ H t IS ... t4- ~1 [']" '?~ ., . ill' t << iiJ Ui [11 t~ · ill l ~ ~ IIJUJ j 41. 'CITD~D ....a JJ r , ~ 01 - ...A , . ." .....- !.... -" " :6T""'" 2 5-.. 's' C >:;i} '[:H~ 'IT" ~i;\ U '[: ~ crnIJ~CIIITJJ ill " '" ill '" '" " "' ISllDN3 mE! ;>: '" LS SH381f11V'H:J ill i( ill in N .....-~ 5.-. S-.. ff: '+- .. v ~ <L -'" .~ u:: ';j ", N3l\fHdl r~ ~ rTTlCl rTTl-f ~I iY.