The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-07-24 Joint Board Packet (3)ii101�)gLter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Meeting Notice Stillwater City and Town Joint Board City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN SS082 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Agenda Approval of Minutes Agenda Items Public Hearings 1. Case No. PUD/02-50. Long Lake Estates mixed use, commercial/residential Planned Unit Development located between CR 5 and Parkwood Lane south of Wildpines. Jennings Bank and Tim Nolde applicant. 2. Case No. CPA/02-02. A comprehensive plan amendment changing land use designation of 1.65 acres of land located between CR 5 and Parkwood Lane and south of Wildpines from Attached Single Family to Business Park Commercial. Tim Nolde, applicant. 3. Case No. ZAM/02-02. A zoning map amendment changing zoning from Townhouse Residential, TH, to Business Park Commercial, BP -C located between CR 5 and Parkwood Lane and south of Wildpines. Jennings Bank, applicant. 4. Case No. CPA/02-01. A comprehensive plan amendment for South Boutwell Planning Area changing land use designations and establishing new street locations, trails/parking and concept drainage plan. City of Stillwater, applicant. Other Business 5. Concept Plan review for CR 15/12 Liberty Village Commercial Plans - for discussion only. 6. Update on permit allocation system. 7. Other business. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 Stillwater City and Town Joint Board October 24, 2001 Present: Town Board members David Johnson and Ken LaBoda; City Council members Terry Zoller and Wally Milbrandt; Town Planner Meg McMonigal; City Community Development Director Steve Russell; City Attorney David Magnuson Others: Sheila Marie Untiedt, Stillwater Township Chair David Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. LaBoda, moved approval of the minutes of June 21, 2001, as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. ZAM/01-24. A zoning map amendment to rezone 2.5 acres of land from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to RA, Single Family Residential, at 8160 Neal Avenue. Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choiniere, applicant. Mr. Russell briefly reviewed the request, noting that the parcel had been ghost platted by the Township. Services are available. The rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's planning commission reviewed and approved the request, and there was no one present at the planning commission's public hearing who spoke on the request. Ms. McMonigal asked there would be any change in the road jurisdiction. Mr. Magnuson responded that the entire Neal right-of-way came into the City's jurisdiction with the Oak Glen development. Mr. Zoller stated this is an example of what ghost platting is all about and moved approval of ZAM/01-24. Mr. LaBoda seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. SUB/01-47. A subdivision of a 2.5 acre lot into four lots located at 8160 Neal Ave. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choiniere, applicant. Mr. Johnson was present for both cases but did not address the Board. Mr. LaBoda, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved approval of SUB/01-47; motion passed unanimously. Other items: Update on Public Works facility — Mr. Russell explained that bids for the project came in $1 million over estimate, necessitating some changes. The roofing material will be asphalt shingle, rather than tin. The infield for the ball field will be rebid, and the prairie restoration will be rebid as a separate project; the plan will stay the same. Mr. Russell also noted development of the park may take longer, as the project will be completed in phases. Mr. Zoller noted that Stillwater City and Town Joint Board October 24, 2001 landscaping/screening was a big concern of neighbors. The landscaping/screening will remain as in the original plan, Mr. Russell said. Boutwell Study — Mr. Russell said Steve Bruggeman owns three sites in the area and has offered the City assistance in completing a plan for the area, Boutwell between 12 and 15. The City has not accepted the offer for assistance up to this point. However, he said the City is considering doing a plan in 2002. Mr. Johnson asked why City staff couldn't complete the plan; Mr. Russell stated the City doesn't have the time or resources to complete the plan. There was a brief discussion about the Town's position on possibly revising the existing restriction on the number of building permits that can be issued per year. Mr. Johnson and Mr. LaBoda said the Township is open to discussing the issue but needs a proposal from the City to react to. Palmer Subdivision — Ms. McMonigal briefly reviewed a request for a minor subdivision of a portion of the Palmer property at the southeast corner of the property adjacent to Manning Avenue and Highway 96. Included in the packet was a letter from Joe Lux, Washington County transportation planner, commenting on the proposal.. After discussion, it was the consensus that the subdivision would be OK based on current zoning in the Comprehensive Plan, large -lot, single-family, and that the issue of access would be looked at when the remainder of the property is developed. Mr. LaBoda, seconded by Mr. Zoller, moved to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 2 Memo To: Joint Board ,n From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director f -- Date: July 17, 2002 Subject: Boutwell South Area Plan The Boutwell South Area Plan was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 8, 2002. The Commission held several public meetings during the Spring identifying issues considering alternative and effect of alternatives. The plan is enclosed. Summarizing, the plan designates vacant areas, single family low density, existing developed areas remain rural residential (Figure 93). Neal Avenue is extended from Boutwell to CR 12 between Northland Avenue and Maryknoll (Figure 3). The Commission felt strongly that the Neal Avenue extension should not intersect directly with Northland or Maryknoll. Trail locations are designated through the area connecting to exiting and proposed trails and a concept plan for stormwater management is proposed (Figure #5). The concept of Neal Parkway design (Figure #6) is provided to combine the drainage, design, traffic and trail aspect of the plan. A related improvement studied in the plan was the intersection of CR 12 and Boutwell. Several design options were studied for that intersection. The plan is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requiring Joint Board approval. A related issue to the plan adoption is the permit allocation limit of 120 units per year. Recommendation: Review and comment on Planning Commission recommended plan. Attachments: Planning Commission staff reports, letters of comments and Boutwell South Area Plan. Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: July 3, 2002 Subject: Additional Traffic Information for Consideration of Neal Avenue Extension Location The Boutwell Area plan was heard at a special meeting on June 17, 2002. The plan was approved with the exception of the location of Neal Avenue. Additional traffic information was requested to consider the location of Neal Avenue. Since that meeting, Sheldon Johnson, Traffic Engineer of our plan consultant, has conducted a study and provided additional information. The study concludes: • Northland, MaryKnoll, Deerpath, and Minar will all experience some increase intraffic as generated from the build -out of Settlers Glen. These increases should not create any capacity problems along these roadways. • The Neal Extension from Boutwell to County 12 will be beneficial in reducing traffic along Minar, Northland and Boutwell from County 12 to extended Neal. Without the extension, the volumes generated by Settlers Glen would be even greater along those three roadways. MaryKnoll would probably be impacted to the same degree with or without the Neal Extension. • The additional volumes on Deerpath would probably be greater without a Neal extension, but the difference would not be substantial. • The segment of Boutwell, from County 12 to the connection with the Neal extension, will benefit greatly from the provision of that roadway. The 2,400 daily vehicles on Boutwell would be reduced by half and maybe even more. • The Neal extension, and its intersection location, will help to disperse traffic over a series of roadways south of County 12 rather than increasing traffic loads a substantial volume on one roadway. In addition to the consultant's report, a memo reviewing the Boutwell South Area Plan was received from Washington County. The consultant's and county's reports will be reviewed and discussed at the Commission meeting. Attachments: Memo from Sheldon Johnson, 6-28-02 and memo from Joe Lux, Washington County, 7-2-02. TO: Steve Russell Community Development Director FROM: Sheldon J. Johnson t DATE: June 28, 2002 RE: Settlers Glen — Neal Avenue Extension Project 510-01-109 Neal Avenue is being proposed for extension from Boutwell to County Road 12, through the Boutwell planning area. The extension is proposed to intersect with County Road 12 between the existing County Road 12 intersections with Northland Avenue and MaryKnoll Drive. The City Planning Commission has raised questions regarding this extension and how it may relate to traffic generated by the Settlers Glen housing development on the following streets: • Manning Avenue • Boutwell • MaryKnoll Drive • Northland Avenue ■ Deer Path • Minar Avenue The Settlers Glen development will provide 220 single-family residential units and 160 town home units. Directional distribution of trips generated by the development, at build out, is that provided in a previous analysis of the project. The development will generate approximately 3,000 vehicle trips per day (1,500 in; 1,500 out). The assumed directional distribution is generally as follows: ■ 55 percent to the Metro area to the east • 20 percent to the south to the commercial area along Highway 36 east of TH5 ■ 5 percent south on County Road 5 ■ 15 percent to the east to Stillwater destinations ■ 5 percent to the north 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311 Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Bonestroo Principals: Otto G Bonestroo, P.E. - Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E • Glenn R. Cook, P E. - Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. n Rosene Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. • Richard E Turner, P.E. • Susan M Eberlin, C.P.A. Anderlik & Associate Principals: Keith A Gordon, P.E. - Robert R Pfefferle, P.E. - Richard W. Foster, P.E. • David O. Loskota, P.E. - Mark A. Hanson, P.E. - Michael T Rautmann, P.E. • Ted K. Associates Field, P.E. • Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. - Mark R. Rolls, P.E. • David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. • Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. • Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. • Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. • James R. Maland, P.E. • Miles B. Jensen, P.E. - L Phillip Gravel III, P.E. Engineers & Architects Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. - Ismael Martinez, P.E. • Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. • Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove, P.E. - Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. - Robert J. Devery, P.E Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN - Milwaukee, WI - Chicago, IL Website: www.bonestroo.com MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Russell Community Development Director FROM: Sheldon J. Johnson t DATE: June 28, 2002 RE: Settlers Glen — Neal Avenue Extension Project 510-01-109 Neal Avenue is being proposed for extension from Boutwell to County Road 12, through the Boutwell planning area. The extension is proposed to intersect with County Road 12 between the existing County Road 12 intersections with Northland Avenue and MaryKnoll Drive. The City Planning Commission has raised questions regarding this extension and how it may relate to traffic generated by the Settlers Glen housing development on the following streets: • Manning Avenue • Boutwell • MaryKnoll Drive • Northland Avenue ■ Deer Path • Minar Avenue The Settlers Glen development will provide 220 single-family residential units and 160 town home units. Directional distribution of trips generated by the development, at build out, is that provided in a previous analysis of the project. The development will generate approximately 3,000 vehicle trips per day (1,500 in; 1,500 out). The assumed directional distribution is generally as follows: ■ 55 percent to the Metro area to the east • 20 percent to the south to the commercial area along Highway 36 east of TH5 ■ 5 percent south on County Road 5 ■ 15 percent to the east to Stillwater destinations ■ 5 percent to the north 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311 Given the above assumptions, an assignment of Settler's Glen generated trips has been conducted. The traffic assignment is shown on the attached graphic. The volumes shown are two-way daily volume estimates. Washington County has recently conducted some volume counts on many of the area roadways. The results of these 24-hour counts are shown on the attached graphic. From the information on the graphics the following points can be noted: ■ Northland, MaryKnoll, Deer Path, and Minar will all experience some increase in traffic as generated from the build -out of Settlers Glen. These increases should not create any capacity problems along these roadways. • The Neal Extension from Boutwell to County 12 will be beneficial in reducing traffic along Minar, Northland and Boutwell from County 12 to extended Neal. Without the extension, the volumes generated by Settlers Glen would be even greater along those three roadways. MaryKnoll would probably be impacted to the same degree with or without the Neal Extension. ■ The additional volumes on Deer Path would probably be greater without a Neal extension, but the difference would not be substantial. ■ The segment of Boutwell, from County 12 to the connection with the Neal extension, will benefit greatly from the provision of that roadway. The 2,400 daily vehicles on Boutwell would be reduced by half and maybe even more. • The Neal extension, and its intersection location, will help to disperse traffic over a series of roadways south of County 12 rather than increasing traffic loads a substantial volume on one roadway. Attachment 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 h7c- k, c 2. 12- ,73 9 I C,9,, r if — IlAd J T N -G 7-002- . VbLlotmeo ave I+ak 2 V#A L bt -S fi N 7,,.290 -rNCJCASE '3d®. oxisr� Nb) Zy_aurL 7/ZAFFIC VDZ i4rnF- 6b14NTS v G � C,9,, r if — IlAd J T N -G 7-002- . VbLlotmeo ave I+ak 2 V#A L bt -S fi N 7,,.290 -rNCJCASE '3d®. oxisr� Nb) Zy_aurL 7/ZAFFIC VDZ i4rnF- 6b14NTS l5p July 2, 2002 COUNTY Donald C. Wisniewski, P.E.WASHINGTON Director DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Donald J. Theisen, P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer & PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT James D. Luger, RLA 11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-9573 Parks Director 651-430-4300 Facsimile Machine 651-430-4350 Virginia S. Chace Administrative Services Division Manager Larry S. Nybeck, PLS -County Surveyor Deputy Director, Survey and Land Management Division Marvin Erickson Facilities Manager Sherry Buss BRAA, Inc. 2335 W. Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 BOUTWELL SOUTH AREA PLAN, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA Dear Sherry: We have reviewed the draft report of the Boutwell South Area Plan for its impact on the County's road system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The development of this area will have significant long-term effects on the area's transportation system and we appreciate the chance to voice our concerns. We have the following comments: In Section II. Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways, Streets, and Trails. Some assumptions are made about the planned reconstruction of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) which are premature: The County's current Capital Improvement Plan identifies reconstruction of Manning Avenue from Trunk Highway 36 to CSAH 12 as a 2006 project. No design has been set yet. A pedestrian trail may be located on either or both sides of the road, though if a single trail is constructed it will likely be on the east side since a portion of the trail has been built in the Liberty on the Lake development. It is highly likely, but not completely certain, that a traffic signal will be installed at the CSAH 12/CSAH 15 intersection. Reference is made to the County's efforts to regulate new driveway connections to Manning Avenue. Controlling access of all types, whether driveways or new streets will be a significant part of our design efforts, as it is crucial to preserving the safety and capacity of Manning Avenue, and the transportation system as a whole. Section II. Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways Streets, and Trails, and Figure 3, Proposed Neal Avenue Connection- Washington County has purchased the access rights of all CSAH 12 right of way between Boutwell Road and Manning Avenue. (Openings in the access control exist to accommodate existing private driveways and streets.) The connection of Neal Avenue midway between Northland and Maryknoll Avenues does not meet the County's access spacing standards and will not be allowed. Preserving capacity on CSAH 12 relies heavily on controlling access since the route does not lend itself to expanding the facility by adding lanes. In order to preserve capacity without adding through lanes, we must safely accommodate turning movements at intersections. We believe that this can be done by adding left -tum lanes at some time, in conjunction with the regular repaving of the road. To do so, we must space the intersections far enough apart to accommodate center left -tum lanes. The spacing that is shown in Figure 3 of 660 feet simply does not allow enough room to Page 2 Letter to Ms. Sherry Buss July 2, 2002 construct center left -turn lanes. We are also concerned that the three poorly spaced intersections would lead to safety issues that we would be unable to address with normal traffic controls. This comment also applies to the recommendation on Page 9 of the draft report that the connection of Neal Avenue to CSAH 12 should be in the location shown in Figure 3. • Section II also mentions; "Residents are also concerned about speeds on County Road 12, and would like the County to reduce the speed limit on this road." Speed limits are set by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation, based on the results of a speed study, not the County. The results of several speed studies on CSAH 12 indicate that the correct speed limit is in place. Section II. Existing Conditions and Issues, Roadways, Streets, and Trails, states that "Residents on the west side of the planning area expressed a preference for locating trails along County Road 15 rather than along the Brown's Creek tributary." We feel that the City should consider that trails along the creek may be significantly safer and offer trail users a much more pleasing setting than a trail along Manning Avenue. Figure 4, Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 Intersection Modifications- Any reconstruction of the Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 intersection must meet sight distance standards. Constructing Option 2 without adequate sight distance could cause an increase in year- end accidents because eastbound drivers would not have adequate time to react to left - turning vehicles. Option 1 creates unacceptable conflicts between drivers using the bypass lane at Boutwell and drivers using the same lane as a right -tum lane for Eagle Ridge Trail. It must be established whether or not a guardrail is warranted according to Federal Highway Administration standards before one can be recommended in the northeast quadrant of the Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 intersection. Traffic Analysis, Page 10- The traffic generated by development within this area combined with that generated by the Settlers Glen development north of Boutwell Road has the potential to cause significant delays. While the roadways that are studied do have the capacity to handle the traffic generated by the developments, the operation of several intersections may deteriorate to unacceptable levels. The traffic study that was submitted for the Settlers Glen development indicated that the Boutwell Road/Manning Avenue intersection would meet traffic signal warrants when that development is fully built out. That portion of the additional 3,445 vehicles per day from the Boutwell South development accessing Manning Avenue could create unacceptable delays. Furthermore, that the existing traffic on CSAH 12 has shown a tendency to produce unacceptable traffic levels on residential streets such as Deer Path tends to indicate that residents in the northeast area of the City do not view Manning Avenue as an acceptable route to businesses in the Trunk Highway 36/County Road 5 area. • Trails, Page 10- We strongly support the construction of a pedestrian underpass near the CSAH 12/Northlane Avenue intersection. • Attachments, Option 1- This is the County's preferred option for future development of the Boutwell South area. We recognize that this option is not necessitated by the development of the properties adjacent to the southerly extension of Neal Avenue, but feel that this option could be constructed in phases that accommodate the desires of adjacent property owners. Resolving sight distance deficiencies for a four -leg Page 3 Letter to Ms. Sherry Buss July 2, 2002 intersection at the Maryknoll Drive/CSAH 12 intersection would require a partnership between County and City, but would provide the best long-term solutions to access to CSAH 12. Closing the Boutwell Road/CSAH 12 intersection would help to segregate the intersection operations of Boutwell Road and Deer Path and be a significant safety improvement. We feel that this is the best long-term option to accommodating development in the Boutwell South area while preserving the integrity of the transportation system. Options 2 and 3 are also acceptable to Washington County, but we feel that Option 1 provides the City with more flexibility by providing two appropriately spaced access points to CSAH 12. Please call me at 651-4330-4312 with your comments and questions. Sincerely, loseph Lux Senior Transportation Planner c: Steve Russell, Stillwater Director of Community Development Klayton Eckles, Stillwater City Engineer Larry Hanson, Stillwater City Administrator Don Theisen, Washington County Transportation Division Director/County Engineer Don Wisniewski, Washington County Director of Transportation & Physical Development Wally Abrahamson, Washington County Commissioner, District 3 Jim Schug, Washington County Administrator MAUSERSIPMFLUX\WORDTIat Review- SblMat N3ajMvell SaAh Area Plan Draft Reportdoc Memo To: Planning Commission From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date: June 17, 2002 Subject: South of Boutwell Area Plan Tonight's meeting is the third Planning Commission public meeting on the Boutwell South Area Plan. The public hearing tonight is to review the draft plan with the intention of recommending the plan to the Joint Stillwater Township/City Planning Board and the City Council for adoption. Background: The Boutwell South Area is part of the City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan Expansion Area (see attached expansion area proposed land use plan). The area is a part of the Phase IV expansion area scheduled for annexation and development after 2015. With the exception of the Public Works Facility, Boutwell Cemetery and Rutherford Cemetery, the remainder of the study area is currently designated Rural Residential as a holding zone for future development. The Draft South of Boutwell Area Plan designates most of the vacant areas single family/low density (2-3 du's/acre). The Comprehensive Trail Plan shows trails along Boutwell, connecting Boutwell to CR 12 in two locations and along Spring Creek and the intersection of CRS 12/15 to the proposed Boutwell Cemetery Park. Several road alignments connecting Neal Avenue to CR 12 were considered. The recommneded alignment is an offset alignment intersecting wkiT Boutwell east of Neal Avenue and connecting with CR 12 between Maryknoll and Northland. The proposed connecting road incorporates the design elements of trails, greenways and wetlands to create a green roadway design. Besides land use and traffic, drainage is an area of concern. With the proposed residential land use, additional runoff will be generated and have to be managed in a way that protects Brown's Creek. The draft plan has tried to anticipate land use impacts and proposed conceptual drainage designs that will accommodate the increased drainage. The draft plan before the Commission, is the result of the existing conditions and issues reports and discussions held at the Planning Commission meetings of March 11 and April 8. Tonight, the plan is presented for comment, consideration and recommended for adoption. When adopted, the plan will provide a guide for future development of the South of Boutwell Planning Area. Recommendation: Review and approval of South of Boutwell Area Plan (resolution). Attachment: Draft South of Boutwell Area Plan As an exception to the Phasing Schedule, the Cir. may annex prop, cay not described in Phases 1. [i, or Ill by Resolution ifthe property is adjacent to the City, is petitioned. For by onehundred percent (I 00q SOL'T ofthe property owners within the area to be annexed and if the L Phase III TWIN � � _w I resulting annexation will not create a level of growth that exceeds tht } 2002 LAKE one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation. Phase IV* "r Phase I - 2015 1996 Pre Phase I j Citi Limits c tee. r Phase II 1999 ' I Eli Phase IV* 2015 1 , ek Jr 1996 Y Ill' !� Pre Phase I, City Limits ;C Phase I 1996 > tUL T LILY C S S " LAKE - Phase I �I 1 1996 Phase IV 2015 fk 36 Concerns addressed to City Planning Commission by Richard and LaVerne Schultz: / The proposed extension of Neal Avenue which cuts across our property is of concern to us as current property owners. The road extension and the park area proposed along it and between the two ponds on either side of our land appears to take over one third of our property. It is difficult to determine how much because no mention of acreage is mentioned in the report. That in itself makes us nervous, because we don't know how much land will be taken from us. We question the need for the road, and it appears the draft proposal also questions it. Please refer to the first two paragraphs on page 10. I quote, "The new Low-density Single Family land use areas proposed in this plan could generate up to 3,445 total daily trips on area roads, if the 120 acres are fully developed at the maximum 3 units per acre. The number of trips would be well within the capacity of existing area roadways, particularly when Manning Avenue (Count 15) is upgraded, and planned improvements have been completed to Boutwell Road. County 15 in this area currently carries nearly 14,000 trips on an average weekday." Also refer to page 4 of the Draft which indicates a reason not to put a road in at that location. I quote, "The existing steep grade on County Road 12 makes sight lines problematic for locating a new intersection east of Northland Avenue." It was our understanding from the former planning meetings we attended that the maj ority of residents in the area did not favor an extension of Neal Avenue. People seemed to indicate that upgrading the intersection of Boutwell Road and County 12 was the preferred method of handling the traffic flow. Our question is why the Draft Proposal is now suggesting both the upgrade of the present intersection and a new road be constructed? This does not seem to be necessary or the wish of the property owners involved. Stillwater Planning Commission: Re: South Boutwell Area Development Commission Members: I am concerned about the plans for the development of the South Boutwell Area. I feel like I've been on the wrong end of others decisions ever since I purchased my property and now I am in a similar situation as noted in the following. At purchase my original property comer was a quarter section marker. I was told that a planned road (Co. 12) if built would be south of my property line and that there would be a planned vehicle entrance at that quarter section line. Then when a planned road was constructed, I had to sell three acres of land at a set price or go to court to protest. The DNR (A. B. Jackson gave land to the DNR) wouldn't allow a then swamp to be filled in. I was told that the county would establish a new property comer. When that didn't happen, I inquired and was told it was my problem. However, I had a written promise from the county land purchaser that this would happen. I now had a new corner post and the point of view that this would be the new road entry point. Again, because Orin Thompson moved the Northland entrance West of that point the opposite entrance was given to the next property owner leaving me out again. When I sold my land for the highway, I had to sign a no ingress -egress statement. I assume that this will apply to any new roads between the current North side vehicle entry points at Northland and Maryknoll. I was also told that if Neal would be extended it would be along my West line — sharing the road width with the other property. I accepted that plan — apparently no longer a consideration. My former neighbor purchased land West of him so he could build a house there when the new Neal was built. Suggested Option: Traffic lines are now established with current development in place. The number of houses/lots East of Neal are limited in the area North of Boutwell. The next entrance West is at Minar Ave N. Cars use this route to Co. 12 as 80`h St and Manning Ave N. is a busy intersection currently. The Boutwell entrance to Co. 12 and Eagle Ridge to Co. 12 and now well established and at the last planning there was an unanimous vote to use those roads with the planned upgrade of them in the future. This would continue to serve the area North of Boutwell. With the exception of current households along Boutwell all traffic emanating from the area East of the creek and South of Boutwell to the Boutwell and Co. 12 intersection could exit from the two entrances currently in use. This would keep traffic off of Boutwell and exiting on Co. 12 from a given area. Also, it would create a neighborhood concept for the Boutwell area similar to what we know of the North Hill or South Hill. The Minar Ave N. would then be used to service the western area as there are good sight lines at Minar and Co. 12. It would be more that reasonable that the developer of that western area should have some responsibility to provide exits for the traffic they create and it would be reasonable to vent that traffic before the Neal area. The figure six plan is out of perspective. It shows a relative closeness of the two collection ponds. On an actual plot of the area, the distance between the two ponds is approximately 400 feet (see option 1 map) and not as low as and as narrow as the figure map suggests. I really believe there needs to be more communication between all parties involved in the planning manner. It is not enough to hear information and plan development that isn't what the owners directly involved are saying. The owners hopes and desires have to be considered. Thank you, for your time and consideration. Richard and La Verne Schultz 13055 Boutwell Rd. N. Carlson Wago;*t r" 1r!vel Saturday, March 23, 2002 Steve Russell and Planning Commission Members: We would like to clearly express our opinion regarding the proposed planning/development in the phase IV area as discussed an March 11th, 2002. The area is not scheduled to be (and should not be) developed until 2015 under the current agreement. This date was the direct result of years of planning — with the concurrence and testimony of hundred's of county, city and township residents and officials. Plans can bp changed when cofirfitions warrant. We do not believe most of those same people would support any change in. this date - especially one that would advance the time period by over ten years for the sole purpose of quicker development. It is beyond us why the city is even entertaining this proposal. The request for the larger parcel as proposed would not, at this time, enhance the city. It is not as though: 1. The Planning Department is "twiddling their thumbs" with nothing to do, and thus needs work to employ their paid -for talents 2. The city is suffering from lack of development of housing units. 3. The city is not utilizing its permit allotment under the plan. 4. The city and county will be in a surplus fiscal state and must find projects to invest this money in. We would suspect most area residents appreciate the look and feel of the current open space provided in phase IV area. Personally, we have no intention to develop our property. Regardless of our personal desires and preferences, the following factors nonetheless stand out as relevant: We think no one will debate that traffic volume has gotten heavier in almost every corridor of the city — that in fact it continues to get worse, not better, despite all attempts to mitigate. The city already has several major developments in progress — Me rrnal result and impact ofwhich has et to be realized In the twelve years we have been on 75 Street, County Road 12 traffic has increased tremendously as people view this as the quickest way in/out of the city from the East/West. The point is that any development in phase IV (as proposed) will affect safety and flow on County 12. Of even more significance and a greater negative impact is the contemplation of extending Neal Avenue South to County Road 12 as a "collector" street. The volume of traffic that would thence feed into Neal from Boutwell, from along existing Neal and Loc, -d Presence, Global PoweC' Carlson Wagonlit Travel • 1826 Tower Drive West • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-7513 • (612) 439-3522 • Fax (612) 439-1-46 Owned and Operated by: Tubby Lohmer's Travel Carlson Wago4fit Travel'" from McKusick Road (Orrin Thompson and Oak Glen) would be incredible. Why? We are no traffic engineers but are capable of basic logic. Human nature and physics dictates the inevitable. Peo Ie 1i*L* water 11AP take the ath of&A9 resistance (remember Deerpath?) As an example: Destination: Cub or Target. Do I work my way out to County 15 — through lights — to Highway 36 via an off ramp to more lights to Highway 5 and more lights to the destination? Or simply go via the "new" Neal Avenue onto then Maryknoll or more likely Northland, out to County 5 to Target? All of a sudden, Croixwood, like it or not, becomes a thoroughfare. If Neal were extended there would j be no way to avoid .that result. We are gsure } residents of Croixwo/o�d{�would sOur Idly LrPP—ose a' y develop i.ent Lhat 1 rquiires their residen l2. atf L.Vts to 1- cco4m arteries. Far from ■alleviating an existing major traffic problem, extension of Neal would, quite the opposite, create a problem of greater magnitude. As in the Greek Myth of Hydra, in the process of cutting off one head, you create two. We do understand the long sought after desire of a North/South artery in the city but just as tributaries can only flow downhill to the larger river, there are some forces of nature you simply cannot, or would not be wise to, try and change. We have Highway 95, Owen/Greeley Sts., and County Road 15 for North/South flow — there simply is no other topographical logistic available. In any case, we primarily feel the city should allow development to unfold in the other areas as already allowed before considering/advancing yet more development in Phase IV. It is only logical and reasonable to see firsthand how city services and traffic actually evolve and are impacted (as opposed to planned) as the build out in these other major areas is completed'. There are always unexpected circumstances that arise in any endeavor. We compare the situation to a business that perhaps, in an effort to expand, diversifies into so many areas that their core business may begin to depreciate and suffer from neglect. No one denies the right of a property owner to petition the city to be annexed - but the right of petition does not always mandate a right to be accepted. 1 he city's primary obligation is to its current residents and to thus consider this or any proposal in light of the overall benefits/detriments as it affects the quality of life for all current residents. A development is in fact a legitimate business out to make a profit. The fact that developers were willing to subsidize fifty percent of the initial "area plan" to assist themselves was not out of their benevolence for the city. Their "largesse" in service to their ultimate goal does obligate the city to consider their proposal seriously, it does NOT therefore follow though that the city must agree to their visions over and above a majority of existing residents. Sincerely, Bob and Tubby Lohmer toaal Presence, Carlson %Vagonlit Travel • 1836 Tower Drive West • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-7513 • (612) ;.?? .Fay (61_ 2 ) 439-146 Owned and Operated by: Tubby Lohmer's Trm-el Mr. Robert Hultman Chair, Stillwater Planning Commission 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 February 26, 2002 Mr. Hultman We are writing to further express our concerns the South Boutwell planning area We attended the meeting on April 8 and have a number of concerns that remain about the potential early annexation and long-term plan. Infrastructure ✓ Any development in the plan should be undertaken only after an upgrade to Boutwell and CR15. To continue to further develop the area without first upgrading these roads continues a "cart before the horse" approach that has lead to the road issues we have today. Boutwell is already a dangerous road for the many pedestrians that use it. The City Facility and development at the CR15 end of the road will only make it worse. Neither of these should have been done without first addressing the Boutwell issue. However, that is history. Certainly no further development should be added to this load. Any traffic study should also include both vehicular and pedestrian use. l believe it is only a matter of time before we have a tragedy. 2. CR15 and the CR12/CR15 intersection are already traffic issues. No further development should be done without first addressing that capacity. I know the Met Council has some concerns on this issue. I understand that CR is not scheduled for an upgrade until 2005 at the earliest. ✓ Is there truly sufficient water and sewer for another development at this time? The development at the end CR15 end of Boutwell and the continued growth in the Liberty area should be completed before any further stress on the system. Are the people in Liberty satisfied with their services? The ability to serve additional development needs to be documented and proven prior to any commitments. Land Use ✓ The land should be zoned for single family, rural — not high density. The % acre lots discussed at the meeting are not acceptable. The area is primarily rural and virtually all adjacent property owners (except those who want to sell land) want to keep it that way. Two minimum acre lots would be compatible. ✓ Any development in South Boutwell must have some strict guidelines to prevent the Woodbury -style "cookie" cutter approach. The zoning should call for significant construction diversity. ✓ The duplexes proposed by the current developer are unacceptable both from both the density and style issues. Even the developer indicated at the meeting they were the same, except for some color diversity. e Page 2 Timing May 4, 2002 ✓ We can accept and support a plan being developed at this time. It will give certainty to the future. However, the annexation and development should not occur until the planned 2015. Most of us had planned on at least another 13 years of peace before the inevitable happened. I ask the Planning Commission to honor this trust. ✓ Additionally, if this area would be annexed and developed early, how would the city handle the 120 -permit maximum? I would not expect the township to be favorable to increasing it. This needs to be addressed as part of this planning process Potential Conflict of Intent ✓ Finally, I would like to request an opinion from the City Attorney concerning the ethics of having the interested developer funding 50% of the engineering study. Although I have no evidence this has lead to any wrongdoing, it does, on the surface, raise a conflict of interest issue. Does this funding entitle the developer to more influence over the process than affected landowners? I have not yet received copies of the minutes from the April 8 meeting. I again want to request I be copied on all matters relating to the South Boutwell Annexation issue — meeting notices, minutes, etc. My understanding from the last meeting is that there will be a special meeting in June on the South Boutwell issue. Please confirm the time and date. Thank you for your consideration of our views. This is important to our neighborhood and we appreciate the opportunity to be heard. Don't hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss further. I will plan on being at the next meeting. David M. Hanson Janet L. Hanson 7960 Newbery Court N. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 430-0971 minnedad@att.net CC David Johnson Supervisor, Stillwater Township Steve Russell, Community Development Director, Stillwater MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director fj- Subject: Expansion Area Building Permit Update for 2002 Date: July 18, 2002 For calendar year 2002 building permits for 228 housing units were issued. The table below shows total expansion area building permit activity for the 1996-2002 period. The orderly annexation agreement allows building permits for 120 housing units per year or 840. Year Permits Issues Permits Allowed 1996 0 housing units 120 housing units 1997 0 housing units 120 housing units 1998 13 housing units 120 housing units 1999 104 housing units 120 housing units 2000 201 housing units 120 housing units 2001 228 housing units 120 housing units 2002 53 housing units 120 housing units Total 599 housing units 840 housing units With the approval of the Settlers Glen Project (380 housing units) permit activity may increase in 2002-2003. Recommendation: Receipt of annual building permit report. Attachments: Orderly Annexation Section 4.01 SECTION FOUR TEMONG OF ANNEXATION OF PHASES 4.01 Under no circumstances will the growth in the Orderly Annexation Area exceed a cumulative total of 120 dwelling units per calendar year measured from the year 1996 as year one. This limitation shall apply to the issuance of building permits. Thee City shall provide a written report to the Joint Board on July 15 and January 15 of each year commencing in 1997 identifying the number and location of building permits for new residential dwelling units issued during the previous six months. 4.02 Phase I property will be annexed to the City after the execution of this Agreement. The Municipal Board shall order annexation of the Phase I property within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Joint Resolution. 4.03 Phase II property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 1999. 4.04 Phase III property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota Municipal Board any time after January 1, 2002. 4.05 Phase IV property may be annexed by the City filing a Resolution with the Minnesota . Municipal Board any time after January 1, 2015. 4.06 The City may annex Phase II property prior to January 1, 1999 provided that the accelerated growth does not exceed the one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation. 4.07 The City may annex Phase III property prior to January 1, 2002 provided that: a) the accelerated growth does not exceed the one hundred and twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation; and b) that seventy-five percent (75 %) of the net developable area of Phase I property annexed to the City has been platted and developed into occupied residential dwellings. 4.08 The City is free to deny an annexation or extend the timing of a phase at any time at its sole discretion. This Agreement does not confer any rights upon any individual property owner to require the City to annex his or her property. -� 4.09 As an exception to the Phasing Schedule, the City may annex property not described in Phases I, II or III by Resolution if the property is adjacent to the City, is petitioned for by one hundred percent (100%) of the property owners within the area to be annexed and if the resulting annexation will not create a level of growth that exceeds the one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per year limitation. 35667.01F 05/23/96 -4- MEMO To: Joint Board From: Steve Russell, Community Development Director!' Date: July 18, 2002 Subject: Information for Review on County Road 12 and 15 Village Commercial Attached for your early review and comment is the concept plan for the Village Commercial at the corner of County Road 12 and 15. The site plan and building design will be presented at the meeting for Board information, comment and review. The Village Commercial Design guidelines and Village commercial zoning regulation are also attached. Recommendation: Review and comment for action required at this time Attachments: Village Commercial Plans ORDINANCE NO. 830 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, CHAPTER 31 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW DISTRICT ENTITLED "VILLAGE COMMERCIAL" The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: 1. The Stillwater City Code, Chapter 31, Zoning Ordinance is amended to add a new zoning district. A new subdivision entitled "Subd. 23. VC Village Commercial District" is added to the City Code that will hereafter read as follows: t "Subd. 23. VC VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. 1. PURPOSE: To provide a local center for convenience shopping and personal services primarily in proximity to a residential neighborhood. 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED: No building, structure, land or premises may be used and no building or structure may be directly constructed, except for the following uses, that are permitted by Special Use Permit: a. Local convenience retail business or service establishment, such as grocery, fruit and vegetable store, bakery, drugstore, general store, barber and beauty shop, clothes cleaning and laundry pickup station, business and professional office and the like, supplying commodities or performing services for residents of the immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas. b. Day Care/Nurseries. C. Medical and dental offices. d. Parking facilities. e. Professional, editorial, real estate, insurance and other general business offices. f. Residential Uses - Second Level. g. Tea rooms, deli, coffee shops and soda fountains, not including the sale of alcoholic beverages. h. Service stations. i. Other uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. j. Other use or service establishment determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the foregoing specially permitted uses and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties may be permitted. 3. HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS: The maximum height of buildings and structures and the minimum dimensions of lots and yards are as follows: 1 a. Maximum height: It. Principal structures - 35 feet/2 stories Accessory structures - 20 feet/1 story b. Minimum lot area: 10,000 net square feet when not within a P.U.D. C. Front yard: 50 feet when not within a P.U.D. d. Rear yard: 25 feet when not within a P.U.D. e. Building and Imperious surfaces: 60% when not within a P.U.D. f. Landscaping and open space: 40% when not within a P.U.D. g. Additional setback requirements: When a property within this district is directly across a street or thoroughfare or adjacent to any residential district, all parking and loading facilities must be at least twenty feet from the property line and buildings and structures at least twenty feet from the street. The setback space must be permanently landscaped. h. Other requirements: All uses shall be conducted wholly within completely enclosed buildings, except for service stations, parking facilities and other outdoor uses when appropriately located and designed as approved by the Planning Commission. 4. DESIGN PERMIT: A design review permit is required for all village commercial uses. The country village architectural and design guidelines, set forth in Exhibit "E" to the Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City and Town of Stillwater dated August 16, 1996, are the standards that must be applied to this design review. 5. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: These development requirements may be modified based on an acceptable planned unit development for the .entire village commercial district area." In all other ways, the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. 2 Exhibit "E" Country Village Architectural and Site Design Guidelines Goal: Create high-quality country village consisting of country store with fuel, country school (daycare) and other village scale professional services. The building shall have a related though not identical village residential character. Architectural Style: Gable roofs are preferred. ,Architectural detailing should be consistent with the style of the structure selected. Materials: Brick, stone, painted or natural architectural cedar or red wood siding are to be used as exterior materials or high grade reduced maintenance materials that will achieve the same exterior appearance goals as natural materials may be used. The roofing shall be heavier weight asphalt shingles or cedar shingles or high-grade reduced maintenance materials that will achieve the same exterior appearance goals as the natural materials may be used. Building Design: No franchise or prototypical commercial building design shall be allowed. The village area shall have a unique rural character related to its surroundings: Canopies: Pump area canopies shall be of a subdued design consistent with the building design and materials. Any under -canopied lighting shall be recessed and not show the light source from off the service area. Building Orientation: The country village will be visually and functionally connected to the immediate neighborhood, be accessible but not visually prominent from County Road 12 and 15. Building Setback: 50' from County Road 12 or 15 Parking or paved Streets or Driveways: 20' from public right of way for County Road 12 or 15 (if bermed and landscaped) Lot Coverage: 60 percent maximum building and hard surface coverage. EXHIBIT E Building Height: 35' to gable peek Road and Parking Configuration: The preferred configuration is one of curved and angled orientation Landscaping:- 40 percent minimum of the land area shall be in permanent maintained landscaping, open spaces and natural wetlands. Areas around building shall be planted with hearty species of deciduous and coniferous Mock and should assists in blocking sight lines of parking facilities and highlight attractive architectural features in a landscaped setting. Screening. Parking areas that can be viewed from adjacent roads or residential areas shall be screened with a combination of deciduous and coniferous planting and berming. Signage: Commercial signs are to be placed on linear walls, composed of -the same materials and bearing a similar design theme to the building being identified. Interchangeable tenant identification will be provided but if internally lit must show lit letters only, not letter backgrounds. Preferred building identity signage is by cut out letters of durable materials, mounted on the above mentioned walls, lit with internal backfacing lighting or reflective lighting from ground, wall or tree mounted spots. Spot lights must not provide glare to adjacent roadways or perimeter residential uses. Identity monument type freestanding country village signs without tenant identification consistent with the village design and material may be allowed along County Road 12 and 15 and at the residential roadway entrance. Utilities: All utilities will be underground and HVAC equipment will be screened from view. Roof mounted units will be screened via roof configuration, wall extensions either vertical or horizontal. All trash areas shall be completely enclosed and screened from view by a structure of a design compatible in design to village building and perimeter landscape. Lighting: Site lighting selected to minimize visibility and glare from residential areas. Overall site light levels will be achieved by a blend of streets and parking lights not to exceed 20' in height. Walkway lighting, building lighting, site amenity, sign lighting and vegetation lighting shall be reviewed to make sure it is compatible with the residential quality of the neighborhood. LIBERTY VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL IMAGERY OF THE "SHOPS ON THE SQUARE" PROFESSIONAL /RETAIL BUILDINGS Liberty on the Lake Contractor Property Developers Company. Homer Tompkins, Pres. Planning, landscape Architecture & Design by: Putman Planning and Design Architectural Concepts by: SALA Architects, Paul Hannan July 1z, zoos x7 fi rt 11U, �2_ __ �. .7-. ZTV� RM �, 01" • LxTr It r. Furl =Mmi� I - 1! ---: a Id.•A 1 7 = Ir— �41 ;; •�n" I.iz A!,, - .m �a ?4; moo" Tw • jW.. PAU•••10 J I Ra Mum - tip ::Amm ----------- -17 r s Lj U -MA U", 71 Qw 77, MEMO -MA I smog"= sr.-11AMWA loramm 'Ell ■ SIE SIM fi 1P r :' ys .�.'PS 'r _. !j ^t'� � '. arm:. �,,- �� 4 � s I to awl jri-";,.v j1I, m -•r 7l IT, Y. 71, 77 Zk- *iE ,firbou "I A-1 f4il '"' m cn, gm, mgz G ua,�Aa' 4V-. --a Jl- ir MOMM T -,z -AGME fyi 'gill IML pr.r, - � j all Z T1 a) M 00 iM O O N h 11 POND 1\ BUILDING 6 SETTLER'S WAY BUILDING 7 TI n M 13, 56,368± sq.ft. NNW PUTM N , NN N DEf4�.f. 7100 NORTHLAND CIRCLE, SUITE 108 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55428 PHONE: 793.971.0477 FAX: 793.971.1576 LIBERTY VILLAGE PRELIMINARY DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN TRANSMITTED 0 2002 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN �}, .p.yLul N Dom... Dd,...h b P<iy. lDP6 D1 I'.cw, h. tuDu. paxn.e y uiru� iui +�pq yYr L . A� iryWe n mm�i Ion No copy of elle. copyhl dlFoa gipiulon liom DPdD-DDI.i dkm b.... • 1. DATI 1401I SITE PLAN BUILDINGS 6&7 Wt....d Nnlwul l..i.n. t..j1Aw...u. I...c1A Dne: Euu..: urbp r r =1 — p—q too_ DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN TRANSMITTED 0 2002 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN �}, .p.yLul N Dom... Dd,...h b P<iy. lDP6 D1 I'.cw, h. tuDu. paxn.e y uiru� iui +�pq yYr L . A� iryWe n mm�i Ion No copy of elle. copyhl dlFoa gipiulon liom DPdD-DDI.i dkm b.... • 1. DATI 1401I I - -- r-- ERWIN I I _ - -- r / ENGINEERING INPUT PjLA [+'` NG 8-20-2001, TA AND SHOWS VILLAGE COS CONCEPT SITE PLAN MMERCIAECTS CL CITY DEPTROM ORIGINLIBERTY `— DCS 1GN- S, ON THE LAKE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DATING FROM 11-17-1997. PARKING AND PONDING MAY REQUIRE MINOR REFINEMENT. vsw.{„rlik+w 1., lnrl;•�s a � +� I 1 •� .fit - _ I � I I _ ,.. fILWa.:+9sanrnaan' v r•r A. y — .n P�mapluWludduy. eee_ 1 Narb lwd . Y a � 7 Suk. 108 CJRb f v ^ . , ' 7 /� .••� lo, r `..q EF MinnoMN I w 41�4� 854285420 a ;• S / ti+ y' i Phone 787 a77 .y! Nom• I�. � � � �!< µy�� / � � Fait: 7&7,W1,1571.1678 I I *• ,`�� Vii(! � , � .. , � 4 � � .. � I �•,. �/,r^ k s I� � � 1 ` — �i -: viii -040- 45 L I B E R T Y I a s - V I LLA G E • . LIBERTY ON r THE LAKE CONCEPT PLANTING P L A N 4 ,JD - 't�7'- ”. • i Ins J P..I...xw ayrhA.6 uei ,.ta' •� K , M1• r }. ~yrs• - -.� ,. _ '� .r � I J"��— 1 I N— M.. - } - `4' •!'\ ` _ ,,Ir 'y %% '14 1. `'� D..: H IN,OWN4 NUM Z. . I � L` � ya \• . - ,' M1'1 �4` -ter' 11 1 EAH9kffSED t 4 9 \ yI 0 2002 PU TW"i4 PLANNIKG & DESIG\ ,+ f' • _ I3. K' `� J 00D. p— ayy ,kyr/ry 1 y, �' -•� I f rtI "+tai - Slrtn r.mMlfn Atf qia .n lm...i i , I7D apr ei .Il.r roan n. n�bea acne oleo Iron DDW DATE fiD DDI o clew "bmr Vkl 00 'J a — r �.. ! N 0- �lvo Ns" -° --r v_, O o� v, -0 =i O _� > Z > >O I m O m r Cu O 0 0 Lon nrn m nxz�„ •,v , �rvrnGl > m r- o C -u 0 Cn mm f -v2z-rm-� < 0 z 0 z o W _ Z� o r1 0 mVI o p -� z ti D Ln r r y p m C D c � r p Z � � � ' 6 , b - r Z -w >O Cr _ CMN -r-Irrrr Lon nrn •,v co C o0 r 0 z z m o p = Z o p -� C) D Ln r p m C D = Z � � O Ok W 0 I !¢��►,34 Mimi\ � � co i;� �:-0--1 �n >00� =�-o�yy r =OK2� -� r C zpmmm Em �OOpO N n� m > 00 arvmGl Z V Z Z mxo�00 z -< m m ✓� N _< ,Gz) -, 570 o z ° - C) z o Or 00 m z � I M m r T M c r, L z D 1 m - r �, z 2 mr)r� N n� m > 00 Do z v ,Gz) = o C) �J Lon m I M m M O T M c r, or tiR ~rr� �/. OKI +� r�