Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1994 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 26 , 1994 GOALS/OBJECTIVES SESSION Location: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 4 : 00 p.m. 2) Introduction by the Mayor and City Administrator 3] Public Comments (limit of 5 minutes/issue) 4) Discussion on the use of TIF Funds/Community Center/Chaska Interceptor 5] Break/supper 6] Financial Issues 7] Growth Issues 8] Organization Issues 9] Break 10] Prioritizing (Top, High, Medium) 11] Adjourn at 10: 00 p.m. to April 27th at 5: 30 p.m. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator NOTE: The joint meeting with the Jackson Township Board has been set for Wednesday, May 4th at 5: 30 p.m. ) Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Council, meeting in the Committee of the Whole FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator DATE: April 21, 1994 RE: C.O.W. Work Session--April 26, 1994 It is anticipated that the C.O.W.'s upcoming work session will have many positive impacts on the functioning of the City's organization including, but not limited to the following: Efficiency: Since the Council will identify the issues it intends to undertake in the remainder of this 2 year term, Staff will not spend time preparing background on issues the Council has indicated it does not have a desire to undertake. Accountability: There will be an expectation within the Community that the City Council will do all that it can to resolve the issues identified prior to December 1995. The City Council may also decide to implement procedures that ensure the Staff is dedicating sufficient resources to the fulfillment of priorities identified by the C.O.W. including the review of annual work programs. Coordination: The work program will form a common framework for all departments to work under and facilitate better coordination of activities to resolve the priority issues. Urgency: Due to the timeframe and the Council direction, identified issues will immediately move up to very high priority levels. April 26 Meeting The meeting on April 26, 1994 is intended to be an opportunity for the Committee to discuss major issues with a minimum of outside distraction. A number of steps have been taken to facilitate this process: 1. The tone of the meeting will be kept much more informal than a traditional C.O.W. meeting. 2. Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner, will function much like an outside facilitator to allow the Mayor and City Administrator to participate more fully in the discussion. 3. Public input will be limited to brief statements prior to the C.O.W. discussing any issues. 4. Department heads will not make any formal presentations, but will be available for answering questions or making comments as deemed necessary by the C.O.W. To facilitate the process, a summary of the issues that were identified in the survey of the Council and department heads is attached. In some instances, identified issues were grouped under a common issue statement. The "Possible Scope" section was created to provide some explanation of the broad range of activities that could be undertaken as part of each priority issue. It is anticipated that the actual scope will be determined at a later date when the C.O.W. begins to undertake the resolution of each issue and therefore need not be discussed excessively at the April 26th meeting. Final i_alls es: 1. Develop policies for TIF Districts Possible Scope: - Please see attached memo 2. Resolve the Community Center issue Possible Scope: - Please see attached memo 3. Develop comprehensive policies for Capital Improvement Planning and Budgeting Possible Scope: - Acceptable uses for each fund - Establishment of minimum levels of service for each system (sewers, streets etc.) - CIP Prioritization Procedures Expansion vs. Rehabilitation expenditures - Urban vs. Rural Expenditures - 1 or 2 year planning cycle - Assessment policies (alleys, sidewalks, off-site improvements, other) Growth Issues: 1. Develop policies for funding the Chaska Interceptor Possible Scope: - Identify funding/payback mechanisms Decide the degree to which the City will facilitate payback by actively directing development (through MUSA expansions, capital improvements etc.) away from undeveloped areas that will not be served by the new interceptor; East-West growth issue - Report on actions by other cities in similar situations 2. Create a comprehensive Downtown redevelopment strategy Possible Scope: - Update current Downtown Plan goals, objectives and policies to clearly identify the desired degree of City involvement - Identify any need for additional planning of the Downtown area and which issues, if any, should be restudied - Identify sources of funds - Identify other implementation tools that are acceptable (incentives, eminent domain, enforcement actions, public development, etc.) and conditions, if any, that must be met prior to their use 3. Undertake a Fire Station Location Study to serve the future needs of the City Possible Scope: - Develop minimum level of service criteria for urban and rural areas - Identify future growth areas and preferred station site(s) over the next 20 years to maintain the minimum level of service Examine functionality of current station Identify other facility support needs (training facilities etc.) - Prepare alternative plans and phasing - Identify fiscal impact of each alternative plan 2 4. Examine the Police and Public Works facility's ability to serve the future needs of the City Possible Scope: - Develop minimum level of service criteria for each department Identify the preferred location(s) to serve the estimated growth over the next 20 years while maintaining the minimum level of service of each department Examine the functionality of current location and facility - Compatibility with surrounding uses Prepare alternative plans and phasing - Identify fiscal impact of each alternative plan 5. Create a formal process for coordination of development activities with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Possible Scope: - Coordination of planning activities - Inter-governmental agreement - Shared cost provisions for services Identify common interests 6. Create an annexation policy Possible Scope: - What makes an annexation beneficial to the City Establish an annexation timeline Acceptable techniques to use for encouraging annexation 7. Standardize policies on development exactions Possible Scope: - Identify the purpose and exemptions for all development exactions - Are there new areas the City would like to pursue dedication fees (trails, regional stormwater, etc.) - Procedure simplification/clarification 3 Organization Issues: 1. Approve and begin implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update Possible Scope: - Update Goals, Objectives and Policies - Update projected land use map - Identify staged MUSA expansion areas and priorities - Resolve East-West growth issues - Begin review of City Codes and procedures to ensure conformance with the Comprehensive Plan 2. Develop a position on affordable housing Possible Scope: - The level of responsibility the City will undertake, if any - Define the purpose of the HRA - Create Goals, Objectives and Policies - Preferred implementation techniques (Sec. 8, housing rehabilitation funds, construction, etc.) - Revenue source(s) to be used - Comparison to other similar cities 3. Update the City's Subdivision Regulations Possible Scope: - Identify inconsistencies with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan - Identify sections or procedures that are problematic for the City and the development community Compare Shakopee's standards to other similar communities in the Metro Area 4. Develop a consultant policy Possible Scope: Develop criteria for determining when a consultant may be used Identify when City Council approval of consultant is necessary 4 5. Develop a capital equipment purchase policy Possible Scope: - The size of purchase requiring City Council approval - Criteria for prioritizing capital equipment purchase proposals 6. Clarify City Code enforcement policies Possible Scope: - The conditions necessary for the City to seek out violators - Effectiveness of current practices 7. Support Scott County's efforts to create a geographic information system (GIS) Possible Scope: - Identify the role of the City - Identify funding sources and timing - Identify desired level of service 8. Create a volunteer recognition policy Possible Scope: Compensation for the Planning Commission - Recognition of other volunteers 9. Create a City Newsletter Possible Scope: - Identify content, frequency, responsibility 5 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: C.O.W. Agenda Item #6 - Financial Issues DATE: April 26, 1994 Attached is background information for C.O.W. Agenda Item #6 - Financial Issues #1 & #2 . TO: tennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Chaska Interceptor Funding :ATE: March 14, 1994 Introduction City Council has requested funding scenario's for the Chaska Intercep or. — 3ackaro=ndand The goal is to minimize the impact of the cost of CI project on tax payersaysnand rate payers while providing funding for the Chaska interceptor (CI) , Center (CC) and downtown streetscape. of undcil and staff onumerous of occasions balance rinithedfund.status additionTIF totheTrust Fund and the possibleprepared a list of projects listed below, the Ass't City Administrator has possible uses of the balance in thepTIF Trust that ark improvements. $2,000,000 for block 3 and 4, and $775,000 for Io order to save iollist for planning theand use of the TIF Trust balance. want The todi establish a priority discussion on this issue easily turns into a ThecissuelatlhandsissthenCIlsince no firm direction set for projects or funding. Council has committed tpro•ectsect underddiscussion areowntown e notaPe is firmed up virtually also what a commitment. The otherprojects the project entails or the cost. With that being said, the information following is basedilon theossassump ionnt at these three projects are the top priority g scenario's for1st Ave. . All optionsthat assume0that0of TIF is$4,000,000 used for downtown he CC, assume a valid number foreetscape onn 1 for the CI in 1994, $3,500,000 is a valid number for the CC and ti revenu ro'ections are reasonable. A No impact ren taxes/rates due to CI Option 1. Use TIe CCrinh1995.1nThis4s option downtown and timing 1996 and a• million te CIcash flow for the shortagee uldhneed to bescover d by calculations. another GOTIFb bond issue for shortag the 1995 to 2000 time frame. Option 2 for all of the CI, counting on Use capital appreciation bonds to pay t enon collection of trunk/connection charges to make debt service payments s starting in ten years. This would free up including Block 3/4, more for CC or closing uld not TIF ddistricts. collected risk is that fees taxesk have to make debt service enough so that taxes or rate payers payments. Option 3 Use capital appreciation bonds for half of the CI project and TI for half, relying on collection of trunk chap ss connectit ng onn fees within ten years to make debt service payor years. The risk from option 2 is cut in half. B. Current rate/tax imoact Option 4 Use MWCC debt for all of the CI project, relying on either property tax levy or sewer rates to make current debt service payments. Using MWCC debt for $4,000,000 would equate to an 16% increase in sewer rates to make int w ^3d need to ents the befirst funded for year s5 and . A $1,000,000 principal payment o every fifth year thereafter. Once trunk/connection fees are received, they could replace the need for tax/rate payers making debt service payments. Option 5 Use MWCC debt for half of the CI project, relying on either property tax levy or sewer rates to make current debt service payments. Using MWCC debt for $2,000,000 would equate to an 8% increase in sewer rates to make interest payments the first four+ years. Use TIF to prepay the first $2,000,000 in principal payments. This would rely on collection of trunk/connection fees to make the principal payments in year 15 and 20. Option 6. Increase size of referendum bond issue (use less TIF) for CC or for CC/park projects. Taxpayers can vote for what they want to spent with income tax deductible property tax dollars. This would leave more money for Block 3/4 and park projects. Recommendation The recommendation is to spend TIF money first for the whole project cost of the CI. This is a committed project and other projects are not at this point. The balance of TIF available, the CIF and potential future debt will probably fund new projects as Council determines over time. Attached is a new set of TIF projections based on certain assumptions. Counsel is preparing TIF plan amendments to accommodate current cost projections. Action Requested Move to fund the cost of the Chaska Interceptor with tax increment funds. of the Scott County Recorder; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 57 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 1 5.50 feet e00 the point of seconds of Parcel B to be described; thence Northdegrees West 225.35 feet; thence northerly 700.00 239. feet afeetg a central angleal ocurve,9 concave to the West, having a radius o degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds, and the chord of said curve bears North 10 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East to a point on the south line of Jasper and Smith Addition to Shakopee, according to the plat on file in the office of said Scott County Recorder; thence South 84 degrees 03 minutes 11 seconds East 113.64 feet to the southeast corner of said Jasper and Smith Addition to Shakopee; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes 33 seconds East, along the southerly extension of the east line of said Jasper and Smith Addition to Shakopee, a distance of 382.20 feet to the point of beginning of said Parcel B. and various parcels for park purposes. In addition, the City may acquire the following parcels in aid of redevelopmentof the downtown area: Lots 2 through 5, Block 4, Original Shakopee Plat, and Lots 1 through 5, Block 3, Original Shakopee Plat. Subsection 1.7: Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Supportive Data Add at the end: The following described public improvements the location of which is shown on Exhibit I-F: Shakopee Community Center Project (Exhibit I-F, Site A) Public Redevelopment Costs: 1. Land Acquisition - S350,000.00 City Utilized Cap. Impr. Fund to acquire in 1993 2. Civic Center Building Construction - $8,000,000.00 3. Site Preparation a. Grading - $150,000.00 b. Utilities (Sewer, Water, Electric etc.) - S200,000.00 c. Parking Lot - S150,000.00 d. Athletic Fields and Open Space - $100,000 Shakopee Pool Improvement Project (Exhibit I-F, Site B) Public Redevelopment Costs: 1. Replace Water Slide - $100,000.00 -6- 2. Develop Drainage Collection System - $25,000.00 Shakopee Trail Improvement Project (Exhibit I-F, Site C) Upper Valley Trail Extension Project - $250,000 Traah Park Improvement Project (Exhibit I-F, Site D) 1. Grandstand Improvement Project - $50,000.00 2. Grandstand Concession/Restrooms - $100,000.00 3. Parking Lot Expansion and Repairs - $100,000.00 4. Trapah Park Expansion and Development - $150,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Interceptor (Exhibit I-G) - S4,000,000 Downtown Redevelopment: 1. Land Acquisition - S1,400,000 2. Demolition - $250,000 3. Relocation - $250,000 4. Public Improvements - $100,000 5. Administration - $50,000 The above-described improvements will be financed by a combination of general obligation bonds, general obligation improvement bonds, tax increment bonds or tax increments, and special assessments and connection charges. Set forth below is a summary of all public and private projects within the Project Area with respect to which public redevelopments costs have been or are expected to be incurred, the amount expended as of March 1, 1994, and the amount remaining to be expended: —7— Future Total Project Costs Expended Costs Costs Land Acquisition/Writedown K-Mart $1,139,468 S $1,139,468 Highrise 126,550 126,550 Canterbury 3,300,000 3,300,000 FMG 372,445 617,555 990,000 Subtotal 4,938,463 617,555 5,556,018 Site Improvements K-Mart 1,766,737 1,766,737 MEBCO 157,984 157,984 FMG 706,396 706,396 Block 3&4 2.000,000 2,000,000 Subtotal 1,924,721 2,706,396 4,631,117 Public Improvements K-Mart 1,837,405 1,837,405 Highrise Offsite 187,484 187,484 Canterbury Offsite 2,916,914 . 2,916,914 Downtown Streetscape I 2,779,435 2,779,435 South Bypass 1,003,786 30,000 1,033,786 169 Bridge/junction 1,942,931 20,000 1,962,931 Storm Drainage 4,685,840 500,000 5,185,840 FMG 88,497 88,497 Downtown Streetscape II 500,000 500,000 Chaska Interceptor 4,000,000 4,000,000 Community Center 3,500,000 3,500,000 Park Improvements 775,000 775,000 Subtotal 15,442,292 9.325,000 24,767,292 —8— \hi\ � ` a/ Administrative Costs Debt Service 282,038 40,000 322,038 Downtown 110,819 110,819 169 Bridge/junction 2,314 2,314 HRA 210,580 210,580 City 439,000 439,000 FMG 59,881 59,881 Block 3 & 4 50,000 Subtotal 1,104,632 90,000 1,144,632 Total Project Costs $23,410,108 S12,738,951 $36,099,059 Section XI: Modification to Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 in Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 The existing Tax Increment Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 in the Project Area are amended as follows: 1. The objectives of the Authority for the improvement of the Project are as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended. 2. The development program for the Project shall be as set forth in Section I of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended. 3. The property in the Project Area proposed to be acquired by the Authority or the City is as set forth in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended. 4. The descriptions and type of development reasonably expected to occur in the Project Area include industrial, commercial, secretarial and housing development, as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended. 5. Estimates of (a) the total public costs of Project (exclusive of interest not capitalized), the amount heretofore expended, and the amount remaining to be expended; (b) the amount of bonded indebtedness incurred to pay Project costs, the amount thereof remaining outstanding, and the estimated amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred to pay Project costs; (c) the amount of public costs of the Project paid or to be paid directly or indirectly from tax increments and other sources (other than bond proceeds and exclusive of interest not capitalized); (d) the initial and most recent net tax capacity in each —9— n; and (e) the district, and the estimated tax capacity ase t forthlon�he attached ExhibittXI-A. ed termination date of each district; is as 6. The City's alternate estimates of the impact of tax increment financing on the net tax capacities of all taxing jurisdictions in which the tax increment financing districts are located is as follows: ;sty of Shakopee, Minnesota amendments to Tax Increment Financing Districts 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 :stimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report i4:-out ;,'h 1=A- c-e^ts 1=;-�-crre^:s -ycothet:cal New F_tair.ed i-ypot=el cal Hypothetical -ax Generated •993194 1993;94 1993/94 Captured New Ad._ d De'_o se t In brad gyred •Retaireci . Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax N.T.C. Taxing Net Tax LOBaCapacity Capacity Tax Pate Tax Rate -- J_nsdict o' Ga?ac:l Tax Rase Capacity P�} — ;:,. �fi?of Sr•akcpee 9,327.570 27.104% 9.327,870 0 9.327.570 27.106% O Q00'fa 3 3cCi County 34.161,'=0 45475% 34,161,150 0 34.161.153 48.475% 0.000% C .. 0 9.9�G.534 55 543% 0.000% 0 • SD#720 9.930.534 55.54C% 9.9..0,694 ___ -- 5.327% --- 0 ___ 5.327% --- 7.her{1} - 144.446% Toy is 146.446% Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TiF District was hypothetically available to each of Statement 1: If the projecteda 3cal Ad;:sled Tax Rate above) the taxing jurisdictions above,the result would be a lower local tax rate (see rly; • which wo.Jid produce the same amour.t of taxes for each taxing jurisd:Con. In s.rcr a case.the total local tax rate •would de:rerse by 0.000% (see Hypothetical De:ease in Local Tax F.ate above). The hypothetical tax that the Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TF District would generate is also shown above. Statement 2: S•nce the pro:soled Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TF Dist'id;s no:available to the taxing jurisd;ctions, then the•e is no impact on taxes levied or local tax rates. • (1) The impact on these taxirg jurisdic.-ons is negligible since they represent only 3.64%of the trio'tax rate. • • Prepared.29-Mar-94 -10- EXHIBIT XI-A A Projected Cost Total 36,099,059 Prey. Exp. 23,410,108 To be Exp. 12,738,951 B Indebtedness Total Issued 34,185,000 14 111 5 *LI Amount Outstanding 10,540,000A4"2 V o ^ �� Amount to be Issued 3,500,000 �-1 ( 5 - CS'"""lel, Types of Indebtedness GO Tax Increment 25,045,000 Tax Increment Revenue 12,640,000 C Financing - Other Sources By Source Tax Increment 34,092,938 Sp. Assessment 266,670 Real Estate Sales 1,159,468 State Aid 579,983 D Net Tax Capacity Original TIF #2 194 TIF #3 9,980 TIF #4 7,343 TIF #7 1,479 TIF #9 543 Most Recent TIF #2 33,678 TIF #3 26,908 TIF #4 177,053 TIF #7 38,058 TIF #9 375,062 At Completion TIF #2 33,678 TIF #3 26,908 TIF #4 177,053 TIF #7 38,058 TIF #9 375,062 XI-A-1 E District Termination Date TIF #2 2004 TIF #3 2002 TIF #4 1994 TIF #7 1998 TIF #9 1999 XI-A-2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Property Values DATE: April 22 , 1994 Per your request, the following information is submitted. The tax capacity information sheets prepared by the county with information on 1994 taxes are not available yet. This information is from the pay 1993 data sheets. 1. Scott County valuation was $41, 124, 430. Shakopee value was $14 , 669, 065 which is 36% of the county value. 2 . ISD 720 value was $15, 180, 011. Shakopee value in ISD 720 was $13 ,759, 681 which is 91% of the total ISD 720 value. 3 . 94% of Shakopee value was in ISD 720 and the remaining 6% was in ISD 191. 4. ae p 0rwa �h (4 "i" r_ 4.11660/ 000 0 0 /1 - Project Cost Summary Shakopee Community Center $9,100,000 Shakopee Ice Arena $1,200,000 Fire Station $1,200,000 Community Center/Ice Arena Land Acquisition $ 500,000 Gross Cost $12,000,000 City Contribution from Designated Fund Balances - 4,000,000 (Tax Increment funds - $3,500,000 Capital Improvement Fund - $500,000) Net Bond Referendum $ 8,000,000 Estimated Tax Impact . iyt I I , 1100_000 12 °°0'; YEARLY $65.00 $85.00 $107.00 $135.00 MONTHLY $ 5.41 $ 7.08 $ 8.91 $ 11.25 i`iTi',-Tel. r i i tixi:p1 t" ITI I l,_ YEARLY $107.00 $160.00 $535.00 MONTHLY $ 8.91 $ 13.33 $ 44.58 g_P ��AI I LW P Y: I I IU: YEARLY $160.00 $267.00 $730.00 MONTHLY $ 13.33 $ 22.25 $ 60.83 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Request for Recreational Facility Funding DATE: April 22 , 1994 INTRODUCTION: Over the past year much discussion has taken place regarding the need for community recreation facilities. On March 28 , 1994 the Shakopee Park and Recreation Advisory Board moved to recommend to City Council that $5 million be allocated from either/and/or the Tax Increment Trust Fund balance or the Capital Improvement Fund for developing recreational facilities on the property recently acquired by the City of Shakopee adjacent to the Shakopee Senior High School. BACKGROUND: Last year the City of Shakopee residents rejected an $8 million referendum to construct a community center and fire station. The package proposed at that time also allocated $3 . 5 million from the City's Tax Increment Trust Fund balance to cover costs associated with the project. A Citizens Committee has been meeting to discuss possibilities for resurrecting plans for constructing a community center. The options developed by the Citizens Committee were discussed at the March 28 , 1994 Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Neither the Citizens Committee or the Park and Recreation Advisory Board can come to a firm consensus on what type of recreational facilities should be pursued at this time. However, the Shakopee Park and Recreation Advisory Board is in unanimous consensus that funding for potential recreational facilities should be allocated at this time. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board believes that the recreational facility needs far exceed the amount of resources currently available to the City. This being the case, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously moved to recommend to City Council that $5 million be allocated from either/and/or the Tax Increment Trust Fund or the Capital Improvement Fund to develop recreational facilities on the City property adjacent to the Shakopee Senior High School. TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 27 , 1994 - WEDNESDAY - Location: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 5: 30 p.m. 2] Approval of Minutes: March 29th and April 12th, 1994 3 ] Communication from Bev Koehnen regarding setbacks for excavating and processing 4 ] Proposed Zoning Ordinance - Start with Sec. 11. 62 , Driveways (page 95) and go through the rest of the ordinance in order 5] Adjourn at 8: 00 p.m. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 29, 1994 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 P.M. with Councilmembers Lynch, Dirks, Beard and Sweeney present . Also present were Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S . Cox, City Clerk; and Lindberg Ekola, City Planner. Lynch/Beard moved to approve the minutes of March 1, 1994 . Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the zoning ordinance. In keeping with past practice while discussing the new ordinance, the Mayor allowed members of the audience to speak to issues within the ordinance so that they didn' t have to wait through the whole ordinance. Mr. Ken Rutt stated that he hoped City Council could do something about the five acres he owns in the mining area. Mayor Laurent explained that City Council has already taken action and asked Mr. Rutt if he was in agreement . Mr. Rutt said that he was in agreement . Bruce Malkerson, Attorney for Canterbury Park Holding Company, introduced Mr. Stan Bokern, consultant to the new owners. He explained that Curt and Randy Sampson are now the major shareholders of Canterbury Downs and that the closing took place about an hour ago. He stated that he would like to go through the ordinance and asked if he could submit comments in the near future . Mayor Laurent offered congratulations to the new owners and said that Council is willing to receive comments . SEC. 11 . 31 MAJOR RECREATION ZONE (MR) Ms . Marty explained that she has worked with representatives of Valleyfair to put together the Major Recreation Zone (MR) and that they do have concerns . She said that the packet includes the main provisions that they are in agreement on. Ms . Marty explained that the MR is based on the concept of the old Racetrack District . She explained that Sec . 11 .31, Subd. 3 .M. was broadened to reflect that a maximum height is not specified in that zone but instead requires a CUP for structures over the height allowed based on their setback. Councilmembers concurred with the addition to allow overflow parking on the grass when the required parking is insufficient to meet a business rush, such as during the holiday season, Sec . 11 . 61, Parking, Subd. 2 .B. 1 . Official Proceedings of the March 29, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -2- Both Mr. Larry Griffith, Legal Counsel, and Walt Whitmer were present from Valleyfair. Mr. Griffith explained that they met with Ms. Marty and Mr. Ekola on the current draft MR and that he still has concerns with the current draft . He asked that in Sec. 11 .31, Subd. S .C. be modified so that setbacks are a specific number of feet and not tied to the height of the building. He does not want the setback tied to the project but instead to the structure. Ms . Marty suggested using "structure" within the ordinance to solve the concern. There were no objections . Mr. Griffith stated that they had no other problems within the Major Recreation Zone . Sweeney/Beard moved to move on from the Major Recreation Zone . Motion carried unanimously. SEC. 11 . 60, Subd. 2 Performance Standards, Exterior Storage . Ms . Marty explained that "planned unit development" needs to be added in the first sentence. There was no objection. Mr. Griffith stated that they agree that Valleyfair will be included in the PUD overlay zone and that they need to come back to City Council for a Planned Unit Development . He explained his concern about Valleyfair' s status during the transition from the current ordinance as a permitted use in the I-2 zone to their needing a PUD in the new ordinance - the time it takes to go through the process to get a PUD. Sweeney/Dirks moved to direct staff to prepare the ordinance so that the legal description of the Valleyfair property will not be governed by the new ordinance for a six month period. This will allow Valleyfair to continue to be a permitted use while going through the process for a Planned Unit Development . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Griffith stated that they would like something in the ordinance that says the planned unit development as it relates to the PUD that any use allowed shall be deemed a permitted use; so that once they have obtained the planned unit development and approved, it is a permitted use . There were no objections . Referencing the height problems he mentioned earlier, Mr. Griffith stated that they have agreed with the definition of height within the MR District, two times the distance back from the boundary line . He also stated that they agree that their uses would be part of the PUD process and won' t be part of the MR district . In other words when they come in for a PUD they will say that they want the Official Proceedings of the March 29, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -3- right to have picnic grounds, play houses, theaters, support buildings, and the City will be able to define the size of the band shells so as not to cause wide open problems by putting the uses in the zoning district in general . Mr. Griffith expressed his concern with the proposed performance standards which would prelude the use of flashing lights (Sec. 11 . 60, Subd. 10) . They now have flickering or flashing lights within the park and desire to retain them. Discussion followed. There was a consensus of City Council to retain the language precluding flashing lights and that an exception to this provision can be dealt with in the planned unit development for Valleyfair. There was a consensus of City Council not to limit hours of operation through zoning as it relates to noise and vibration, but rather through the permit process . Mr. Malkerson stated that the problems being raised by Mr. Griffith are also of concern to the racetrack. Sweeney/Dirks moved to remove Sec. 11 . 60, Subd. 11 .C. "The City may limit the hours of operation of an outdoor use if it is deemed necessary to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood" . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Griffith concurred with Sec . 11 . 60, Subd. 11 .A. "Noises emanating from any use shall be in compliance with City Code Sec . 10 . 60, and shall not exceed any standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency" . In regards to lights on towers for flying air craft, Council suggested that the ordinance reference the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . Mr. Griffith concurred with Ms . Marty' s memo on parking (Sec . 11 . 61) for the most part . He expressed concern regarding the number of parking spaces being required. He asked if the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for commercial recreation, major could be : 50 parking spaces for each acre developed with buildings, amusement rides, theme parks or entertainment attractions, but excluding acreage devoted to parking areas, camping areas, picnic areas, golf courses or similar open areas . He explained that this would allow them to use grassy areas for parking, when necessary. He asked if Council would approve this language subject to staff okay. Staff will look into it . Cncl . Beard questioned Sec . 11 . 61, Subd. 3 .D. which requires six inches of curbing in certain instances . Ms . Marty explained the rationale used by the Planning Commission in making this recommendation. Official Proceedings of the March 29, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -4- Mr. Griffith stated that he approved the parking changes as spelled out in Ms. Marty's memo of March 23 , 1994. City Council also concurred. These changes are as follows: Sec. 11.61, Subd. 2 .B. 1. , to allow parking on grass or gravel during a business rush. Parking, Subd. 2.B.2 . , was revised to allow RV parking on campgrounds. Parking Subd. 3 .D. 's, second sentence was deleted. Also, in Parking, Subd. 3 .H. language grating flexibility in the size of parking spaces was added. Mr. Griffith stated that he was okay with Ms. Marty's memo of March 23 , 1994 relating to Sec. 11.70, Subd. 8. Instead of exempting "signs not designated for view by the general public" , better language would be "signs specifically designated to be viewed from within the lot or parcel of land on which they are located and not from a street" . There was a consensus of City Council not to discuss the Flood Plain Overlay Zone tonight. Mr. Malkerson, speaking on behalf of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, asked that the LMRWD be provided a copy of the flood plain section of the ordinance. Mr. Ekola stated that staff would be coordinating with the Watershed District on the flood plain regulations. Sweeney/Lynch moved to strike the second sentence of Sec. 11. 61, Subd. 3 .D. "Each end of a series of parking spaces shall be delineated with a curbed area. " Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Sweeney moved to strike Sec. 11. 61, Subd. 3 .D. as written and directed staff to come back with an ordinance to protect landscaping with curbing. Ms. Marty stated that curbing is needed to funnel the traffic to the entrance and to keep the parking area open for parking. Cncl. Sweeney stated that the ordinance needs to be rewritten to accomplish what it is intended to do (where are curbs needed) versus using the word "all" . It needs to address the purposes for a curb. Motion carried with Cncl. Dirks and Lynch opposed. Beard/Sweeney moved to reconsider the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Sweeney moved to amend the motion to state, 'strike Sec. 11. 61, Subd. 3 .D. ' Motion carried with Cncl. Lynch opposed. Motion carried as amended with Cncl. Lynch opposed. Official Proceedings of the March 29, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -5- Mr. Griffith expressed concern with the minimum setback requirements in Sec. 11 .40, PUD, Subd. 4 .C. He was concerned about having to comply with the setback requirements when the DNR trail is installed. Ms. Marty stated that she was willing to draft something to address Mr. Griffith' s concerns. Mayor Laurent stated that minimum setbacks on exterior property lines could be handled with deviations approved within the PUD process . Councilmembers concurred. Mr. Ekola stated that the draft PUD section is more liberal than the existing PUD ordinance . Cncl . Sweeney stated that with this ordinance the intent is to maximize flexibility and leave the issues to staff for recommendations for a PUD project . Mayor Laurent agreed. Mayor Laurent stated that density, open space and setbacks are the only areas less flexible within a PUD. Discussion ensued on the minimum number of acres to be included in a PUD. Ms . Marty stated that the ordinance has always required a minimum of 10 acres and that the Alternative A draft provided is what was recommended by the Planning Commission. There was a consensus to strike the first sentence in Sec. 11 .40, Subd. 2 .B. "A minimum of 10 acres shall be included in any optional PUD" . Sweeney/Beard moved to adopt the language in "Alternative A" of Sec . 11 .40 PUD deleting the first sentence in Subd. 2 .B . Subd. 2 .B. shall read: "The Planning Commission may require that any or all contiguous land owned by the applicant be included in a PUD when necessary to meet the purpose of this zone . " Minimum lot area language also was stricken, along with the language prohibiting reducing setback requirements . Motion carried unanimously. SEC. 11 . 60 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Subd. 6, Grading, Filling and Excavation is okay as written. Subd. 8 .A. should state "6 or more dwellings" instead of "6 or more uses" . Subd. 7 . F. should read "Refuse containers in business and industry zones . . . " and exclude residential areas . Subd. 11 . C. has already been eliminated. I previously read: "The City may limit the hours of operation of an outdoor use if it is deemed necessary to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. " Official Proceedings of the March 29, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -6- Subd. 18 .A. - staff was directed to check if the last two sentences should be "less than five feet" versus "in no event shall exceed five feet" . Subd. 18 .B. - There was a question if construction materials should be included. Mr. Ekola stated that this will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, stated that some businesses have hazardous chemicals and are closer than 500' to the property line. Ms. Marty answered that Subd. 15 had already been modified. Mayor Laurent stated that he thought that Subd. 19 .B. was overly broad. Mr. Ekola stated that he would make a foot note to check with the Pollution Control Agency. Subd. 20 .B. staff will double check the sides of the driveway regarding the sight triangle for driveway intersections . Mr. Malkerson asked for direction. He expressed the same concerns expressed by Valleyfair earlier and noted that they were in essence grandfathered in until they get their PUD approved. Sweeney/Beard moved to direct staff to work into the ordinance the same latitude for the legal description of the racetrack giving them the same as was given to Valleyfair. The intent is to allow the racetrack to continue to function until they have had the opportunity to obtain a PUD. Jon Albinson asked for a clarification that the MR zone will be a zone and not an overlay. Mayor Laurent concurred. Motion regarding the racetrack carried unanimously. Discussion ended on page 84 . The next meeting to continue discussing the zoning ordinance will be on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 from 5 : 30 P.M. to 8 : 00 P.M. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 9 :42 P.M. ,,,,,tal,, , 7;<9 J dith S. C x ty Clerk Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 12, 1994 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 5 :40 P.M. with Councilmembers Dirks, Beard, and Sweeney present . Councilor Lynch was absent . Also present : Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Lindberg Ekola, City Planner. Sweeney/Dirks moved to approve the minutes of March 15, 1994 . Motion carried unanimously with Councilor Beard absent for the vote. Mayor Laurent stated that Council will be starting with reviewing the draft Floodplain Zone but would like to recognize anyone in the audience wishing to comment first, as has been the practice. Mr. Bruce Malkerson, on behalf of the racetrack, stated that he has submitted his comments on the zoning ordinance to staff and City Council and will respond to comments after the Council has had an opportunity to review them. Ms . Marty stated that Mr. Griffith, on behalf of Valleyfair, has contacted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding desired changes to the City' s draft floodplain zone. She said that, based on the information that Mr. Griffith has given to her, we can make the changes they are asking, subject to DNR approval . Mr. Griffith stated that the DNR has signed off on all of the changes he is requesting subject to approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . They also wish to review the whole ordinance. Sweeney/Beard moved to forward to City Council for approval Sec . 11 .43 , Floodplain Overlay Zone (FP) , as modified by the City Attorney (4/8/94 Valleyfair and the Floodplain Provisions memo) subject to approval by the DNR, FEMA, and the Watershed District, and including Mr. Griffith' s comments in concept (4/7/94 letter from Mr. Griffith regarding: Valleyfair - Proposed Floodplain Ordinance) . Ms . Marty stated that she disagreed with the editorial comments in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 , but is okay with the rest . Consensus on Council that those 3 paragraphs were excluded from the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Walt Whitmer, General Manager of Valleyfair, stated that they are making progress on their Planned Unit Development and that they plan to meet with staff within a week to 10 days . Mr. Malkerson expressed his concern about the new ordinance not making the racetrack a permitted use (and they have to obtain a Official Proceedings of the April 12, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -2- PUD) . He is concerned that they could not get a PUD quickly and then will be a non-conforming use. Ms . Marty explained that the zoning ordinance won' t be in effect until after the mapping is in place and that it won' t probably be until at least July. She stated that by that time their PUD could be in place. Mr. Malkerson stated that he is uncomfortable that all the uses listed in the current Race Track District as accessory uses for a licensed Class A race track are not in the new ordinance . Mayor Laurent responded that once the uses are approved in a PUD, then they are covered. He said that it is the policy and intent of the Council to allow the uses through the PUD. Cncl . Sweeney stated that he is willing to put a memorandum following the PUD section addressing Mr. Malkerson' s concerns, which will expire. Ms . Marty stated that the minutes could also acknowledge Council' s concept of including certain uses in the Race Track District for the race track already existing. SEC. 11 . 61 PARKING Ms . Marty pointed out that under Subd.2 .E. no open sales would be allowed in required off-street parking space, only in the parking spaces that are more than required. Discussion followed on Subd. 2 .G. 1 . which limits parking to three (3) vehicles per dwelling on property zoned RR, R-lA, R-1B, and R- IC. Beard/Sweeney moved to strike Sec . 11 . 61, Parking, Subd.2 . , General Provisions, G. , Residential Parking Facilities, 1 . , Maximum Number of Spaces . Motion carried unanimously. There was a consensus to include one ton pick-ups as personal vehicles in Subd.2 .G. 2 . (use of off-street parking facilities) . Consensus to go with Subd. 2 .G.4 . , Recreational Vehicles, as drafted. Ms . Marty pointed out that Subd. 3 .D. , Curbing, has been stricken. Ms . Marty pointed out that Subd. 3 .E. is requiring asphalt on driveways . Discussion fcllowed on requiring the paving of driveways for single family dwellings . Ms . Marty explained that existing non-paved driveways would become a legal non-conforming use . Official Proceedings of the April 12, 1994 Committee of the Whole Page -3- Beard/Sweeney moved that single family dwellings be exempt from the requirements of Subd.3 .E. Surfacing. Motion carried with Cncl . Dirks dissenting. Cncl . Dirks asked if each parking space had to be a minimum of 9 feet wide except the parking spaces beyond the number required may be smaller (Subd. 3 .H. ) . Ms . Marty answered yes . Dirks/Sweeney moved to adopt Sec. 11 . 61 , Parking, with the changes noted and referenced from staff. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting at 6 : 58 P.M. A City Council meeting followed at 7 : 05 P.M. The Committee of the Whole was not re-convened after the City Council meeting was adjourned at 8 :25 P.M. otA,011.,J . dith S. C x 'ity Clerk Recording Secretary 0 // a, 6/ / .1 5; ,-- '� -O : Ci-i- l_c:G ti/ L• I front = ZP V -ery icce4Ape A/ - f ...sir. /4 ocs. _.6- . i(_ PPA,( ' 44- (_ , ) 4 ,.1,..1_,„z_, c47/7 7-t , 6 c 0-(,,a-t. ..___pe-litk_).4.4,-.2. ._ (/ .) -1-t(_. ,-14,1 J 4 Irk 5-U e /00 f 6,4,-A.44 lett . 4__ , W -- (- -- S_Q o _11-4.7 — ____,Ally,r/acneV r _ • C'• 1 1 I To: Mayor Gary Laurent & City Council Members From: Beverly J. Koehnen Date: March 26, 1994 4 T) - I received a letter from Lindberg Ekola on March 4. I called City Hall this Thursday to meet with him and discuss my concerns. When I got there, however, I was informed he was off that day. To be - certain you receive this memo before your next Zoning meeting, I am sending i . Before yourit dMarch 1rectly Committoyoutee of the Whole meeting, I had reviewed the proposed new zoning ordinance and compared it the old one. - ' They are virtually the same. That is why when Lindberg made the statement, "under the new zoning ordinance, Shakopee will have better control of thefft=lar mining operation, " I was confused. • On Thursday, I compared both ordinances again. My original conclusion is correct and, if the current ordinance is enforced, Shakopee and its residents should be protected. 4 OMISSIONS FROM OLD ORDINANCE THAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN NEW: t " il . Soerosion & sedimentcontrolplan. " (City shouldknowhow oerator can meet the requirements of the Ordinance before the permit is given. ) 2. "Any other information requested by the Planning O Commission. " (When they are conducting a Public Hearing, O oftentimes public testimony reveals additional information the Planning Commission may need. ) 3 . "Mining access roads--the intersection with a public road shall be selected to have sufficient view of the public road so ' ' that entry onto the public road can be safely completed. " OTHER CONCERNS: 1r) 1. page 172--Noise contours If they exist, they are meaningless. I researched loudness, etc. for the Starwood Amphitheater proposal with a College Physics Professor and with Ike R. (sound designer of Orchestra Hall) . Factors such as air - . 4 temperature, humidity, wind, surrounding surfaces, different intensities and pitches, and many others make sound extremely variable. Have you ever heard someones's conversation way across A$ a lake? Or not been able to hear someone right next to you in a noisy crowd? 4 2. page 171--"proposed wells" Weren't allowed in old ordinance. Since they are a direct route to a water table that already is compromised by removal of protective topsoil, etc. you will probably need additional conditions or wordage to make sure they are meticulously designed. 3 . "These new operators, the Fischers, are more conscientious 11 and want to improve the way the operation is run. " Have you all forgotten it was these same Fischers that moved the Redi-Mix plant onto the site?? SHAKOPEE March 2, 1994 Bev Koehnen 2036 County Road 83 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Ms. Koehnen, Per your request from the March 1 Committee of the Whole meeting, staff has researched the 500 foot setback issue regarding the gravel mine located west of County Road 83. Enclosed with this letter are three items with respect to this topic: 1. Section 11.05, Subd. 7 (6. Setbacks) 2. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376 (Condition No. 16.) 3. Map B Gravel Extraction Plan (500 foot processing setback) To clarify the issue, Section 11.05 of the currently adopted Zoning Ordinance, states that the processing of minerals shall not be conducted closer than 500 feet to any residential structure. As stated in Condition 16 of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376, the applicant can operate the mine as provided for on Map B, The Gravel Extraction Plan. The attached Map B shows a 500 foot setback radius for processing operations. No processing has occurred within 500 feet of residential structures, including the Rutt property and the Fitch properties. I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions please contact Planning staff at 445-3650. Thank you. Sincerely, )' Z, 6'2/ Lindberg Sr. Ekola OIL City Planner cc: City Council John Voss enclosures - CONL\1UN n'PRIDE SINCE 1857 \I• .- " FA\ r' - - . TS..V-L.. L• - "/•:„.."1,r',P3••43ni4`t":_.- 1•r.1,0,--'-yat'V.t.■mc•-• •.r*./r1 f.: • •••"'"•'"I' .a.r.y+ • . . a�es�:--------.....„---:-.... ..t,''c� :'7C- -- _ i I I - ' — - -- r / =iii ` '`I 1:: I LI` 1 , i • 1 1 ) u.'1 o. . / I l� �t' t} a j•1{1. Q .,.1 ..,\(.1\st . **•.° 11 S.. -4 : I I I IL is 1 i L.1 3i : -- : : 0 _., .., :I ' i ! aI Ij� :4, �' •I • i' /•� i •�'.:•° Y�-• • O 1• 1.1-"•.:11 1 ` c z I< S/rs /�7'�/ ,. -•,•,. `. or l r - a0 •7 .'1 (•<, I ► i�• t , l' •i:--_,,...,....„,k; '�`y < E'1.31 - ll' ' • • • • i: . , SII 1 tk,-:.-.1,4.-- .y- -.Q': :■ el,•// i • 1 ql a« 1 '_- I I ,1 :I. j/ a'... L• ii, • A I:,,if fy / — --- --..,/ \i.li lir ... /(, // i IL' -- :1 / • i •:.-2-_, 7 I.H•q 1,0•.7i i _ h , I I a •I/ 'I ' \ \ 3 117 / .:::----- t :j;;y11,l -�-- -------- '-1111i!,gilt- - i .--..741i.:1:1/ , , aj� ../ ^-"_.•l: _% Z1�1 1, o•,• '` \= :o..2.1.2 ." ...."7....L. ,.....1,17.....; ♦,°... • .p Iti�it � . 1 � + N . .*,S. _j - Y a� -J ') -• .••: >: - P.:• r �too :9I1 I I I p w :i /fir" Wee.... • - a it I, • I -g, :i t( :. %�a •� ��l �'I is _SSi�Ls>:-� [ �i i . Ir -a J _ _r<it_z• ? I t,'w �•; / .L.:ti1•�' '1 1 )J _J _ •- tr•t�-1 1 • Ii4.11 • - I / i T q �/! •r- • 1.�-':••i � 1I - 1 / .rp.• n.•..:i 1 i . n ` II - 11 I a.•,■..:�. �. _� 111,1,1,...41...i:: • lt a I'.{ C7 i i d 11 fig •• �� 1.,;:z.-.........,.!•4.....•:; _ . .1. •Ie Ipl.r$.. e �; c s •'I:'.-_,:'}�. i .•1.7i� i - t t Y • 7 // / �.'•� 1 • •�• I -a _.•<It z•• t: , 1 J t�7-1•I d I. 1 •.1: 1 't //2 • ,•p `- L. ---•-L-4�- `' f i _ :.�♦.:Ilt 1ii1 •�• Z•1 I / r 0• t.3 4 \` 1 I(1•. • • ♦1 73 l' I• a.•j t / .. I i+! , -, .o ♦ .a • /• ! i 1 ' i I 1: •1 a i Z° -% / % / I X11 1; • h`•' 1 , r ;i / .i ?/:.1-; 'Z.T I t , [ ■ ' i pI i:i::l " • - iii a..r�6. -. 41 4. !p• / 3;• ;ii,s---•- ••-_._. !;1i`_�i• I9_=---1----69.1"::: ��,. / �� 'ai j�l.I -; ;\�4•q t 4!;I ,"„l . ?. 11'_ _• - = •�� ai11, - _ ryo f : TV( • 1 ,• 1r.ii ! i . . • M.�- IS ` ••,.r.. •• •.•. - .14. V t :� 1:' �:. 1i ,11'll • e.1 J":,/ �1/ • < .''!..1.17-.:1. a :-1�- ::mi-. i:n' rt a `. r r. ��' '3',1 :1 j ti 1 ...--,72/t I i. 'I :''!. „ P`'^' 'f', lblTr, , • 1 f /-,,: .a i :. 414 ' • ••,-. 1 I-1, . •.:, i. it .� ..,• „• 4:, ir? • :� IG :_ —_ s:i. :a I ilk - `o. ••••:,}u• �11�I ii• /1 • I — 46. • I .1 "_ •�sttli•1001<-■«1 • <.<t.•.'•-•••I • ! .1 ..•..7 1.411' a. , �• �. •� /�M•�—• . :L / I 1 1 \ -t \ 1 �-.tr.7-• L_•-_��%_...,:t y . ',.•'''',,,' '•: *.. 1. .1 %. * ...----r7F-7-7,- , ,,„......,,,,:,;11.1,t, :''' .?-e- ' ..!.. I- • I •• \• '. I .. • '••• \ / I.11▪bl.. I ��. , ;7-4n : . t • 1\s „ ` ' • It .1• •.' 11•�.� /'.•:, -•.. .r/ 1 if 1'tI:..at0,:1 a .1: I YI 11• •• :•••!' '• ! r 7 �--- `•I • tlt!•t' 12 • . i •• Z a� • Z =• .14',.�., ,-•• / ', �- i t 1 . • ! • ylird • ( .1 I ,:i:. 2 : .,•• . •• :,ii : I I ,2, 7 , .., 2 I 1... . I. ,. i , i 1 . .i < - ”'i'It , yet• 1 I j; I 'I : • 11.;!!1I •! �.I ' �// i 111i1'li1 I i ! .1.:1•.•11:,1 I • \li 1 "• .. • :,,,; t 1•• .IIIb':l.il I • Jl.j it 1 . .1•; •.•.•11:,! -I. .•� I • - I III / i :i I : :!: °:tl 1i I i;, •i _ . 11.1111..:11.il - ''•r.. -!