Loading...
VAR 97-14FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571=3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Silvia Castaneda 5555 Matterhorn Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Ms. Castaneda: August 28, 1997 On August 27, 1997, the Fridley Appeals Commission officially approved your request for a variance, VAR #97-14 to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the setback of a deck in the side yard from 5 feet to 2 feet to allow the continuance of an existing deck on Lot 7, Block 7, Innsbruck North Addition, generally located at 5555 Matterhorn Drive N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property an agreement stating that any future enclosure of the deck shall be no closer to the north property line than the required 10 foot setback and that if the deck is removed and reconstructed, it shall be constructed in a manner which conforms with the ordinance requirements. Staff will draft the agreement and mail a copy to you for your review and approval sometime in late September. You have one year from the date of the Appeals Commission action to initiate construction. If you cannot begin construction in time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at least three weeks prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3593. Sincerely, J: Mi 'hele McPherson Planning Assistant I818p[? Please review the above, sign below, and return the original to the City of Fridley Planning »w Department by September 12, 1997. Concur with action taken. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1997 ROLL CALL: Vice -Chairperson Beaulieu called the August 26, 1997, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Carol Beaulieu, Ken Vos, Terrie Mau 1' Members Absent: Larry Kuechle Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Silvia Castaneda, 5555 Matterhorn Drive Lizzu & Tyler Nasiedlak 5555 Matterhorn Drive APPROVAL OF AUGUST 13 1997 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION_ by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the August 13, 1997, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE VEST VAR 7-14 BY SILVIA CASTANEDA: Per Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the setback of a deck in the side yard from 5 feet to 2 feet to,allow the continuance of anexisting deck on Lot 7, Block 7, Innsbruck North Addition, generally located at 5555 Matterhorn Drive N.E. . MO_ TION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a variance to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce setback of a deck in the side yard from 5 feet to 2 feet. If the request is approved, this would correct the encroachment of an existing deck in the side yard. PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1997 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is located approximately mid -block on Matterhorn Drive between North Innsbruck Drive and East Danube Road. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all the surrounding properties. Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit and attached garage. Ms. McPherson stated the deck is located in the rear yard and extends to within 2 feet of the side property line to the north. Both the dwelling and garage were constructed in 1984. The petitioner submitted a hardship statement included in the agenda packet. In summary, the petitioner stated the dwelling was constructed by Todd Harstad in 1984, who was also the builder responsible for platting the original subdivision. An error was made by the builder and represented to the property owner regarding the ultimate placement of the dwelling on the property. There have been no issues or concerns regarding the deck until damage to a retaining wall with the adjacent property owner and a resulting survey revealed the nonconforming status of the deck. Ms. McPherson stated staffs analysis has revealed that the deck was constructed after the permit was issued for the dwelling and was constructed without a permit. There was no separate permit for the deck and the original building plans did not reveal inclusion of the deck as part of the dwelling construction. Ms. McPherson stated the dwelling has a 12 foot side yard setback. A typical setback is 10 feet. The distance from the side of the dwelling to the north property line as well as the south property line is approximately 12 feet. The deck extends 10 feet beyond the dwelling on the north side of the property. If the deck conformed to the setback requirements it would extend 5 feet beyond the dwelling and would have a setback of approximately 7 feet from the side yard lot line. Ms. McPherson stated the City does not typically require immediate correction of nonconforming uses unless they are at the point where they need to be repaired or reconstructed. In terms of historical requests such as this, an identical request was granted in 1994. A condition of that request was that the deck not be enclosed. Staff is suggesting a similar stipulation in this. instance. Ms. McPherson stated staff has no specific recommendation because the request is within previously granted requests. If the Appeals Commission recommends approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property an agreement stating that any future enclosure of the deck shall be no closer to the north property line than the required 10 foot setback. Ms. McPherson stated the property to the south is vacant. The dwelling to the north is not adversely impacted but the deck does come close to the rear yard. Ms. Beaulieu asked if the deck was constructed in 1984. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 27,1997 12AGE 3 Ms. McPherson stated staff did not know the age of the deck because it was not submitted as part of the original plan and the file does not show a separate permit for the deck. The deck was either constructed shortly after or within several years of completion of the dwelling. The petitioners are present and could better answer that question. Dr. Vos stated part of the request is to increase the encroachment from 3 feet to 8 feet. He asked staff to indicate that area on the site plan. Ms. McPherson stated the code section refers to the required side yard setback. The dwelling is 12 feet from the north property line. The code section states it cannot be any closer than 5 feet from the side lot line. Dr. Vos asked how much would have to be taken off the deck to bring the deck into conformity. Ms. McPherson stated 5 feet would have to be taken off. Dr. Vos asked if this was considered a garage side yard or a dwelling side yard. Ms. McPherson stated this was a dwelling side yard. The dwelling portion of the structure has the most restrictive side yard. The garage could actually extend an additional five feet to the north but at the point where it becomes living space the setback becomes 10 feet. Dr. Vos asked, if the garage was not there, would it have an impact on the placement of the deck? Ms. McPherson stated, no. Ms. Mau asked how this related to the landscaping and retaining wall. Ms. McPherson the yards along this particular street have a severe slopefrom Matterhorn Drive down to the wetland area to the east. The retaining wall in question affects the property adjacent to the garage structure: There is another retaining wall on the neighbors property to the north. It is difficult to see the additional landscaping because of the slope. Ms. Nasiedlak stated her mother, Ms. Castaneda, owns the home. She and her husband currently live with her mother. She stated staff did a good job of setting forth their problem and how it precipitated the need for a variance. Regarding' the age of the deck., the house was finished in February of 1984, but the deck could not be started at that point. The problems with Mr. Harstad began the summer of 1984. The deck was started but Mr. Harstad went bankrupt. Her father then contracted to have the deck completed. They were surprised to learn that there was no permit for the deck. The deck has been there since they moved in, since at least 1985. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 27, 1997 PAGE 4 Dr. Vos stated that when the deck needs to be replaced, would the owners be willing to bring the deck into conformity? Ms. Nasiedlak stated, yes. If and when the deck needs to be rebuilt or replaced, they would bring it into conformity with the City Code. At this time, the deck is in good shape. It has been well maintained and regularly painted. Her one concern would be intentional vandalism, rather than normal wear and tear. Otherwise, they have no problem. conforming with the code. i� Ms. Beaulieu asked if the neighbors had any comments about the variance request. Ms. Nasiedlak stated she spoke with the -neighbor who lives behind them and her comment was: 'Why now? The deck has'been there for so long." Ms. Nasiedlak explained they are taking a pro -active approach to avoid problems in the future. The reason they are asking for a variance is because the neighbors to the north had an issue with the deck. They have not heard any negative comments from the other neighbors. Ms. Mau asked if the neighbor to the north was not happy with the deck. Ms. Nasiedlak stated this began when the neighbor was not happy with the retaining wall which they wanted to fix. Because of rain storms, the retaining walls have deteriorated. They plan to fix the retaining walls as soon as her mother is able to afford it. They recently re -did the driveway and cannot now afford to also do the retaining wall at this time. The neighbors want to put in new rock walls which are quire expensive. The argument began when they could not afford to contribute to replace the retaining wall all the way across. Regarding the deck, they did not know there was a problem until they received a letter from the neighbor's attorney threatening her mother to cut off part of the deck or face being sued. That is why they came to the City. Ms. Mau asked if the neighbors to the north had sent a letter to the City. Ms. McPherson stated staff did not receive any calls from the neighbor. Staff is familiar with this particular case. The Code Enforcement Officer has worked with the Castanedas and the neighbor to the north attempting to resolve some of the issues regarding the retaining wall. Ms. Beaulieu stated she would like to add to the stipulation that if the deck is removed and a new deck is built, the new deck must then conform to the code. ' Dr. Vos asked if that was automatic. Ms. McPherson stated that once a variance is granted, it runs with the land. The variance may be difficult to enforce when it runs with the property title. That would be a question that would need to be answered. They have placed a similar stipulation on previous variance cases. They also place similar stipulations on sign variances. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 27,1997 PAGE 5 Ms. Beaulieu stated she thought that would be a good idea because this was done by mistake. Dr. Vos asked if there is a provision stating that when something is damaged to 50% of the value, it must be brought into conformance. Ms. McPherson stated that is correct. However, in granting a variance, they are in effect .;. taking away the nonconformity. Putting .#,* stipulation on it would allow this deck to continue to exist but would say t6the-present or future owners that if the deck becomes damaged to 50% of its value from fire, flood, exposure, earthquake, tomado, riot or act of God, it needs to be brought into conformance with City Code. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. Mau stated she thought it unfortunate that two neighbors have these problems. The neighbor to the north has done some landscaping. At the same time, if the City grants a variance for the deck and at some point the owners decide to rebuild it in the same place, they are doing a disservice to the neighbors to the north. It is a difficult decision for that reason. She would like to be assured that the deck will be rebuilt into conformity. The deck has been there for many years and now it becomes a problem. Ms. McPherson stated staff is requiring an agreement stating that any enclosures located on the deck must be no closer than the 10 foot setback. This could be amended to require that the owner or subsequent owner rebuild the deck at the required setback. Dr. Vos stated the stipulation suggests that an enclosure can be no closer than 10 feet. So the deck could still hang over. Ms. McPherson stated, yes. The deck could be an additional 3 feet. Dr. Vos stated in 1985 things were done that should not have happened but he does not want that to happen for the future. It seems like it is one that could be taken care of. It is not because of the land but because of a problem with placement on the property. He thought there should be a stipulation to help a future buyer and the present owners make a good faith effort. He would be against having the petitioner saw 5 feet off the existing deck. Ms. Beaulieu stated the stipulation could be amended to say: 'The petitioner shall execute and record against the property an agreement stating that any future enclosure of the deck shall be no closer to the north property line than the required 10 foot setback; and that if the deck is removed, reconstructed, and/or becomes damaged to 50% of its APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 27, 1997 PAGE 6 value from fire, flood, exposure, earthquake, tomado, riot or act of God, the deck shall be conforming." MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to approve Variance Request, #97-14, by Silvia Castaneda, to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the setback of a deck in the side yard from 5 feet to 2 feet to allow the continuance of an existing deck on Lot 7, Block 7, Innsbruck North Addition, generally located at 5555 Matterhorn Drive N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property an agreement stating that any future enclosure of the deck shall be no closer to the north property line than the required 10 foot setback; and that if the deck is removed, reconstructed, and/or becomes damaged to 50% of its value from fire, flood, exposure, earthquake, tomado, riot or act of God, the deck shall be conforming. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Ms. McPherson provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council actions. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission meeting scheduled for September 10, 1997, has been canceled. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 27, 1997, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED,AT 7:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Coopers • Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT 4-MMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner, Silvia Castaneda, requests that a variance be granted to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the side yard setback of the same deck from 5 feet to 2 feet. This request is to correct an existing encroachment of a deck in the side yard on property located at 5555 Matterhorn Drive. STATED HARDSHIP: See attached statement dated July 31, 1997. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The dwelling has a side yard setback of 12 feet. The deck extends 10 feet beyond the dwelling (into the side yard). If the deck conformed to the Code, it would extend only 5 feet beyond the dwelling. The City has previously granted similar requests. The dwelling and garage were constructed in 1984. The original house plans and building permit do not indicate the presence of a deck. Further, the City does not have a separate permit for the deck. The deck, therefore, was constructed without a building permit or City approval. The deck is nonconforming; however, the City does not typicallly require correction of nonconforming structures until such time as the structure needs to be repaired or replaced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: As the request is similar to previously granted variances, staff has no recommendation for the Appeals Commission. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, sta, recommends one stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property an agreement stating that any future enclosure of the deck shall be no closer to the north property line than the required 10 foot setback. I GNOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 April 24, 1992 Sylvia Castaneda 5555 Matterhorn Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Pond and Vacant Lot Abutting the Property at 5555 Matterhorn Drive N.E. Dear Ms. Castaneda: This letter is to summarize and confirm the information which I provided to you in our recent meeting and follow-up telephone conversation. On those occasions, we discussed issues pertaining to maintenance of the pond directly.east of your property and the vacant lot directly south of your property. The following is a summary of the important information relating to these issues. 1. Pond - As I stated previously, the pond located directly east of your property is classified as a retention pond. There is a 40 foot storm water utility easement along your rear yard to allow for any necessary work related to storm water concerns. Currently, the City of Fridley does not provide any maintenance for this pond, except for repairing defective storm water pipes leading into the pond. However, there is a storm water policy proposal to be considered -that, if adopted, would result in the City treating the pond for weeds and algae if petitioned to do so by the abutting property owners. In this case, the City would possibly pick up some of this cost. Please keep in mind that this is only a proposal at the present time. In our conversations, you have indicated an interest in performing some improvement work along the back portion of your property abutting the pond. Should you choose to pursue this further, please submit a detailed plan of your proposal to the City. We will review your proposal and determine which agencies might have requirements or restrictions which must be considered prior to your project. Sylvia Castaneda April 24, 1992 Page 2 2. Vacant Lot - As I indicated previously, the City can work to ensure that the vacant lot located directly south of your property is maintained in an appropriate condition. For example, we can require that the weeds and grass be kept at or under 10 inches and that any brush, yard waste, or other materials dumped on the site be removed by the property owner. I have contacted Forrest Harstad, the agent attempting to sell this property, and have advised him as to the property owner's responsibilities. It is my understanding from our conversations that there are other issues pertaining to maintenance of this property which may not be violations of the Fridley City Code. For example, you stated that even when the weeds are kept below 10 inches, the seeds spread onto your property creating a difficult situation for you in the maintenance of your lawn. In addition, you have indicated that leaves are washed down the hill and accumulate near the pond on your property. These and other issues which involve damage or negative affects on your property as a result of maintenance of this vacant lot may be pursued through a civil action. You may wish to check into this further if you feel you have incurred costs as a result of these problems. Please feel free to call me at 572-3595 if you have questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Steven Barg Code Enforcement Officer SB:ls CE -92-143 Project Summary VAR #14, 5555 Matterhorn Drive Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: A variance to reduce the side yard setback of a deck from 5 feet to 2 feet and to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet Location of Property: 5555 Matterhorn Drive Legal Description of Property: Lot 7, Block 7, Innsbruck North Addition Size: 10,859 square feet Topography: Severely sloping from front to back Existing Vegetation: Typical shrubs, trees, sod Existing Zoning/Platting: R-1, Single Family; Innsbruck North Addition, 1973 Availability of Municipal Utilities: Connected Vehicular Access: Matterhorn Drive Pedestrian Access: N/A Engineering Issues: N/A Comprehensive The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent in this Planning Issues: location. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken Project Summary VAR #14, 5555 Matterhorn Drive Page 3 ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family SOUTH: Zoning: R-1, Single Family EAST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family NORTH: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Site Planning Issues: REQUEST: Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential The petitioner, Silvia Castaneda, requests that a variance be granted to increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the side yard setback of the same deck from 5 feet to 2 feet. This request is to correct an existing encroachment of a deck in the side yard on property located at 5555 Matterhorn Drive. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: The subject property is located on Matterhorn Drive, approximately mid -block between North Innsbruck Drive and East Danube Road. Located on the subject property is a 47 ft. by 56 ft. dwelling and garage which were constructed in 1984 by Todd Harstad who platted the property in 1973. The property is severely sloping from front to back. The dwelling, while appearing to be one story from the street view, is a three story dwelling with a walk -out in the rear. South of the subject property is a vacant lot. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding properties. ANALYSIS Code Section Section 205.04.06.A.(3) requires that decks not extend more than 10 feet into any required front or rear yard setback and not more than 3 feet into any required side yard provided they do not extend nearer than 5 feet to any lot line. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain adequate open space between structures and to allow access and maintenance along common property lines.. Project Summary VAR #14, 5555 Matterhorn Drive Page 4 The dwelling is located 12 feet from the common property line. The deck extends 10 feet beyond the dwelling. If the deck conformed to the ordinance, it would extend only 5 feet from the dwelling and would be set back 7 feet from the side lot line. An identical request in 1990 required recording an agreement on the property which stated that the deck would not be enclosed. The City has previously granted a request of this nature. In 1984, when the City approved the building permit for the proposed dwelling, the house plans did not reflect the deck located on the rear of the dwelling. There are no separate permits for the deck after 1984. The nonconforming deck was recently discovered as a result of the adjacent property owners' to the north survey and repair of a retaining wall. The City, typically, does not require immediate correction of nonconforming structures but requires them to be brought into compliance at the time they need to be repaired or reconstructed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: As the request is similar to previously granted variances, staff has no recommendation for the Appeals Commission. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends one stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property an agreement stating that any future enclosure of the deck shall be no closer to the north property line than the required 10 foot setback July 31, 1997 Scott J. Hickok City of Fridley Municipal Center 6341 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Hickok: Thank you for talking to my son regarding our problem with our neighbor. The following is a narrative of the story behind our application for a variance: Thirteen years ago Todd Harstad built our home and hired a sub -contractor to do the deck and the landscaping on our property. A few years later, Mr. Harstad informed us of an error he had made during the development of our home. We were to have 24 feet of landscaping on the north and south sides of our home. When he realized the mistake he had made he told us that we would be loosing 12 feet of property on both sides. As a result, we were left with approximately 12 feet of the landscaping we paid for on both sides of our home. At that time we tried to sue Mr. Harstad for the error, but he filed bankruptcy and left us without a remedy. Mr. Harstad, however, assured us that although we lost 12 feet of landscaping, the deck was still on our property and that we should not have a problem with our neighbor on the north side of our home. He also assured as that he would not make us remove the 12 feet of landscaping on the south side of our home which is lying on the vacant property to our south. Mr. Harstad was right and for many years we had no problems. Approximately two years ago, however, our current neighbor bought the home adjacent to us on the North side. There were no problems or complaints for those two year. A few weeks ago, however, the 24 foot retaining wall that we paid for and had built suffered some damage. Our neighbor wanted us to give him $4000 to build a new cement retaining wall. We said no. In response, they had their attorney send us a letter demanding us to push our landscaping 6 inches back and to move our deck (which is wholly on our property) back within the City of Fridley set -back standard. Currently, the fact is that our landscaping is six inches on their property and our deck is two feet from their property line. 5555 MATTERHORN DRIVE • FRIDLEY, MN • 55432 PHONE: 574-9124 -2— JULY 31,1997 We respectfully request that, in consideration of the aforementioned narrative, the City of Fridley grant us a variance on our deck. It has been there for thirteen years and is not actually on our northern neighbors property. We strongly feel that our neighbors bur trying to force us to pay them $4000 by bringing us to court on such a frivolous claim. In addition, we ask for some guidance on how to resolve the six inch "good faith" encroachment which we have had for thirteen years. We truly feel like the victims of uncontrollable circumstances and a negligent contractor who still is doing business under a new name. Enclosed please find a copy of the "Certificate of Survey", which should give you a visual picture of the aforementioned complaint. Also enclosed is a copy of a blue print of the home, pictures of the home, the variance application and our application fee. We look forward to any consideration given us and we will attend the August 27, 1997, Appeals Commission Meeting Thank you once again. Sincerely, 0� CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial Signs site plan required for Address: Nlo,' e -"r aY Property Identification Number. Sia Legal Description: Lot "'-7 Block z. Sec. 7q. % Tract/Addition , see attached Current Zoning: 5� M;l Square footage/acreage: 10,S'-7 Sy Reason for Variance: Apel ^„ten. -7-4- Have 7-+ Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No _ If Yes, which city? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: ���a�wr. �, rV� awNA CA_ ADDRESS: ,- -eVA ' DAYTIME PHONE: c:�`7 41 -q i -?-cl SIGNATUR PETITIONER INFORMATION LIZZU CASTANEDA NAME: 7—,, ",G� A(\�� b -i LAWYER ADDRESS: SScL DAYTIME PHONE:' -7q---7 / Z' SIGNATUR 3550 Multifoods Tower 33 South Sixth Street BASSFORD, LOCKHART, TRUESDELL & BRIGGS, Section of City Code: Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3787 P.A. FEES Telephone: (612) 376-1651 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or si ns: Fee: $60.00 for residential prorties: Receip Application Number.1-1-11 Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: City.of Fridley Land Use Application Process 60 Day Agency Action Law Application Date Planning Commission Meeting 60 Day Window Starts Recommendation to Council i 21-40 Days i Application Complete i 10 Day Notice Submit Complete Application and Materials Public Hearings: Variance Vacations Lot Splits Plats Rezonings Zoning Amendments Wetland Replacements Comprehensive Plan Special Use Permits City Council Decision Approval or Denial 50-60 Days iJ- � L i i i i Public Hearings: Rezonings Zoning Amendments Approved, Action Taken Letter Tabled, 60 More Days Denied CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO: Property owners within 350 feet of 5555 Matterhorn Drive CASE NUMBER: VAR #97-14 APPLICANT. Silvia Castaneda PURPOSE: To increase the encroachment of a deck in the side yard from 3 feet to 8 feet and to reduce the setback of a deck in the side yard from 5 feet to 2 feet allow the continuance of an existing deck LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 5555 Matterhorn Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 7, Innsbruck North Addition DATE AND TIME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, August 27, 1997, 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. PLACE OF HEARING: Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers 6431 University Avenue HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or fax at 571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMMODATIONS: interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than August 20, 1997. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: 8/15/97 V)`" 'E97-14 5_ Matterhorn Drive Mailed: 8/15/97 SOLNITZKY GEORGIA A BLAKESLEE DON R & SUSAN K FERRIER DAVID R & DONNA M OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 1426 N INNSBRUCK DR NE 1412 N INNSBRUCK DR NE 1400 N INNSBRUCK DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 REKOW KENNETH E & MILLER C R OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5610 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 YIM SI HONG & YONG UI OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5601 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GRUNKE JOHN H & JENNIFER K OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5598 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MALARK RAYMOND TERESA M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5595 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ADAMS MARY M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5588 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JERDE STEPHAN & JERDE KAREN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5570 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HOLTER DAVID F & REICH GAIL OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5567 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LEE ROBERT B & ELSA H OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5547 REGIS TRL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ADAMS WILMER L & RUTH M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5603 REGIS TRL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CHI YOO & JONG CHOON OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5605 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CORBETT RICHARD & JACQUELINE A OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5591 REGIS TRL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NAZIAN S W & SWENDSEN K S OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5590 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DOOLEY CAROL J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5581 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OBERT HAROLD E & VIOLA M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5561 REGIS TRI, NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SPROGIS LAIMONIS & BIRUTA OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5550 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LEMKE DENNIS F & BARBARA J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5548 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STRAUSS OJARS S & JOANN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5608 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NYHUS MARTHA M & MARK A OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5600 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GARTLAND THOMAS M & BARBARA OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5595 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 AHO ROBERT E & GRETHE S OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5577 REGIS TRL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 PEIFER ROBERT M & LAURIE J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5575 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WILLIAMS SUSAN K OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5568 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LINDSTROM VIRGIL W & KAREN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5555 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CASTANEDA SILVIA R OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5555 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ZGUTOWICZ EUGEN & MAUREEN MORIN RONALD L & JUDITH V SCHULTZ NORMAN L & KAREN M OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5530 MATTERHORN DR NE 5531 REGIS TRL NE 5535 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 VAR #97-14 5555 Matterhorn Drive Mailed: 8/15/97 RUMMEL CONRAD J & MARY KAY JECHOREK WILLIAM E & MARY NEWLAND JAMES I & DORAINE OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5538 W DANUBE RD NE 5510 MATTERHORN DR NE 5517 REGIS TRL NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 HUFFMAN RHONA L OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5505 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 TAKLO DAVID A & BARBARA J OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5500 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MACKENTHUN STEVE & SANDRA OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5502 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FUERSTENBERG E W & J M OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5505 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55421 OLDS JEANNIE L OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5468 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEPPE BRYAN W & JANET L OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5528 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 KREBS HERBERT ETAL * OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5503 REGIS TRI, NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 KITLINSKI MICHAEL & BARBARA OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5511 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CORGARD LEROY R & DARYL D OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5495 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LARRY KUECHLE 202 MERCURY DR FRIDLEY MN 55432 ERICKSON R B & MAYER S K OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5525 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HERTEL ROGER CHARLES OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5501 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HARMON ROGER C & DEBORAH A OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5498 W DANUBE RD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STURM ROBERT C & KAREN A OR CURRENT RESIDENT 5490 MATTERHORN DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55421 CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER CERT11#CATE OF SURVEY FOR: "ars+ d. - Todd Co. n h K 30 135.00 - - -- 10 i J- L 40 i bVi�.7SPrrlb l� � �y kA ' + /y UJI 1 � � ILo ---------------------� --0 4'O � _ a <'l 4 C De rno-io---s iron monumen-A- 1�er3a1 d,�scr�p-�-ion \xr� -i , SNNSQRVCK NORT1-�, Coun-t%3 J M innescr4-a. IV- levzz) ?, B1c�c1'c Anoka- 5yls' A )��r- 40 ("ILI r• hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of Fil( the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, -jz RS - GABRIEL if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. URVEYORS, INC. Book As surveyed by me this ' 31 -S--V day of M a rci, , 1977. Harbor Lane No. -1 " mouth MN 55441 ,,..�Le ��� ne: (612) 559-0948 1a Minn. Reg. No. �- X41 •' i': iii��f x,� �f• i.•' 1 S . it f 1 fJ ji ,� r 'L.K�L1+�'� ,a•, a�'m .. f,.. k.r:le ��• wow ." iii �' L'�� .4?',i \ ... ... - •^ AS �Pfk� ' iilt 46 y t � say x, i �r t " �, �ti � � !1lWl�� sem;:. Iltllll�Ll�./1''lsJp�►�"'� i �� .� ryN"' S 4 JC � 'L 3�� • f Jl / ' #0 I 1 6 mAWW ®Mere FIF] HFI R Zmft Dedgrmficm R' -TmRarrUUift R2 -Two Fainly Urns VAR 97-14, %M Matterhorn Drive N A Q Q R3 - Gwomf MA*Ltft 7J2 W IS IP Q R4 - Mobile Havre Paris PUD - PlarwW Unit DeveioMwd MS -1 -Hyde Park Neighborhood - � I id QQ The petitioner, Silvia Castaneda,&2 wnfrm oficial ecodbased G1 -� Budnas requests that variance be granted =W*d No. 70 and zonl�etfecM Q G2 - General BWrm G3 -General Shopping to allow an existing deck to date 127/56 Mgetl w with all a dn- a,oesadop�d and dkcMas ofy� X97, = C-RW1 -G °�°B Q NI.1 - Lrgfrt industrial be 2 feet from the side lot line. Q M•2 - Heavy indU*ai 1 Ma - Outdaar intensive Heavy Ind The City Code requires a The Oily of FrWIW has taken every effort fm pro - vide the nest up todate lift, on milk[a P - Q P - Public Faplfies 5 foot setback. liredata presented here Is subjecttcahange. WA's The Qty of Fddley will not be responsible far _WC; Q PoGHT-0�VUAY errors or usage of this dorarnerd. N I SKVVKMLNNr M*MN ®,EN FIF9 HH Fi R Zaft DesignWom o R-2 : ��� VAR 97-14, 5555 Matterhom Drive N A I 0 X33 - carnal M AOS Urits R4 - Mobile Home Parr PUD - Planed UNt Dealapr o t o � - The petitioner, Silvia Castaneda, o G, - Lmd Budrewrequests that variance be granted �� a� dr"n *cmc gi mooft on Ordirtertoe IVo 10 Zona dkdive 0 G2 - General Business l G3 -General Stepping to allow an existing deck to end dame 127"x' �' a"'� °" GM-Ge�CV� Q Ki - Ugt t lndtatrial be 2 feet from the side lot line. ar,o�adoptedendefredW egaftil 0 Mr -2 - Heavy Industrial M -3M-3 -Outdoor Intensive Reay Ind. r• ^^;; The city Code requires a The cry ey of Frkhes taken &my effort m the moi Abe intorrrre itlon avec e. RR - Railroadsvide P a Facilities 5 foot setback. The dEta presented hate Is Mkiedt b change. o The Cly of Fridley vAl not be responsible for = RIGHT-0FWAY u dOre.9m errors or Lsage of the dOQYTt2rd Parcels within 350' of 5555 Matterhorn Drive FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (612) 571-3450 - FAX (612) 571-1287 August 5, 1997 Silvia Castaneda 5555 Matterhorn Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Ms. Castaneda: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 days if their land use applications are complete. We received an application for a variance on August 1, 1997. This letter serves to inform you that your application is complete and that the City of Fridley will be processing your application in accordance with Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code. Your application schedule is as follows: Appeals Commission August 27, 1997 City Council approval September 8, 1997 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 572-3593. Sincerely, Michele McPherson Planning Assistant MM:ls C-97-148 CHECK LIST FOR AGENDA ITEMS APPEALS COMMISSION PREPARED BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING STAFF- AUGUST 7, 1997 .;* 6 /N. Item indexed correctly? Has staff visited the site? a, :l What is the issue? t,.,j��. How is the issue to be resolved? �a Was the petitioner's hardship clearly stated? qa Was there a site history �'' CF�1 °" researched and attached? ..�._ ;.. Was an aerial photo attached? c What is the Appeals a e F Commission/ City Council action requested?3 Are the stipulations clear? Is the cover sheet clear? r Are the attachments complete and easy to read? (site plan, � landscape plan, directional indicators, etc.) PREPARED BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING STAFF- AUGUST 7, 1997 Date Created: File Number: Summary. of _Reques LAND USE APPLICATION FILE CHECKLIST Date Submitted: Usk Application Deadline: Ald 1/1l 10 Day Completion Notice: /1 9'7 (Official Receiving Date) 60 Day Action Date• e W. M7 I, , understand that while, my application was submitted for .(applicant's name) reviewon , the application deadline is: , and the 60 day`actionwindow will not begin until I receive a4etterstating ttaat.my)application is complete. I also understand that the City may, at anytime during the 60 day action window, in writing, notify me that the process will be extended an additional 60 days. (signed) (witnessed by receiver) Application Found Complete V" yes no Application Completion Notices Mailed:. L 6' 4V Scheduled Planning Commission: Scheduled Appeals Commission: Scheduled City Council: VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST The following shall be the minimum submission requirements to the Appeals Commission. Applications will not be accepted if the following is not submitted: RESIDENTIAL: ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS/DATE Completed application, with fee (Application is considered complete if all blanks are completed, and both fee owner and petitioner have signed) Scaled site plan of property showing north arrow, existing and proposed structures, lot and block number, adjacent street names, and buildings on 1- (0 j adjacent lots within 10 feet of the common lot lines. Elevation of building and description of materials. Narrative of proposed buildin . -7- COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - ITEM SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS Completed application, with fee (Application is considered complete if all blanks are completed, and both fee owner and petitioner have signed) Scaled site plan of property showing north arrow, existing and proposed structures, lot and block number, adjacent street names, and buildings on adjacent lots within 10 feet of the common lot lines. Elevation of building and description of materials. Landscape plan for all projects requiring a parking lot expansion of four (4) or mores aces. Grading and drainage plan. Erosion control plan. Calculations for stormwater runoff: - VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST, PAGE 2 F SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS INITIALS eveloped conditionting condition sed condition tions for excavation and/or fill. ap: (If item is nonexistent, note ) Water: size and type of a. existing mains b. existing services c. proposed services d. hydrants e. valves f. fire services Sewer: size and type of a. existing mains b. existing services C. proposed services d. manholes and lampholes e. elevations (inverts and top of castings) Storm: size and type of a. existing mains b. existing services C. proposed services d. manholes and lampholes e. elevations (inverts and top of castings 11f. existing catch basins 9- proposed catch basins SIGNS: eted application, with feeation is considered complete if ks are completed, and both fee and etitioner have si ned F SUBMITTED RECEIVER'S INITIALS COMPLETE REVIEWER'S INITIALS/DATE of ro osed si n. site plan showing location of buildin elevation if wall si n. response to Section 214.21.02 i n Code. 24, T. 10, R. 24 C/TY OF FR/OLEY 31 �tT 42 /NN.' (,M 63) �f1) f>7) �°) CENTER 3 SEC. 24 I re ! � u as u a �(Q l� Lf21 NS 04 °'• ' _ a �� 1� / , • a � I L ! t ll' O 7 s O (0 ► .'atl.. 1 1 O C ♦.Ai� 1 t 0 l� 0 ti If LUX-f7lii fl 'w . �� ��i�t r� •ir ww.r Z ;4_ i'1 C�' '\ ., dF LANEARTF4;: 4 ! i b / .•l i � Q 10�� : i A � � 1�9 � • �.wr o7: + f = '•� � i%^a 14i DRIVE , i •, N� i d , 0 /r' .. Y r rii'i.� i�wy +...t P d��)a ' il�q ` • y, � ., y � =iii! t�;, i c '+-% jt wror a L+" " pit♦ ..f E N9RTH- pp �Lq r al ',p a �',��r, /,G�• y e ' `a iL, �� .� `il +� .SI V. �� 1 " /.►� n,n n'„ Jl_ a M-y�•f�) �f� r I `♦ ll%.1 �t mss' �� Q ]� • 1 iit/ -- -- � lry �... S a d L 1 j� o' � �l h� !� (r ! `4�~ ► \\! . � Q + o• a (� sn••//J_/.w. yy�� i p I Q f i! f /�(.1 �j '`+ (bl Vie] AoJ•l..L.Y6 R !`T' i� ` „,.,, ! / J �� ]1 X `T� ., fi.Nn'Z EGISS-M ERRI� ! v) r vw Q G2) _�,,� ) i 1 R ! 7 i .vrr `f0a y; s i 0) -- (pope ) `'"%r 'TlPl �d1 �9� s (p w.siN' 9 T1( � � _L IN � �, fib, • � � ! N ..... ...._.... R R ! 1 (W sacuc. r _•S!__ \•� :4�1 0(nd OYERLO sr. �� !0,/ 1/ f/Y � ��1 / t 'mss• � a(� • � t � B� M)� it i 'ACT B R ' • L' _ ,� r A•t st E AK fy... tea`• �- � 3 QJ S %� ,0 u � � F) AJ �) ' arc) ��lllr ' ,.1� rail �.sn�' ►� � � �) �3fJ AWJ1 `11*0 s � ACR S4 (� !H� / aun. sue. NO. 941 _ i`_ '6, s , J � ' - _ ... _ -.. ,, _ _ ` Tyr"•• 1a♦ .�-.3.5<Lav ��M cc •c. � ,., �"'-s . �--3` •� 'y. � - _ ° - _ - _ T`•�• .. r" . '^e r°"� KQ`C �-,t--. s •�'.• yam, 3 r �- _ _ , _ .. . ,. - _ -• - . _ �- '. S � vA a: a •• •�^.i, � i♦' ` t"�iY-� {': .. .''i_�".S� a � � ` '�'�.'i'� : + - - - - • 'w .,. • _ .. 'v.. _ � F^' -` . - �T_ .. .. • - .� • ` _ " � _ � ,�rG-ate '�.�a `� s.-.,,,,. ' � ' - - _ - ' - � t ;may ._ w `,. �.a. � �-aw QTY» ��.#,�r .� - .. _. _ •- •, - __ •.- _ : 33' 1*A 3'1 - _ y r;. - - _ . - ~• � � Vit. � � Vis',. •': .,�• s .. -_ - .- .- - +_. � Via, '• _ ,y_ + .a:. -• - - - _ r. `. ..• .-•;. + �;a� i _ - _ - 7� 1 .. - - � •� • � � i - y a �,. , - .. .. .,. -_'�•. A s� 9Er � .. r. (�^ .. - •:w P•:2 _ - 'a ..r• �'•,..r:%:Y-„'e' .t >i. =.17 ._ .... - •.t« - ea .s:.'4 _"--- ;iRJ*as:�asrs+ II' a"'°'ems -9"" r._ ?—,--- - _ ,� - , � p a :! a v►', . R� -_ .i .. ,-: .. _ 'K Z. N .a,e1 - •} `firb1, ii T 1 LL .� :a✓ J, -•' . - _ ,r. - .F• ?�r � `�_a.. .�.'r"� yam' Vis`_ ylE•4,v ,;x"t r�1r - .'.r:: 1. >,,, ' ' _ � f.. ♦s. , �, t baa < �• .�/ . T ! qP,` . _I,si� `•`r .! •e q w. Y. . _ _ � _. - ,h- : g _ _ , - - - <'-, �.. , � -l. ��, �.�., ..'.gib- `" • �r � t • _ .. . •y � - £ =w. •Z.aa• Y..pJ ��-•�,w„•-T' �.'' a;4 r �'�. .{ _ d J - • - - - '.E. ..•T -n: STT'_� �.:� ^-Ct.,4�� a�'_ t,��� ". �'�• Yi] y„�:�- .. dt w L` t - - '• . . s - � "r.` r � •1 M e. wnK• .+�e.• . 7�a:'-. .i'7^it V. .�+ Yw: -� ,;,� � E - , cy Of 7.1 _ .� M1, ..V _ _ _ .R a ♦ - . e'.s.} « .y 3 - is a �,. q- f•!, t- • "°F.�',°" "�,•.. � -i J_._.. �.' r. .q t- •`-oto. _ ••IV's• . fa' a „- - - " s n - .�- • _ .. '� ,g .� rig-�+i. .s +•,.. s.-lpv r•<` «,3 -:i. • a..ti' . v - �'r Y• � r •s '��" x _� _ : mac- �- - ��• w •�- -. r i _ ■aryl tel: , .. Y••� .�,. \'_ . ' - .... • . .. _ . ,1 ,'�-'..�.'16!.�,`r . +{n.gpI,o�.�1•1..a•.�.J�. i•-�-ti'..•+-»"mow w'• `.��r. •A ,.r _ . ♦ - f-� . �� �� �--TT;i'!"i- F�+'�-� $._ � d,� _r••e•, c' _ � >` .'sip ;�'' it . Fr -r .. .. .. , ... .e .,. �. . i.a • ..: �.•,� J•iY.130.•to . rR�•'�i; i .m,e _:�w< ^. - . • .-+} � J �. :. •/' � � • •F4.♦ �: _ TSO Z:. .�-' ,a.. a. .e s • a r.� � - t Yr 3 T r1 '.:it. t••:+:+ -% •$yfA:4:a t „ :Iw:- >_.y ~'g .i". .,y. „• 2:wq`7'�,,"Yr i.;,:. .,d`jWr :�m:�,•f :i[y. ,.4_....M• ,y'' '-+ -�• t. Z ..3^ sl .t� .♦;4--�,{{�-, 6s; e7- �, .: • .*. , r r •.,, _ .r. . � .. srti �: - •\ • Vii... � . { �7. 'moi, `:?- 3 `2, �{ srw • .Ta': �- ��- �.a .l r 'a•. ^Y• .•'V. ,y � 1. ' ti�-'e :a'9 �: •,i:' ',/4' J _ ,��. �,. �i• of tla _' _ a. - ap 1 � •�. • .=:•r. •� t. � '-ate` ,q •�.�' +,-'7. �-' � - ..} ✓-�- 4'Y ^' S• _ ... r o.Y t -:s. S'. :q•�- � -,,;pad'= •a - y, }g^�-a;.- gS,�. %d��it•:.. � .a' - - -- v.i�. . r _ a..r .7i `.:'_S.:.. ' �'�.-F4.:o-`s , ..d •w.., :.:d-`76 ;3.,�'iC .� ' s`a•... ... ...ao -.•-.« ... - b ..�:`�+=:u�...a' .. _ •_.Z°�'`^'-