Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-04CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40 "' Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 -3878 (763)706 -3600 Too (763) 706 -3692 Visit our website of: ww w.ei.coluenbiee- heilxhts.nen.us MEMBERS: Marlaine Szurek, Chair Donna Schmitt Rob Fiorendino Mike Peterson David Thompson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2011 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 - 40 AVENUE NE 1. Roll Call Minutes (October 5, 2010 meeting) November 3, 2010 meeting cancelled December 7, 2010 meeting cancelled 2. Public Hearings: Case #2011 -0101 Site Plan Approval (Monument Sign) 4849 Central Avenue Savers Case #2011 -0102 Zoning Amendment (Driveways) City Wide City of Columbia Heights Case #2011 -0103 Zoning Amendment (Fence Regulations) City Wide City of Columbia Heights 3. New Business 4. Other Business 5. Adjourn The Responsibility of the Planning Commission is to: • Faithfully serve the public interest. • Represent existing and future residents, and base our decisions and recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. • Recognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions. • Protect the natural environment and the heritage of the built environment. • Exercise fair, honest, and independent judgment. • Abstain from participation when they may directly or indirectly benefit from a planning decision. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 2010 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair- Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Thompson, Schmitt, and Szurek. Members Absent: Peterson and Fiorendino Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Thompson, to approve the minutes from the meetings of June 1, 2010. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2010 -1001 APPLICANT: Intermaco Auto Body Inc. LOCATION: 4839 University Avenue NE REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (Used Auto Sales) The Application was withdrawn by Applicant. X'i:'.�.3. �CXY:: XXYYXXYYSC: FXYY:: XXXXYY '�C r. x:': Xic 4r :FXXX�r.XX:c d: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: INTRODUCTION 2010 -1002 Schafer Richardson, Inc 3900 Jackson St NE Minor Subdivision, Site Plan Bulk Storage Corporation, c/o Shafer Richardson, owns the business located at 3900 Jackson Street. Currently, there are two buildings on the site. The first is a 56,000 square foot warehousehnanufacturing facility located on the west side of the lot. The second is a 6,000 square foot office building located on the corner of 39` Avenue and Jackson Street. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 OCTOBER 5, 2010 Sargent stated that Shafer Richardson is requesting a minor subdivision per Code Section 9.104 (K), in order to split the smaller office building from the remainder of the lot. This would give the owner the ability to market and sell the parcel separately. The current configuration of parking stalls would make it difficult for the warehouse building to comply with the minimum parking requirements. For this reason, a site plan approval for shared parking is required. Per Code Section 9.016 (L)(9), the City Council may approve the use of a required off - street parking area on an adjacent site in the form of a site plan approval for shared parking. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Industrial related activities. The proposed lot split and site plan for shared parking would enable the businesses at this location to continue to prosper. ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9.106 (L)(9) of the Zoning Code outlines specific conditions in order for the City Council to approve the use of shared parking. They are as follows: 1. The use for which the application for shared parking is being made is located within 300 feet of the use providing the parking facilities. The warehouse building will share parking stalls located on the office building's parcel. These uses are adjacent and abutting and within 300 feet of each other. 2. Subsections 9.106 (L)(9)(b) — 9.106 (L)(9)(d) relate to whether the use in question is a nighttime, daytime or Sunday use. In this case, both uses are daytime uses. The Code imposes restrictions on what percent of the shared parking can be used for each type of use, with the assumption that each business only has the minimum amount of required parking. In this case, the office building property has an excess amount of parking, which will be shared with the warehouse use. This is consistent with the Zoning Code. 3. Contract. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of off - street parking facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within 60 days after approval of the shared parking use. The applicant is working on a cross - parking and cross- driveway easement agreement by and between the two parcels in question. The City Attorney will have to approve this agreement before the minor subdivision will be effective. PARKING City Code requires 1 parking stall for every 300 square feet of office space of gross floor area. Gross floor area is defined as 90% of the outside dimensions. The office building is approximately 5,400 gross square feet, which yields a requirement of 18 parking stalls. Szurek asked if they would be allowed to continue parking on the area adjacent to 39` Avenue. Sargent said they would be allowed to do so. Once the office building is used again, the employees will use that space for parking. Others who have been using the site will need to look elsewhere for parking. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 OCTOBER 5, 2010 The large building is a mixture of assembly /manufacturing /processing and warehousing. City Code requires 1 parking stall for every 1,000 square feet of assembly /manufacturing /processing and 1 parking stall for every 3,000 square feet of warehousing. The building has approximately 44,296 square feet of assembly /manufacturing /processing and 10,665 square feet of warehousing. This equates to a total parking requirement of 44 parking stalls. The site plan indicates a proposal of 34 parking stalls on Parcel A, the office building parcel, and 34 parking stalls on Parcel B, the warehouse building parcel. While this suffices the requirement for the office building, the warehouse parcel is short by 10 parking stalls. Exhibit A indicates the area on Parcel A that will be utilized in the shared parking agreement. Notice that there will only be 12 parking stalls dedicated as those shared between the office building and the warehouse building. Even if warehouse employees use all 12 stalls, there will be a remainder of 22 parking stalls for the office use. This still exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the office building of 18 parking stalls. PARK DEDICATION The City Code requires a park dedication for any newly created parcel or parcels through the subdivision process. Per ordinance, the park dedication fee shall be equivalent to 10% of the market value of the tract in question. According to Anoka County Records, the 2011 land value for the property located at 3900 Jackson Street is $419,300. Given this value, the park dedication fee would be $41,930. Staff feels that the size of the parcel in question poses a hardship to the applicant. The City Code allows for modifications to the park dedication fee because of such a hardship. To be consistent with other municipalities in the metropolitan area pertaining to industrial pieces of land, staff proposes that the Plam>ulg Commission recommend a park dedication fee equivalent to 5% of the market value of the property. Communities such as Brooklyn Park (5 %), Fridley (3 %), and Roseville (5 %) use a lesser percentage amount to calculate park dedication fees in industrial zones. Using 5% of the market value would yield a park dedication fee of $20,965. Sargent said this is an issue that should be reviewed for a possible Ordinance change for future cases that would be more in line with surrounding communities and consistent with what is being recommended in this case. Sargent said the applicant has now petitioned the Commission and the City Council to further reduce the park dedication fee to 2.5% PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 OCTOBER 5, 2010 FINDINGS OF FACT Minor Subdivision Section 9.104 (K) of the Zonin Code outlines specific conditions in order for the City Council to approve a minor subdivision. They are as follows: 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. The proposed subdivision will only create two parcels. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. No vacation of existing easements will occur as a result of the minor subdivision. 3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. The minimum lot area requirement for the Industrial District is 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement is 80 feet With the completion of the minor subdivision, the newly created parcel will be approximately 13 7' x 139, which equates to just over 19, 000 square, feet in area. 4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights -of -way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. The property is currently accessed from both 39' Avenue and Jackson Street. The proposed minor subdivision will not require any new public rights -of -way in order to gain access to the newly created parcels. 5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this article. This is a true statement. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. This is a true statement. 7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. This is a true statement. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in Section 9.114. This is a true statement. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 OCTOBER 5, 2010 Site Plan Approval Section 9.104 (M) requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make each of the following findings before approving a site plan: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article The proposed site plan meets all requirements set forth in the Zoning Code related to shared parking. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Industrial related activities. Allowing the shared use of parking facilities would enable the businesses to prosper, which would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for industrially guided properties. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no applicable area plan for^ this area. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. The proposed site plan will alleviate parking concerns for the businesses in question. This will help ensure that the parking for the businesses will be confined to the property and that parking will not spill over into the neighboring residential area. Sargent stated that since the proposed minor subdivision and site plan conform to all standards outlined in the Zoning Code, staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and site plan for the property located at 3900 Jackson Street NE. Questions from Members: Szurek asked if the warehouse building is being used currently. Sargent said that building houses the Bulk Storage Business. She then stated she is not in favor of lowering the Park Dedication Fees since the semi trucks going to and from this business use Jackson Street as their route and it is causing damage to the street that was just re- surfaced. Neighbors in the area have called her to voice their concern. Thompson said Schafer Richardson can't be expected to control truck drivers. There are signs posted already and it is up to the Police Dept. to issue citations if they are violating the signs. Sargent said additional signage could be added as a condition stating "Access off 39 Ave only ". He also told members that some of the trucks now parked north of the office building would be removed. Schmitt asked if there was adequate room to get to the loading docks. Sargent said there was adequate room due to the design of the parking stalls. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 OCTOBER 5, 2010 Thompson said his only concern is the reduction of the Park Dedication Fee. He questioned whether the Commission has that power and he wondered if it was wise to set precedence. Sargent told him they can make a recommendation to the City Council and he read the language in the Ordinance to the members. The Ordinance states that park dedication fees may be waived or modified if there is a hardship or can be altered depending on the zoning district the property is in. Sargent said this is a large parcel and probably one of the only properties that is able to be split in this zoning district, so setting precedence is not really an issue. He went on to state that staff had recommended a reduction to 5% based on what surrounding communities charge. If the Commission wants the City Council to consider a 2.5% fee, the motion can be changed, but felt the fee shouldn't be waived altogether. Schmitt stated that some cities use a lower percentage as indicated, but some also have a not to exceed cap. Public Hearing Opened. Kathryn Klatt of Schafer Richardson passed out the written request to lower the park dedication to 2.5% instead of 5 or 10% due to the hardship detailed in the letter. She stated they do have a potential buyer that would fill the vacant building, and if the park dedication fee is reduced, it would make the sale viable. Szurek clearly stated that the Commission can make a recommendation regarding the park dedication fees, but the City Council will actually determine the exact amount to be paid. Schmitt stated for the record that the park dedication fees go to improving the parks, and not to the maintenance of the streets. She understands the surrounding properties are assessed for those improvements and can understand why the neighbors would be upset by the truck traffic. Thompson stated he would like to see additional signage in the area that restricts the flow of the truck traffic to the Bulk Storage site. A resident from the area wanted to know what type of vehicles would be parked at the site. Klatt stated most of the vehicles at the warehouse site would be employee vehicles and a few semi trucks, but that those would be fewer in number. At the office building site, it would just be employees' vehicles. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the minor subdivision of the property located at 3900 Jackson Street NE per Code Section 9.104 (K) of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. The applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Anoka County. 2. The applicant shall pay a Park Dedication fee as determined by the City Council, not to exceed 2.5 %, due prior to the applicant recording the minor subdivision with Anoka County. All ayes. MOTION PASSED PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 OCTOBER 5, 2010 Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for a shared parking arrangement for the property located at 3900 Jackson St NE per Code Section 9.106 (L)(9) of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of off - street parking facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within 60 days after approval of the shared parking use. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Resolutions will go to the City Council October 11, 2010. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.2010 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 3900 JACKSON STREET NE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS WHEREAS, a proposal (Case No. 2010 -1002) has been submitted by Schafer Richardson, Inc. requesting a subdivision from the City of Columbia Heights Subdivision Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 3900 Jackson Street NE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed subdivision upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; and has held the required public hearing on this proposal on October 5, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. The proposed subdivision of land will not result in more than three lots. 2. The proposed subdivision of land does not involve the vacation of existing easements. 3. All lots to be created by the proposed subdivision conform to lot area and width requirements established for the zoning district in which the property is located. 4. The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication of public rights -of -way for the purpose of gaining access to the property. 5. The property has not previously been divided through the minor subdivision provisions of this article. 6. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the conveyance of land. 7. The proposed subdivision does not hinder the making of assessments or the keeping of records related to assessments. 8. The proposed subdivision meets all of the design standards specified in the §9.114. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached condition, plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this subdivision approval. CONDITIONS 1. All applications materials, maps, drawings and descriptive information submitted with this application shall become part of the permit. 2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee as determined by the City Council, not to exceed 2.5yoo, due at the time of the recording of the minor subdivision with Anoka County. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 OCTOBER 5, 2010 RESOLUTION NO.2010 -XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR SHARED PARKING AT 3900 JACKSON STREET NE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2010 -1002) has been submitted by Schafer Richardson, Inc. to the City Council requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS 3900 Jackson Street NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Site Plan approval for shared parking per Code Section 9.106 (L)(9). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on October 5, 2010; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article, except signage. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of- way. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar v e after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED: 1. A legally binding instrument for the shared use of off - street parking facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Anoka County Recorder's Office within 60 days after approval of the shared parking use. NEW BUSINESS Sargent passed out copies of the new Comprehensive Plan. There are also electronic copies available which allows for easier search capabilities. Szurek said she wasn't impressed with the company used in this process. She thought it was a long drawn out process. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 OCTOBER 5, 2010 Sargent said that staff is working on a housing/commercial status report of the city that will focus on price points, foreclosure rates, and rental numbers. The report will be presented to the EDA and Planning & Zoning Commission later this year. He said staff would then focus on revisions to the Zoning Code to clean up some of the language and modernize some of the applications. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT DATE: January 4, 2011 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: Matthew Long LOCATION: 4849 Central Avenue NE REQUEST: Site Plan Approval for Second Monument Sign PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner INTRODUCTION At this time, Savers is requesting a Site Plan Approval in order to locate a second freestanding monument sign on their property. Currently, Savers utilizes a freestanding pylon sign adjacent to Central Avenue near the main entrance. On May 4, 2010, The Planning Commission approved a Site Plan for the construction of a new loading dock and a square foot area variance for signage on the building. Savers also expanded into the vacant end unit of the building and moved their primary entrance closer to Central Avenue. The construction of the loading dock and expansion into the remainder of the building was concurrent with the construction of the new pedestrian bridge at the intersection of 49 Avenue and Central Avenue. Savers would like to install a second freestanding monument sign at this intersection to help regain visibility to the building that they felt was lost due to the construction of the bridge. The requirement for a Site Plan approval is necessary because this property is located within the Design Overlay Highway District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Commercial related activities. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities and mechanisms for successful redevelopment of targeted areas within the community, by enhancing the image and viability of the Central Avenue corridor. One way to accomplish this goal is for the businesses along Central Avenue to conform to the Design . Guidelines for commercial - related activity. The proposed site plan meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 4, 2011 4849 Central Ave, Savers Addition Case # 2011 -0101 ZONING ORDINANCE The property is located in the GB, General Business, as are the properties to the south. The properties to the east are zoned residential and MXD, Mixed Use Development. The properties to the north are zoned commercial and residential, and the properties to the west are located in the City of Hilltop. The subject parcel is also located within the Design Overlay Highway District, and is subject the regulations for such properties. MONUMENT SIGNS The GB, General Business District allows for a second freestanding monument sign if the following conditions are met: The building contains more than 80,000 square feet of gross floor area or the site on which the building is located contains more than 90,000 square feet of surface area; Although the building is only about 34,000 square feet in area, the site on which the building is located is 3.25 acres (141,570 square feet in area). 2. The street frontage of the site on which the building or structure is located exceeds 150 feet in length, and; The street frontage along Central Avenue is approximately 350 feet. 3. The building is located 20 feet or more from the front lot line and is located adjacent to a state trunk highway. The building is located approximately 50 feet from the property line along Central Avenue. Central Avenue is a state highway. Because these conditions are met, the second freestanding monument sign is permitted, but can be no more than eight (8) feet in height, no more than 40 square feet per side, and must be located at least five (5) feet from all property lines and no closer than fifty (50) feet from any other freestanding sign on the property. The proposed plans indicate that the sign will be approximately 6.5 feet in height, 40 square feet in area, and located 5 feet from the north and west property lines. The proposed located of the sign is also approximately 180 feet from the existing pylon sign along Central Avenue. DESIGN GUIDELINES The Columbia Heights Design Guidelines were created to guide developers and businesses in the design of expansions, renovations or new construction of buildings or parking within the Central Avenue and 40 Avenue commercial corridors, and to assist City officials and staff in reviewing development proposals. The guidelines are mandatory, but the City may permit alternative approaches that meet the objectives of Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 4, 2011 4849 Central Ave, Savers Addition Case # 2011 -0101 the design guidelines. The design district that is applied to the Savers store is the Highway District. FREESTANDING SIGNAGE The Design Guidelines permit monument freestanding signage only. Such signage may not be internally lit and must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. The proposed sign utilizes a masonry base that matches the building and will not be internally lit. For these reasons, the proposed sign meets the Design Guideline specifications. FINDINGS OF FACT Site Plan Approval Section 9.104 (M) requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make each of the following findings before approving a site plan: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article The proposed site plan meets all the Design Guidelines standards for building materials and illumination for freestanding monument signs. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. The proposed site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposal will upgrade an existing commercial business and will enhance the image and viability of the Central Avenue corridor. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no applicable area plan for this area. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. The proposed site plan involves the construction of a second monument sign, which will be located near the intersection of 49 Avenue and Central Avenue. The city anticipates that there will be no adverse impact on the property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines with the following conditions: Page 3 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 4, 2011 4849 Central Ave, Savers Addition Case # 2011 -0101 1. The proposed monument sign is located in a utility easement. The property owner will take full responsibility, both fiscally and physically, of removing the sign at such point when the utilities in the area need to be accessed. Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2011 -PZ01, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -PZ01, being a resolution approving a site plan for the construction of a second freestanding monument sign for the building located at 4849 Central Avenue. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution • Location Map • Sign Detail Page 4 RESOLUTION NO.2011 -PZ01 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE SAVERS STORE LOCATED AT 4849 CENTRAL AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, a proposal (Case #2011 -0101) has been submitted by Matthew Long, to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a site plan approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS 4849 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Site Plan approval for the construction of a second monument sign for the building located at 4849 Central Avenue. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the city Zoning Code on January 4, 2011; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of the City staff regarding the effect of the proposed site plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one 1 calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. Resolution No. 2011 -PZO1 Passed this 4"' day of January, 2011, Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: Attest: SECRETARY, Shelley Hanson 2 Chair Marlaine Szurek Approval is contingent upon execution and return of this document to the City Planning Office. I have read and agree to the conditions of this resolution as outlined above. Matthew Long Date D m ci n to , w ; C7 m . d z ;,o o m CENTRAL AVENUE NE m m m f. _— I � t . --- -- - -------- . ^ ------ _. - -- ° - -- -'- 3C� i1TILI':YERSEMENT t �I SM mm t Q 4 to 4 S o O O m r fit m q{ ( t � t X 9 m £— y 8 r r yp t Z k >,Zm t Q O i obxoy z °v .b ° >r M < ntQ K J � � n; 67 f II I ° u >m ac y W IV Ii Z m ....r✓ ,�. # w oN Cfi nn ch 'I 1 M� f o - n y 4. I f ; I ' 0 3 y CD ry g 0 0 0 «�q c + CD wrt.P — 4 _ s r O ro c z ;,o o m CENTRAL AVENUE NE m m m f. _— I � t . --- -- - -------- . ^ ------ _. - -- ° - -- -'- 3C� i1TILI':YERSEMENT t �I SM mm t Q 4 to 4 S o O O m r fit m q{ ( t � t X 9 m £— y 8 r r yp t Z k >,Zm t Q O i obxoy z °v .b ° >r M < ntQ K J � � n; 67 f II I ° u >m ac y W IV Ii Z m ....r✓ ,�. # w oN Cfi nn ch 'I 1 M� f o - n y 4. I f ; I ' 0 3 y CD ry g 0 0 0 «�q c + CD wrt.P � � . � k � � \/� � .� « ��< � \� � ���� \ \ ;� \� �� � � � . � k � CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2011 -0102 DATE: January 4, 2011 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: City Wide REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Driveways PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BACKGROUND At this time, City Staff is proposing an ordinance change that would effect the setback and location requirements for residential driveways. After reviewing the Zoning Code, staff feels that the current language pertaining to setbacks should be amended to better reflect today's housing standards and uses of residential properties. As part of this process, staff will also look into the possibility of requiring a building permit for the construction or reconstruction of future driveways. The justification is to enable staff to determine whether the placement of driveways on residential properties meets the minimum setback requirements, as well as allowing staff to better monitor the impervious surface area calculations for those properties located in the Shoreland Overlay Districts. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to protect values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow residents to have greater flexibility in the placement of driveways on their lots, which would give opportunity to reinvest in their homes. ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed amendments made to the Zoning Ordinance would include language regarding the setbacks and locations of residential driveways within the city. The proposed changes include: City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 4, 2011 City of Columbia Heights, Driveways Case # 2011 -0102 Residential lots platted prior to the effective date of this Code and having a lot width of sixty (60) feet or less, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of one (1) foot in all districts. 2. Residential lots platted after the effective date of this Code or having a lot width greater than sixty (60) feet shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet in all districts. 3. The creation of a joint driveway use between neighboring property owners shall require a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Driveways may only lead directly to, or be contiguous to driveways leading to, an attached or detached garage. 5. In all zoning districts, driveways shall be no less than twelve (12) feet in width. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to protect values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow residents to have greater flexibility in the placement of driveways on their lots, which would give opportunity to reinvest in their homes. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The proposed amendment would be effective for all residential properties within the city. 3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. Not applicable. 4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification. Page 2 City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 4, 2011 City of Columbia Heights, Driveways Case # 2011 -0102 Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment. Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed zoning amendment. Attachments • Draft zoning ordinance Page 3 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.106 (L) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: § 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (L) Uff street parking and loading. (7) Design and maintenance of parking facilities. Off- street parking facilities are subject to the following design and maintenance requirements: (g) Setbacks. Except for one -, two -, three- and four - family residential uses, parking lots and loading areas shall be subject to the same setbacks as a structure for the district in which such parking is located. One -, two -, three- and four - family residential uses are subject to the following setback requirements: 1. Residential lots platted prior to the effective date of this Code and having a lot width of sixty (60) feet or less, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of one (1) foot in all districts. 2. Residential lots platted after the effective date of this Code or having a lot width greater than sixty (60) feet shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet in all districts. 3. The creation of a joint driveway use between adjoining property owners shall require a Conditional Use Permit. (h) Residential driveway locations. Driveways may only lead directly to, or be contiguous to driveways leading to, an attached or detached garage. (i) Minimum driveway widths. In all zoning districts, driveways shall be no less than twelve (12) feet in width. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (E)(3)(g) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (E) R -1, Single Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -1, Single - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (g) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (F)(3)0) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (F) R -2A and R -2B, Two - Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -2A and R -213, Two - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.1.04, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: 6) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners. Chapter 9, Article 1, Section 9.109 (G)(3)(o) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (G) R -3, Limited Multiple- Family Residential District. (3) Conditioned uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -3, Limited Multiple- Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (o) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (H)(3)(q) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (H) R -4, Multiple- Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -4, Multiple- Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (q) Joint driveway use between adjoining property owners. Section 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: January 10, 2011 Second Reading: January 24, 2011 Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Attest: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, CMC City Clerk/Council Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2011-0103 DATE: January 4, 2011 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: City Wide REQUEST: Zoning Amendment Pertaining to Fence Regulations PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BACKGROUND Currently, city regulations pertaining to fences are located in two separate sections of the City Code. The first location is at Chapter 6, Article IV of the Municipal Code, which deals with building and construction standards. The second location is at Chapter 9, Article 1, which is the Zoning Code. Staff feels that these two sections should be combined and located in one area of the City Code in order to make it easier for the general public to gather the necessary information when constructing a fence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to protect values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would make it easier for the general public to gather the necessary information when constructing a fence. ZONING ORDINANCE The following outlines the key aspects of the proposed ordinance change: Chapter 6, Article IV of the Municipal Code would be deleted in its entirety. 2. The construction standards from Chapter 6, Article IV of the Municipal Code will be transferred to the Zoning Code. 3. Residential fences greater than six (6) feet in height will require a Conditional Use Permit. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission January 4, 2011 City of Columbia Heights, Fence Regulations Case # 2011 -0103 4. Non - residential fences greater than seven (7) feet in height shall require a Conditional use Permit. 5. Barbed wire fences will still be allowed in the industrial district, but will now require a Conditional Use Permit. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment: 1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and reinvest in the housing stock to protect values and investment in the city. The proposed ordinance amendment would make it easier for the general public to gather the necessary information when constructing a fence. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The proposed amendment would be effective for all properties within the city. 3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. Not applicable. 4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment. Motion: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed zoning amendment. Attachments Draft zoning ordinance Page 2 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO FENCES WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Chapter 6, Article IV, of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: :- .- .: :. . :- IN 1 • Ind YAII NJ flom M • • .� • • WIN ALIMAK ♦ i - . - • i' AII - i i i• i i • i i • i i I NOW. ♦ i i i i i• • .. . . ...... i i i i i- Mot MMM272T.-Cm M.. .:- (111) Feiiees - efeeted al ong a prepcfty line with fes en ti a shall ha-ve a maintained gfeen afea 20 feet wide leeated 20 feet ffam the adjoining (2) Sueh f�nees shall not be ereeted within the lands Ff of the v�1L�� uny .��.u... �' nn%uc. ( ) Ne pfevision of this seetion in any way festfiets the fequifement of the ordinanee of the eity. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.106 (D) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (D) Fences. (4) General requirements. The following standards shall apply to all fences: (a) Fences may be constructed, placed or maintained in any yard or adjacent to a lot line in accordance with the requirements of this section. (b) The owner of the property upon which the fence is located shall be responsible for locating all property lines prior to constructing said fence. (c) All fence posts and supporting members shall be placed within the property lines of the property on which they are located. (d) All fences shall be situated so that they can be maintained from within the property boundaries of the property on which they are located. (e) All fences shall be constructed so that the finished side or more attractive side of the fence faces the adjacent property or right -of -way. (t) All fenees sa11 athe treated an - v�6errsa`�tF•ted v d ttYEtbl , .. � ... .... +,.,. f mate,, (f) Fences, freestanding walls, and retaining walls shall be constructed in a substantial and workmanlike manner to withstand conditions of soil, weather and use, and of substantial material reasonably suited for the purpose for with the fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall is proposed to be used. No previously used materials may be used in any fence. All fences shall be constructed of the following approved fencing materials: 1. Galvanized or vinyl coated woven fabric — minimum 11 V2 gauge, with two -inch minimum mesh, with knuckles up and cut edge down. 2. Approved vinyl fencing materials. 3. Treated wood or wood of natural materials resistant to decay. (g) Retaining walls or freestanding walls shall be constructed in the following manner: 1. Retaining walls and cribbing shall be used to stabilize steep slopes or prevent erosion. 2. They shall be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice; including, but not limited to, a minimum four -inch concrete footing of appropriate width and drains of appropriate type, size and spacing. 3. Cribbed slopes shall be appropriately planted if open - faced cribbing is used. 4. The retaining constructed in a manner that presents property where applicable. wall or freestanding wall shall be a finished appearance to the adjoining (g) (h) All fences shall be maintained and kept in good condition. (h) (i) Fence height shall be measured from the average grade to the top of the fence. In situations where a grade separation exists at the property line, the height of the fence shall be based on the measurements from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. (j) Barbed wire, razor wire and electric fences shall not be permitted in any zoning district. However, barbed wire may be permitted in industrially zoned districts and property used for public purposes through a Conditional Use Permit process. 0) (k) Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height shall require a building permit from the city. (5) Residential fences. The following standards shall apply to all fences constructed in any residential zoning district or directly adjacent to any residential zoning district: (a) No fence shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. Fences exceeding seven (7) six (6) feet in height shall be deemed structures and shall require a Conditional Use Permit. (b) Fences along any rear property line that abut a public alley or street shall be located no closer than three (3) feet from said alley or street right -of- way. (c) It shall be the responsibility of property owners with fences within recorded city easements to remove such fence at any time when access to the recorded city easement would require the removal of said fence. (1) (d) A fence extending across or into the required front yard setback shall not exceed 42 inches (3.5 feet) in height; however, fences that are less than 50% opaque may be up to 48 inches (4 feet) in height. a (6) feet i heigl,� shall fe b � 'c g pefmit fforn the city. (6) Non - residential fences. The following standards shall apply to all fences constructed in any commercial or industrial zoning district: (a) No fence shall exceed eight (8) feet in height. Fences exceeding seven (7) feet in height shall be deemed structures and shall require a Conditional Use Permit. (b) A fence extending across or into the required front yard setback shall not exceed four feet in height.; howevef, fenees tha4 are less than 50- be ttp to 49 inehes (4 f;eet) in height-. (c) A fence required to screen a commercial or industrial use from an adjacent residential use shall not exceed eight feet in height or be less than six feet in height. In addition, said screening fence shall be no less than 80% opaque on a year round basis. (7) Fencing of play areas. For parks and playgrounds, either public or private and located adjacent to a public right -of -way or railroad right -of -way, a landscaped yard area no less than 30 feet in width, or a fence no less than 4 feet in height, shall be installed between the facility and the right -of -way. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (E)(3)(h) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (E) R -1, Single Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -1, Single- Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (h) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (F)(3)(k) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (F) R -2A and R -2B, Two - Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -2A and R -213, Two - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (k) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (G)(3)(p) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.1.09 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (G) R -3, Limited Multiple - Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -3, Limited Multiple - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (p) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.109 (H)(3)(r) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.109 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (H) R -4, Multiple- Family Residential District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the R -4, Multiple - Family Residential District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (r) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (D)(3)(t) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. (D) LB, Limited Business District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the LB, Limited Business District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (t) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (E)(3)(s) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. (E) GB, General Business District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the LB, Limited Business District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (s) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.110 (F)(3)(h) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. (E) CBD, Central Business District. (4) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the LB, Limited Business District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (h) Fences greater than six (6) feet in height. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.111 (D)(3)(i) and 0) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.111 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. (D) 14, Light Industrial District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the I -1, Light Industrial District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (i) Fences greater than seven (7) feet in height. 6) Barbed wire fences. Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.111 (E)(3)(i) and 0) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions. § 9.111 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. (E) I -1, Light Industrial District. (3) Conditional uses. Except as specifically limited herein, the following uses may be allowed in the I -1, Light Industrial District, subject to the regulations set forth for conditional uses in § 9.104, Administration and Enforcement, and the regulations for specific uses set forth in § 9.107, Specific Development Standards: (i) Fences greater than seven (7) feet in height. (j) Barbed wire fences. Section 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: January 10, 2011 Second Reading: January 24, 2011 Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Attest: Patricia Muscovitz, CMC City Clerk/Council Secretary 1. 'Loll 0 0 (D CD a) a) E CJ oxr_ 0 � U) U) a) E E 0 D o o > 0 to E 3- 0) �Tll cu C) C) N r CD C) CD CN CD E - C� N 0 COQ} C) CD C\j - C\j - 0 C\l C\j 00 - 0 — 0 cr; C') (2) a) (1) M a) E -0 E cu O a) > a) <1 a) 0 0 a) Li- C/) CN E CD CD N — 0 C) N 0 0 N r": N - D Cif cq CN cl� L L6 cli co — a) a) -0 (D -0 co cu (D 4-1 -0 03 a) cu (D 0 a) LL C/) z n 0 (1) CD CD 0 CN 0 (N 0 CD (N C\j c a 0 0 O C) - C\j 6 c\1 - CD C6 L6 N N C\l N Cl) Cd Cl) a) cn N - 0) co m cli a) -0 Q) N 0 (D E -0 E a) -0 E -0 E CL Z3 0 (D (3) 0 T 0 (D LL U) VJ cu cu 0 0 ,o. 0 r . L CD C) C) n 0 C) C\1 C) CD (D CD 0 CN (N - C) N N - C - - 00 N CN CD C N C) (N ce) C', Lf) C', cli o N `— co C C:D5 C, 0� a) N Z (N N 'N N 0 cu 0- cu M— j a) C: CD E E E 0 — (D 0 > C) 0 0) 4 0 E Z o C 0 CD C\l r C) CD C\l C) cli C) CD O CD CN CD (N ( d N CK5 (d Q9 r (N (N (N C 4 ca cu -0 (D -0 -0 E 0 C: L) > 0 ca a) w 0 0 a) LL CO z o. O (D CD 0 49 CD 0 C CD — — CD N O (N a C14 0 CN 0 N CD N CD CN cli ( 6 — Cl) ti C4 co L6 a) (D Q) CL a) cu !3 co C) m a) C: E E E CL 0 rZ 0- < :D cm :3 Q) C) a) > a) 0 cu < (D 0 0 a) LL C/) 0 0 (D CD a) a) E CJ oxr_ 0 � U) U) a) E E 0 D o o > 0 to E 3- 0) �Tll