Loading...
10-14-19 PC Agenda y „s ;. <. 7800 Golden Valiey Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � �� �;f 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ������Q� Planning Commission � Y � � � �V October 14,2019—7 pm REGULAR MEETING AGENDA CouncilChambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Vailey Road 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes August 12, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4. Discussion—Narrow Lots --Short Recess-- 5. Council Liaison Report 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, autliocassette, etc. 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � C�.,}` t� ..K..,... 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov �����/'�Q� i � � � valle Planning Commission � August 12,2019—7 pm REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CouncilChambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ari Prohofsky, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Adam Brookins Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Emily Anderson, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall e. �, r„ ._ ,... ,_:. `� Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Baker to approve the agenda of August 12, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. � _ Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Johnson to approve the July 22, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried. Commissioner Baker abstained. Public Hearing—Mixed Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District language Zimmerman gave some background information about the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. He stated that the changes to this district which the Commission has been discussing over the past four months were suggested in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a way to take some of the same development principles in the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and apply them elsewhere in the City. Zimmerman referred to the proposed new Zoning Code language and said he would like to review the purpose statement, the descriptions of the proposed three subdistricts, the building setbacks and height regulations, uses, and other development standards. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed purpose statement and each of the proposed subdistricts which include the Neighborhood Subdistrict, the Community Subdistrict, and the Employment Subdistrict. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-5933968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette,etc. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2 August 12, 2019—7 pm Zimmerman next reviewed the principles used when considering building setbacks and height regulations. He stated that the main focus was to require buildings to be located close to the front lot line and to push surface parking to the rear of a lot, to avoid canyon-like streetscapes by stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets, to establish a minimum and a maximum height of buildings to help provide a pedestrian-friendly environment, and to reduce the potential impact of building height on adjacent single family homes by limiting the number of stories within a certain distance of abutting properties. Zimmerman stated that the next area their discussions focused on was impervious surface coverage and open space. He stated that the proposed code language allows additional impervious coverage as a way to support increased density in the mixed use areas, but it prioritizes building coverage over surface parking. He said the Code also requires useable outdoor spaces to be included in mixed use developments, and it encourages larger, coordinated open space amenities within mixed use areas. Zimmerman stated that the last area their discussions focused on was uses and other development standards. He explained that in the proposed code language multiple uses within a single parcel or building are encouraged, home occupations are allowed, and some uses are restricted by having limits placed on gross square footage and the number of surface parking spaces allowed. He added that the Employment Subdistrict includes Light Industrial uses which could be manufacturing uses, R&D, makerspaces, and warehouses. Zimmerman said the outstanding questions/items for discussion include: whether there should be a minimum height exemption for small buildings, whether drive-thrus should be conditional or restricted uses, if gasoline sales and auto repair should be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict, if Child Care as an accessory use should be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict, a definition of"makerspaces," and right-of-way obstruction permits for awning/canopies over sidewalks. Segelbaum asked Zimmerman if he is looking for feedback regarding "height" or "number of stories." Zimmerman said the consensus in past discussions was not to consider stories but to require all buildings to be a minimum of 26 feet in height. He said there is currently an exemption in the Code that allows buildings 5,000 square feet or less in size in the Neighborhood Subdistrict to be less than 26 feet in height. Baker questioned if the exemption should apply to the square footage of the lot and not the square footage of the building. Zimmerman said the current tanguage in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District says that buildings 5,000 square feet or less in size are exempt. He said the concern is creating a sufficient pedestrian supportive environment if there are one-story buildings. Segelbaum asked if the 5,000 square feet refers to the building itself, gross floor space, or finished floor space. Zimmerman said the language is just 5,000 square feet but he assumes that means gross floor space. Johnson said any of the Mixed Use properties could have buildings that were four stories and it would seem way out of proportion to have a smaller building. He added that taking the exemption out might encourage a group of properties to be developed together as opposed to one at a time with a single building that might be out of proportion. City of Galden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3 August 12, 2019—7 pm Pockl questioned how the minimum height exemption issue was raised and if other cities allow for similar minimum height exemption for small buildings. Zimmerman said he believed it came about with the creation of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District because there are a lot of existing buildings that the City wanted to accommodate and not make nonconforming. Baker asked if the exemption would encourage the retention small buildings. Zimmerman said potentially it could and that without allowing the exemption they may be more encouraged to have something above the first story of a smaller building. Segelbaum said in most cases buildings match the lot size and developers don't typically build a small building on a large lot so it seems likely that they don't need to change the exemption based on lot size. Sadeghi said he thinks having the exemption would make sense if there are opportunities for smaller single story businesses, restaurants, etc. if they are able to make it work. Blum questioned if that is a trade-off with the goals of walkability and the style of the district and if allowing a smaller building surrounded by cars and pavement would be the opposite of what they've been trying to design. He added that changes can be made in the future if the City isn't seeing the appropriate development. Segelbaum asked if the height of a building is measured at the front. Zimmerman said yes, height is measured at the front facade. Segelbaum proposed that buildings less than 5,000 square feet have to be 20 feet in height rather than 26 feet. Johnson asked what the height requirement would be if it didn't have to be 26 feet. Zimmerman said it varies between 12 and 20 feet. Johnson said he wants to avoid having a small building surrounded by tall buildings. Zimmerman reiterated that the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and the current proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language has the height exemption in it. Johnson proposed that the exemption language be taken out of the Code so that all buildings are required to be 26 feet in height and to handle exceptions as they come. The consensus of the Commission was to remove the exemption language. Zimmerman said the next question staff would like feedback on is drive-thrus. He stated that currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for drive-thrus in all zoning districts. He referred to the proposed language regarding drive-thrus in the Mixed Use Zoning District which states that drive-thru facilities and lanes shall be located behind the principal structure, queuing lanes shall not interfere with pedestrian circulation, and canopies and other structures shall be constructed from the same materials as the principal structure. He explained that the options are to have these be the guiding rules or to require drive-thrus to go through the review and approval process for a Conditional Use Permit. Baker asked about the pros and cons of the two options. Zimmerman said that he has had feedback that drive-thrus seem so straightforward that it is burdensome to have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. Zimmerman said he would recommend that drive-thrus are a restricted use which would still require site plan review. Segelbaum said people have very strong opinions about drive-thrus and he thinks it would be helpful to the City Council to have the review process so he suggests they be left as a conditional use. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 August 12, 2019—7 pm Johnson questioned how parking and drive-thru lanes could both be located behind a building without interfering with pedestrian circulation. Zimmerman agreed that the site design will have to make sure queuing lanes are set up so that they don't cross main walkways. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners for their feedback regarding gasoline sales and auto repair in the Employment Subdistrict. Pockl asked if those uses would be subject to the 26-foot height requirement. Zimmerman said as the Code is currently written they would have to be 26 feet in height. Pockl referred to setbacks for gasoline stations and asked if they are measured from the pumps or from the building. Zimmerman said they are measured from the building and that it seems to imply that it may be challenging to have this use in this district. Baker said it doesn't seem like this district is suitable for gasoline sales or auto repair uses. Blum agreed. Zimmerman next asked the Commissioners about allowing child care as an accessory use to a larger office building, or as a stand-alone child care business in the Employment Subdistrict. He explained that the proposed new Mixed Use District language would allow child care as an accessory use along with a business, but not as a stand-alone child care business. The Commissioners agreed that stand-alone child care businesses should also be allowed in the Mixed Use District. Zimmerman next referred to "makerspaces" and explained that the TOD consultants have discussed allowing them in the Employment Subdistrict. He explained that "makerspaces" are collaborative spaces where people can share tools, equipment, ideas, etc. that tend to be in light industrial areas. He said if the Commission likes the idea of allowing "makerspaces" staff can work on developing a clear de�nition and requirements. Blum asked if"makerspaces" are really so different that they need to be separate and called out in the Code. Zimmerman said that they are unusual and new and doesn't fit nicely with any of the existing use categories so it felt like it was worth calling out and defining. Baker asked where in the Zoning Code "makerspaces" would be located. Zimmerman said there would be a definition and they would be allowed in the Light Industrial Zoning District as well as the Employment Subdistrict in the Mixed Use District. Segelbaum said it is fine to encourage "makerspaces" but he doesn't think it needs to be specially carved out in the Zoning Code. The Commissioners agreed. Zimmerman said the last question he wanted feedback about is allowing canopies and awnings in the front of buildings over sidewalks, and if they would require a right-of-way obstruction permit. Baker said he doesn't think canopies and awnings on a public sidewalk are very inviting. Segelbaum asked if there are requirements such as height, etc. Zimmerman said yes, and noted that currently the Zoning Code requires 10 feet of height. He added that ultimately the City would have the ability to not grant a permit. Sadeghi said awnings feel urban and allowing those types of features would improve walkability. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5 August 12, 2019— 7 pm Zimmerman said that the next step will be to bring this proposed Zoning Code language to the City Council with an effective date set in the future to allow time for property rezonings to take place. He explained that there will also be other necessary code changes such as amending the architectural and materials standards section and the sign regulations to include this new Zoning District. Blum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment Blum closed the public hearing. Johnson asked to see the Future Land Use map and asked Zimmerman to point out all of the locations that would be Mixed Use. Zimmerman referred to the map and discussed each location. Johnson asked if language encouraging public art could be added. Zimmerrnan said yes and noted that there is language regarding public art in the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District that could remain in the proposed new language. MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Johnson to recommend approval of replacing the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District with a new Mixed Use Zoning District and the motion carried unanimously. Discussion—Zoning Study Anderson reviewed the goals of the Zoning Study which include updating uses, making the Zoning Code easier to understand, aligning with other peer cities, making sure all of the uses are reflected in the minimum parking requirements, and consider having restricted uses in the Code. Anderson referred to manufactured homes and stated that they would be considered a single family dwelling according to the Zoning Code. She explained that the City is required by law to allow manufactured homes as long as they conform to local zoning and building codes and that state law allows requires manufactured home parks to be a conditional use in any zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. She added that as a result of this study, manufactured home parks will be added as a conditional use in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 Zoning Districts. Anderson stated that there are some required changes to the Zoning Code including adding community centers as a use in the Institutional Zoning District, and amending the R-3 Zoning District to allow 20 units per acre for multifamity dwellings and 30 units per acre for senior housing as required by the Met Council in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Anderson stated that there are a number of uses to consider adding to the Zoning Code and that staff would like the Commissioners feedback on some them. The first use to consider is adding bed and breakfasts as a conditional use in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Segelbaum said he would have been against allowing bed and breakfasts but considering that so many other cites allow them, maybe they should consider it. Blum said he is against it because it invites a business presence into a single family neighborhood and it doesn't feel like it fits. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 August 12, 2019—7 pm Johnson asked about the definition of a bed and breakfast and how it compares to an Airbnb. Baker said people aren't given breakfast and don't have a host in an Airbnb whereas there are multiple rooms and a host serving breakfast in a bed and breakfast. Johnson asked if the issues are traffic and unknown people coming in and out. Baker said they might want to consider eliminating both uses.Johnson asked if there are current rules for Airbnbs. Zimmerman said they are currently allowed and that the City Council has discussed Airbnbs in the past. He explained that the challenge with outlawing them is that it is hard to catch people doing it, it is hard to enforce, and cities can end up spending more money and time with enforcement than with the problem they are trying to solve. Segelbaum proposed that bed and breakfasts be left out of the Code. The Commissioners agreed. Anderson said the next topic for consideration is adding row homes and/or townhomes as a permitted or conditional use in the R-2 Zoning District. Segelbaum asked Anderson what is permitted because he thought townhomes were allowed in R-2. Zimmerman stated that the current R-2 Zoning District language allows single family homes or twin homes, but it doesn't allow more than two units to be connected. He explained that there would need to be discussion about how many units would be allowed, setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc. Baker said he knows they are trying to reduce the number of Conditional Use Permits, but this seems like the perfect use for a Conditional Use Permit rather than a restricted use by right. Segelbaum said they've worked hard at zoning the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts, and to him this is real expansion of the R-2 Zoning District, especially since they are directly abutting R-1 in many cases. Anderson said staff could provide a map showing where the R-2 districts are located and what they are abutting. Pockt asked if the only difference with R-1 and R-2 is that R-2 allows two family dwellings. Zimmerman said that is correct. She asked if there has ever been any consideration of taking away two family dwellings, and if the duplex language could be replaced with townhomes. Segelbaum said a townhome by definition would include a duplex. Pockl said she feels the look and aesthetic is different between townhomes and duplexes. Baker said the use of the word townhome or row home does not limit it to two units. Zimmerman said allowing townhomes and/or row homes would be a way of having something that is less dense than an apartment building. He referred to the north half of Douglas Drive where it is guided for R-2 and where the Planning Commission has said they may like to allow this type of use. Johnson asked if allowing townhomes or row homes would help with the City's affordable housing goals. Zimmerman said the cost varies but it would provide more housing options for the missing middle between single family homes and apartments. Segelbaum said he is willing to consider allowing more townhomes and/or row homes, but he is concerned about permitting more duplexes by doing that. Sadeghi said he thinks there are just a handful of properties where this sort of development would make sense and if they are allowed as a Conditional Use he would be in favor of including them. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7 August 12, 2019—7 pm Anderson said the next item for consideration is adding bowling alley as a permitted use in the Commercial Zoning District. She explained that there are parking requirements for bowling allies but they are not tisted in the land uses so it should either be added as a use or removed from the parking requirements. She added that a larger topic in the Zoning Study is the listing of every use allowed in the Commercial Zoning District and whether more general statements should be used instead that allows different retail uses. Zimmerman added that many cities use more general categories and only call out the uses that require a Conditional Use Permit or some other special consideration. Baker asked about only listing what is prohibited. Zimmerman said it gets difficult to list every single use that is allowed or prohibited. Baker suggested staff bring the Commission some examples. Anderson said the next item to consider is adding hotels/motels as a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Office Zoning Districts. She stated that currently they are allowed in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. She added that staff would also like feedback on whether hotel/motel should be kept as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District. She referred to a chart showing what other cities allow in regard to hotels and motels. Segelbaum said it makes sense to study it further. The Commissioners agreed. Johnson asked if hotels/motels would be allowed in the Mixed Use District. Zimmerman said they would be allowed in the Community and Employment Subdistricts. Anderson referred to several uses listed in the Zoning Code and asked for feedback about whether or not they should be removed. These uses included removing hotel/motel and vending machines from the Industrial Zoning District, and removing comfort stations, vending machines, marine engine repair, pool hall, and messenger/telegraph services from the Commercial Zoning District Pockl asked if pool halls could be included in the indoor commercial recreation use. Zimmerman said it is a question of whether they need to be specifically called out. Segelbaum said he thinks there will be more and more use of vending services such as laundry services or red box, etc. Pockl asked if vending machines are defined. Anderson said vending machines are not defined in the Code. Zimmerman said there is a better way to define vending machines to include services and to also find a way to simplify things and remove redundancies. Anderson said staff would like feedback about using the term indoor recreational facilities as a way of covering a wide variety of uses. Pockl asked if a game room is considered Industrial. Zimmerman referred to a few existing uses in the City and said indoor recreational facilities could include uses such as escape rooms, lasertag, trampoline parks, etc. Baker said given the trend of these types of recreational uses, leaving the definition wide open makes him nervous. Zimmerman said the challenge is finding a way to allow these types of uses but stilf having some discretion and a way to control the impacts. City of Galden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting g August 12, 2019—7 pm Blum asked if these uses would fit into another category like a gym. Zimmerman said these uses are more of an entertainment activity and don't really fit it with a gym or health club use which is more of a physical activity. Baker said he is inclined to leave these uses as conditional uses so that there is a review process. Zimmerman said staff can bring back a list of types of these kinds of uses. Anderson said the next steps are to update the Code based on the feedback from the Planning Commission, bring new changes to the Planning Commission for consideration, revise the Code and compile a list of changes, and hold public hearings. ;; �,; --Short Recess-- ,� Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall updated the Commission on a recent open house held at Brookview to discuss changes to the Tobacco ordinance. He stated that at the next Council/Manager meeting they will be discussing the Council Chambers remodeling project, they will be looking at the goals they established at the beginning of the year to see where they are at, and they will be looking at the budget. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings Zimmerman reported on a walking audit he and Commissioner Johnson recently attended. Other Business , No other business was discussed. � Adjournment MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Johnson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:51 pm. � Adam Brookins, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city of � orden � � � � � � �v � � � � �t�. E,,'� Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax} Date: October 15, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Proposed Adjustments to Narrow Lot Regulations Summary In May of 2019, staff discussed with the City Council a number of public concerns regarding the construction of homes on narrow residential lots (generally those under 65 feet in width). On October 10, staff again met with the Council to discuss moving forward with amendments to the zoning regulations in order to address some of the issues while still allowing redevelopment to take place. Background As staff reported in May, tax parcel divisions—the separation of two or more legally platted lots that are under common ownership—have increasingly become a focus of attention for residents in a few targeted neighborhoods in the city. Typical tax parcel divisions result in newly available lots that are considerably narrower than would be allowed if a lot subdivision were to take place following current standards. Construction of new homes on these lots has generated concerns around the size of required side yard setbacks, the height of homes, general massing, and other site aspects such as stormwater runoff,tree removal, and solar access. As part of the discussion, staff suggested the possibility of adjustments to side yard setbacks, building envelope dimensions, and side wall articulation for lots under 50 feet in width. This would focus attention on lots that have generated the greatest amount of concern while limiting the number of existing homes on narrow lots (50 to 65 feet in width)that could become nonconforming if changes to zoning regulations are approved. The issues surrounding narrow lots are specific to plats that were approved early in the city's history, as the standards around lot width that are in place today were not introduced until 1938. As residents have slowly come to recognize the parts of the city where these plats exist, they are becoming more familiar with the concept of a tax parcel division, which allows two existing lots to be utilized where they functioned as one lot previously. Consultation with the current and prior City Attorneys and the League of Minnesota Cities has confirmed that while the City has the 1 authority to regulate construction of new homes on these lots through zoning and other standards, it is legally unadvisable to attempt to restrict the use of these lots altogether. Subdivision, in contrast, is the process of creating one or more new lots by splitting an existing lot. New lots being created through subdivision must meet the minimum standards of lot width, lot area, and other types of evaluation in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all residents. The regulations surrounding residential subdivisions in Golden Valley were modified in 2015 and represent some compromises that were endorsed by the City Council at that time. While cities have the ability to create the standards used to evaluate proposed subdivisions,they must evaluate and apply the standards in a quasi-judicial fashion, which means that any proposal that is shown to meet the minimum standards must be approved. There is little to no room for subjectivity when evaluating subdivisions. Analysis As outlined in the attached memo from May, staff is comfortable increasing the size of the smallest side yard setbacks in order to gain additional distance between homes on narrow lots. This would not only provide greater separation between structures, but also is more consistent with building code standards and creates additional opportunities to address stormwater runoff. While staff believes there are small adjustments that could be made to the maximum height allowed for homes constructed on narrow lots, staff would be hesitant to significantly reduce height without the input and expertise of architects and builders in order to understand the implications on the layout and utility of floorplans. Similarly, there are potential modifications that seem reasonable around side wall articulation and roof pitch that could incrementally reduce impacts of new homes on adjacent properties while still allowing for full use of a narrow lot. Finally, staff believes a closer look should be taken to the front yard setbacks applied to those narrow lots that are also corner lots. Often times, the large front yard setback—if applied— would render the lot unbuildable. This has resulted in variance requests to the Board of Zoning Appeals in the past. Amending the zoning code to specifically address these situations would reduce the number of variance requests and increase certainty regarding the disposition of those lots. Based on the number of homes already built on lots 50 feet or greater in width, staff is not proposing to make significant adjustments to the regulations for those lots, in order to try and avoid complications related to creating structural non-conformities. Next Steps Staff recommended that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to further refine the staff suggestions above, and to bring forward to the Council recommendations regarding zoning text amendments to address resident concerns. Staff believes the public discussion should include a range of resident input related to narrow lots, and that real estate, design, and 2 construction professionals should be engaged in order to provide complete and well-rounded understandings of the concerns being raised. Attachments • Memo to Council/Manager dated May 14, 2019 (10 pages) 3 city of oZden MEMt� � ANDI� M � . vallePh sical Develo ment De artment y Y p P 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting May 14, 2019 Agenda Item 2. Narrow Lots Prepared By lason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The City Council has asked staff to prepare a summary of the regulations and issues surrounding "narrow lots" in the City(determined to be those less than 65 feet in width), especially as they relate to recent tax parcel divisions that have resulted in the construction of new homes on lots as narrow as 40 feet. Background In 2017, staff briefed the City Council on an emerging area of concern that had previously not been well-addressed in the City Code. At that time, a handful of properties had applied to Hennepin County to be assigned a second Property ID (PID) in order to utilize two platted lots where previously only one PID has existed.This action permitted new homes to be built on lots that were narrower than what current subdivision regulations allow and that were often of a different character than adjacent homes. Neighbors of these properties had approached staff and Council Members with questions and concerns that prompted a conversation with the City Attorney and the League of Minnesota Cities to understand what authority the City might have to regulate these tax parcel divisions. It was determined that since these divisions were administrative in nature (assigning new PIDs) and did not involve platting,the usual regulations regarding subdivisions did not apply and the City had no authority to prevent the utilization of these narrow lots as long as zoning regulations were being met—regulations such as setbacks, height, structure width, side wall articulation, etc. The lots now being separated were platted early in the City's history as residential development began to occur in the mid to late 1910s after the Luce Line Railroad was constructed.The first zoning code in Golden Valley wasn't adopted until 1938, which set the minimum lot width at 75 feet. Because of this delay, plats recorded in the preceding years resulted in lots of 60, 50, and even 40 feet in width—similar to what was being platted in the Minneapolis neighborhoods to the east. Many new property owners purchased two or even three of these lots and built one home across them, resulting in properties that appeared and acted as 80 or 100 foot lots even though the underlying property lines remained. It wasn't until the structures on these lots began to age and it became economical to tear down a single home and sell the individual lots for new homes that this issue appeared on the radar of staff. The City Council, at the Council/Manager session in November of 2017, directed staff to develop language to include in the zoning code that would help manage these tax parcel divisions while not preventing them from occurring. Staff worked to include standards around obtaining surveys, removing non-conforming structures, and sending notices to neighbors, and then adopted these new regulations when the City Code was recodified in 2018. Recent activity around tax parcel divisions has once again drawn attention to the topic and prompted the City Council to think about how zoning regulations might be adjusted to manage structures on some narrow lots. Analysis Side Yard Setbacks One of the main concerns being expressed by residents who live next to or in the vicinity of narrow lots is the size of the side yard setbacks that are required. The City's zoning code uses the width of the lot to determine the minimum width of side yard setbacks: City Code Sec. 113-88. (f)(1)(c) lot Width Side Yard Setback Lots with width 100 feet or greater 15 feet Lots with width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet 12.5 feet Lots with width 65 feet or less North or west side yard setback 10°/a of the lot width South or east side yard setback 20%of the lot width For a lot that is 50 feet wide,these regulations would require a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. For a lot that is 40 feet wide,they would require a minimum side yard setback of 4 feet on one side and 8 feet on the other.The zoning code adopted in 1955 appears to be the first version of the City Code to use variable widths to determine side yard setbacks and to assign different setbacks to the north/west side of the lot compared to the south/east side of the lot for lots less than 70 feet wide. On a block with a series of 40 foot lots, each taking advantage of the minimum side yard setback, this could result in a distance between homes of as little as 12 feet. In contrast, a block of 100 foot lots would require at least 30 feet between homes. As part of the research on this topic in 2017, staff analyzed the various recorded plats in the city to see where there were lots of record that were 65 feet or less—either standing alone or as part of "combined lots" with a common PID (see Figure 1). A. Lakeview Hei�hts and Lakeview Hei�hts 15L Addition: Mostly 61 and 62 foot lots that are almost entirely built out as separate lots (very few combined) B. Glenwood View: 50 and 60 foot lots built out as separate lots with a handful of 40 foot lots C. Winnetka: 60 foot lots often built out as separate lots, but with some properties consisting of 1%or 2 combined lots D. Belmont: Mostly 50 foot lots with most prope�ties consisting of 1% or 2 combined lots E. Confer and Ericksons Boulevard Gardens: 50 foot lots with most properties consisting of 2 combined lots F. Golden Vallev Gardens: 50 foot lots with most properties consisting of more than 1 but less than 2 combined lots G. Delphain Hei�hts (First,Second, and Third Units): 50 foot lots with most properties consisting of more than 1 but less than 2 combined lots H. McNair Manor: 50 foot lots with some consisting of 2 combined lots I. Glenwood: 40 foot lots with many consisting of 1 % or 2 combined tots 156 r -: � 41I1i� � ���. ' 5; X ,�t'T�t �-- 7��C i-��,. 2 D �� a i Z ¢ T'"'7 �-����: � '�r��� '1 �2nA Ave N '� n' � •�-,' � .��� :` r' < '�4�- + � ' .� ....I,11 � .s � '}_^s�tt ` � ��.t.� F c; �a �� �169� z � � �- '�� ��t o� c L.- �v 'a` � ,� o�. r -:. a � ii ` t '7- . .' ' �7 � _. (,f:, ,I��q�,.; , _ "�."•, { f F }`'�'T•k, . ..,I I� _ii,� � 142 "�`"- �� ��,'.,,,.� . ,i ; x - i z � Av.-� i� '1 i� I Gltt _ � � � !'�'�'� �i'' r i r�i�t1 �_' a • . '- � 1f � 2711 A e N :' ,�.,) -�-- 7Q �p -� � -• i l kF-�#- i i �i:'1 �� C, d���������`�;`��t'�� E'�, �u,� � � � �f i1 � s��l�fl� �; , � ,�� ;a � ���`� ' w - �r�-��i �;�.t ' - ����-e�y' ..�� �i�� i . ��,.�.F��, ��:� ��._ C,� ._ -� .... i :� �;�-�E . :i&M� i���<� .. I°�,-__ 4'�r����� Ic,l �f L � S � LtIIf1 .'.L,` ':4 ��`i.S x ,� +�m � �i� � � ;n�� - " � a �:R'i3i"_'F:,�� f 7�� � ��`f- �iW..T- ��..-e._"" �i ���-1 � rt� �� �. � �`_-�� - V� '� \�' { � + '�-'.dT 'f' }; 'It:�" L.�_ �_�. {ir -`� f i `2'� � �� � ; � � �^- f��r��*r�t ! ��� .� ,ri� ^ � ��� �i � t° , � !tf JJ {('� �.,1"i I� � �r , . ', � , � '�� � '^�i� �f `s� f' 1 `:3 z r' ,t�'�t�.Yt ' '4��'� 1-� r'7�� rr j� Yir��, ��,����� �'�M '�j <�-( �1�� n?I IF�K .'�•�t�'y . � �-1i4�� r7+1�i. ;i�'r� �1,-�- iy' s � �jC�`" i a'��1t�� � S' � �i' t ' r � „�� L1 '; . h� �� �-�r�ir 5� �,� � , 5 :�„aa r. j t. I : �d � . ' -rts w i .� ,„ � t a ,iFE d 1..� G,�-� � e i� i �.�-'41��" . p7 s��i ; #. �7 v�,'�y 2 r . .. t"`E�, t` {' -� .�^� ! �,. ;-'^��' . "-5' . �. � ; i r a,_�"'_ m �t i � . � � �-L'' �i j . � � � �'.� � # i.t P :i a� � �.i' j -. �ti . � c_�t • n�` �- I �`_ �'� �. f ..w 1.. i �� � `I- x,,. ��,d ._� .._._ � . :�. C .� '111`�� ��� � � `�� i� i � L_ 1 � � .�(� �..,�i �"�� --��'��—�" ��` � � � - ' �t�''- x` � � f �C���r �i �= r� - � �'��'_'_ ,. � �� i�,E-f"��, _ � t ` � ��"";,-,��`�' �-� {• �"_"��;'I ' g"'--.;±.,_': ,. �r ;f : � y'''�[6 �, �� 'y�,T�i..;_....���.m:. , . �,"t�3f' _... - - -�� L, "� I � i �s '� f �� � �.}_� � � � � �. r I� � r � �.�:�;. . € -- � �, _ � �.� _ _ � � � �_ f �I -�� , � �--_-- �;� �7 .�,- (�� � < , YS =�, R.wai�.^i..... ' i T. i a ,''.� J�„'.�"' Y_ I 1 . � � _jl�� . � �S�,S � .- _ , i I � .��.��� �..(. ..� ��. �� I_ � r�_ I, , '. 1� -- �� . . �3:�..�-_—_' ��r �� d Y ., �'..J._.l ._' :�i! ��k.��,y'^F-4•c''� y �..;..,. x� .,i� ��'1-�-.�.-��.._� , , 1 , +$� ,`�. � . F r I � �t , t n. t �` r�I"'Fi r �.- _�� :�� � y. . � �;,, 'i - `�=, � I.__ . I 1 ! }..f I i-. .... ' l��i�j,�.��"txi'"��'k'�d'.�,�j��' � - ,�,� 1V7:��,r} �fiC'i� � ..�� .� E tj_.. rt - -.__55 . � �'"I �IE} j.,. j�.� .°� i� n"ay? � i Y i... �SS �,��55 ,. ,.. .` .".- ` . .. ., � L:� � � j.;�� � �;rt�+ x' r"� q � {�1 k�� �i �� ,..... � , �11L""' � �EB�.�� � ���� '"L .hz x �� �S"i `f i . _ ���� t ,y _��� , � � -� . i--��t�(C(�„ ���i�t,�� � ( � ' p af� r'�t � �1�; ..'i � '� �� �� � ! t � b � � r,,. _ _. :J �:f I' I r .TMr`�t+ }-±. ; . � � � y,� �� -eE,... - � �, -- ✓' �� r �•�i �::1 � � IE � ti'�y'f �.�����.1 ��}r "� i�y �, ��7_: . . i�F��, � �{� - � ��� � '� 1 L� ��' �r � '� - � �- ` S' � � s C '.E4� � t �, } �� � � : � ��( ,� ;t+ ;�ri � � _ � r�i �.'_a t �� + (�r .�I �..:.te° � �: i-��i�jw. �r', �f�, i_ { �C�i:A� l�+r v� � �-s , � �I- I - f��� ILI.: � �� . i y ;�`x e� �7� : 3 t � �,--r.iii�. �l ��.�� _t , � , �"o �, �� ���t q`�� ' `�"' . � ,=�{ , .'- � r , ,_�1" ;, _. ��,(: ��„�� �� - _? � . . � � � ,, _ i._ _ � � k� � �� � .i � I- � � � ,� " �_ .� ��__.�� ���F ,C ' �— �, �� x �!�'� ` --,—�� _ .��:. .,�%4•i'u:t.t{�� �� �j���� � 1 �i. ' r , � �- � � i ` c �� 5 s L,'� '``_��� � I k �r -�,�1'�_ ,`� . ,� �" �' � - '��' I'' � .. ��a �--°� `'i •`t�{ � ��as� � , .., ��.5 �� .t .... .. �� r ,r t.�� tdrte " � m il ,). ,_ ... _ �` � ' '�' r� . ,4'r�tt� .Yi�,.. � il i r ' a. 1ett�SlVJ_ .�����.,�f .[,� �1 krre. �"100.` �I t . Figure 1:Recorded plats in Golden Valley Plats that have a large number of properties that could split fairly easily (because they consist of exactly two lots) represent the biggest perceived threat to neighbors and are shown in red (areas D, E, and I). Plats with properties that would be more difficult to split (because they include portions of lots and would require coordination with adjacent properties) are shown in green (areas F and G).Those plats in which most of the narrow lots have already been built on individually, and therefore represent the least amount of potential change, are shown in blue (areas A, B, C, and H). Staff used computer mapping software to identify the properties across the city that could split fairly easily or with more difficulty.These are shown as red or yellow parcels in Figure 2 below. Yellow parcels are clustered in the northeast portion of the city with additional concentrations in the north-central portion of the city. Red parcels are focused primarily in the Meadow/Sunnyridge neighborhood as well as the Sumter neighborhood with a fair number also present in the area north of the Golden Valley Country Club. � ■ � ■ .� . � . ,� , , : � _ � �� �, � � ��� � ��� � F � � � � � � � i�'-� '���� �� I// i .:,r'��, � �. ,. . . ., .'� �. �� � rW � '� � . `� �� �y�. ♦. �� ■ . ' . � �i" �� •�r t �„r . " � � � � � � �� y�aJ.. � �♦ � � � � � . „� �� �� � " � ■ ' � � �� � � � �`� �_�• ■ ,;�: � '■ �� • r� �� �� F�� � t /r� ' �:,��� r ' li".ti�"' .�• �. � � ■.r, : L' ..■ !:�"' � � � -F � �� �' � � � �� . � . .� 4�,,- .m. �r� � -�� ��; � � �/ � �, ;�� ��. �_ ,.,., . �. � "' �;� ,.a.,� _ �� r �_ : ��� �' �� �� � �� � �� " � "� . ��' � �� �� R � �e � ry�"'�����';��'�,";�. ` � °�� '�£ �' �� � - • � � w �.. . . a. � ��� �� w���,,.. ��� � ,,� � � �� �� � -�� 9�.1�� _ _ _ , ,�� � � . , , , , - �� .�,� � ���� ''`�e. *� ■ � 's .� _ ��� �-.-� � ,, $ . ;. � � , _ . _ r �� , : �' � . ���� � ��_ . ,.�` ■ �� �M~ ' _� � �, . .. �� "� � ' .� ' ' �� ♦ . �r a _ .� �° � a; � �� ... • ` .. � .� � Figure 2:Properties consisting of more than one lot Of the roughly 6,600 single-family properties in Golden Valley, 303 are shown as red parcels—or those with the most straight-forward ability to divide. 420 are shown as yellow parcels;these would require much more coordination by property owners because two or three lots would need to be ready to sell/redevelop at the same time. There are a number of narrow lots that have already been built on within the City and their locations closely align with the plats shown above (see Figure 3 or attached map).Approximately 600 homes have been built on lots that are (ess than 65 feet wide using existing zoning regulations (this does not include single-family homes that are within a PUD, such as those in Hidden Lakes). Roughly 370 are between 60 and 65 feet wide and another 195 are between 50 and 60 feet wide. There are only 40 lots with homes that are less than 50 feet wide;these are almost all located in the Glenwood View plat (east of the James Ford Bell Research Center) or the Glenwood plat (the Meadow/Sunnyridge neighborhood). ---� � „ ' , ;_ ; '.- i ; ; � �. i _.. � . _ ! � �-� ; �. ' � L• 'I i � ' ��'.� ' ; , a �` ��� I II � ,!(��� �M __ ; � 1�.... 3� +.,.; . � �.. � i �-- .� s , r�...—_r Y ��_.....i � - #� I � -' .^ i�G 3 '� . �.... � � '� � ic 1 i ( — � .y ..� 4 �. �° ' t I � � ,,,,, � . i [.� i '_`{ 1, ,`` '�a� .« - �`� , �E �v� +t� U� � i 1 . � ' ,., r- Ea�r � ` �+ 1+��{: i �» _... �, � �{ _ ti.,, , �, ,', .._ � " . _ ' � � � �, f t'' ! �� � t i '`° � ! i"" r��+ '" ,� —� � � =f � � i � � `f , �j 1 . �' t.�`� M S.-!` ," .� �-_ 6 �''� , 1 I � 1 , � • :� 1 . ... 1 � r �-�- .:i� .^� � . ��� ,_. , ti : i ; � _. v . 3 � r.�.. 'cs" �„ ; ( ' I , S -- �. �... "���e x � . - � ,�. `....-�— i ..�... ��'a, � ;"`'�, � ` ' �. � �... � � �i� ' � ..% � {� ti,.� ' •. t, � � �--1 � � �, ��� �� �� �� i �� r,�,�--�- =.- �.� -�. � �,-�,. ; --� � __ . �. :.� �. f �- � * � 4. ;4 � ,�r�.— ` (. i � � ' ..�'� ' •� — � i � ..3 I .�. � i y� �x� ,� t "�' f,�. ! � 3 1�� '7C` �.� � � E t:. ; �--t ' I ! I s� ' ! � ;�i � t � ,�� `.� ` � ' �_ � 3� � � � _� � � J � w� � ,� ,�^ t ��. � ��' ' °.'"'- � -- ��. � r, ; rt ��� F ` ; �,"= ' „. ,. � ' i t ' r� � I �y+ ,_ 1 i t . � .e'- __ � _. __ F� � ' � • � � � i; w i s/ � r� . m�'�`�' , � '.'F � �,,. � � , � � ;y�� .,..., ,,�,j �r [��- . , . ,- . ' '"' ' 3 `� , � ��� ,..r � � � '`..—__ � l S � --- � r� b � _- � -_.. ,r� --- � � . �.�,�„� �, � � �;�;....�.., _ _ �.� . , .�.. _ � �. _ .M_a. : � � _ � . s � �-::,,,;<ya, ' :.«r . as �; � �� �. ;� �. � � � � 1-�! " a„ __ ,�' --^. ' f/ � � �. 4—� i `i • � w,_. +�� '`� t ,`"�", � a ! _,�, ��< � °.�' �• ~� " � '`t. l+r��. { �`?-r�'}°i a �„ � �'�t;� .Y' ¢ ~ i_ t ``'�- � f� t' � " �` ` � � ; � I , ' .., �.,_. i �, .� . �'� � � i e ti•, . _ --- - a ..:�_ � � � :.. a�._ . .,.. � .. . __. , .� � � � � � �, .� � � t_ S �.�, i � ; � ti.. � " "�"_ _ ,...,. '�;..r l ► � � ��.z. � '�� � 1 �h � j � f � � i � �.. � � i { ! � �'.' ; v�" � ti ,� 4 ��� �_ ? --- _ -}.' �wiirwr.' s�+�M � �� _ i -�. .� 4 :, ' .�.,_ '` i * r , ""i �.�_ ' � ! "'" .,� —_ � � ; _.. _ _ --. ^�, � � ; , � ; I �-; �- „R - - ,_ 4 � . . , �'► , , ; J F _. _.. � , r: . i - _._. , , e ,.. , _ . . .. ,,,,1 . . , _ . _ ,. - -�,:. . �=�^* _-=�--��.., . T '� , — .. ; - � , .vs r.v��,n _.._.._..._.. . � »� �.�.... � � ""'_ . F� ` .�. _"^'�".�;._dn_....� a,.�.�. .. � � � � �. „t `5 ��. i � .� ,. . a;', `�-�"�; ! �' �. Figure 3:Existing homes on narrow lots Height A second area of concern from neighbors is the height of new homes on narrow lots which appear exaggerated when compared to the typical single-story ramblers they abut. Regulations around height on lots narrower than 65 feet wide are no different than those on all other single-family lots in the city—the maximum height is 28 feet as measured from the average grade at the front (street) side of the home to the mid-point of the highest pitched roof. It is important to note that this allows the actual height of the peak of the roof to extend even higher than 28 feet. Massing Other than the side wall articulation requirement, the only other zoning regulation that limits massing is the tent-shaped building envelope that forces homes that build to the side yard setback line (a common occurrence on narrow lots)to step back as they rise above 15 feet in height. Unlike homes constructed on lots greater than 65 feet wide—which have a vertical:horizontal ratio of 2:1 for the step back—narrow lots have a vertical:horizontal ratio of 4:1 which allows for a steeper roofline and provides slightly less relief for adjacent properties. Other Regulations Additional concerns have been raised regarding water runoff,tree removal, solar access, and general "neighborhood character." In all cases, the development regulations are no different from those applied to wider residential lots in the city. Next Steps In addition to an investigation of the current situation,the City Council is also looking to staff to offer thoughts on what, if anything, can or should be done to address the concerns of neighbors. As discussed with the Council in 2017,the League of Minnesota Cities has advised staff that there are limitations on the ability of cities to regulate lots of record that are buildable under the existing zoning requirements. Unlike true subdivisions,which allow cities to set certain standards that must be met before lots can be split (minimum area, minimum width, etc.), tax parcel divisions utilize lots that have already been approved and that need no quasi-judicial action in order to allow a new home to be constructed. Cities can, however, set guidelines in order to avoid the creation of nonconformities with existing structures {requiring homes or detached structures to be modified or even demolished, for example) prior to allowing the tax parcel division to move forward. Golden Valley followed this approach with the recodification of the City Code in 2018 and now requires a survey be completed so that an accurate evaluation of the site can take place before a new PID is issued. Accepting that the City cannot simply prohibit tax parcel divisions from taking place,there remains the possibility to adjust zoning requirements in order to address narrow lots and manage the potential impacts of new homes. Side Yard Setbacks There is some room to increase the minimum side yard setbacks for narrow lots. Golden Valley requires that no principal structure be less than 22 feet wide. Subtracting that width from a 40 foot wide lot leaves up to 18 feet of width available to apply to side yard setbacks. Current regulations only require 12 feet of side yard setbacks. Golden Valley Side Yard Setback Requirements (current) Lot width South/East side yard North/West side yard Total setback amount 40 feet 8 feet 4 feet 12 feet 50 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 60 feet 12 feet 6 feet 18 feet >65 feet 12.5 feet 12.5 feet 25 feet 100+feet 15 feet 15 feet 30 feet If the City Council is interested in increasing the minimum amount of side yard setback,there are a number of ways it could be achieved.Two examples are shown below, but other variations could also be explored. Example#1 splits the total side setback amount and applies it equally to both sides of the lot, which has the effect of increasing side yard setbacks to the north/west compared to current regulations. Boxes shaded in yellow show changes compared to the existing requirements. Golden Valley Side Yard Setback Requirements (Example#1) Lot width South/East side yard North/West side yard Total setback amount 40 feet 8 feet 8 feet 16 feet 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 20 feet 60 feet 12 feet 12 feet 24 feet >65 feet 12.5 feet 12.5 feet 25 feet 100+feet 15 feet 15 feet 30 feet Example#2 holds the south/east side yard setback amount constant and allows the north/west side yard to shrink as the lot width decreases.This also increases the total side setback amount. Golden Valley Side Yard Setback Requirements (Example#2) Lot width South/East side yard North/West side yard Total setback amount 40 feet 12 feet 6 feet 18 feet 50 feet 12 feet 7.5 feet 19.5 feet 60 feet 12 feet 9 feet 21 feet >65 feet 12.5 feet 12.5 feet 25 feet 100+feet 15 feet 15 feet 30 feet It is important to note that these changes would potentially create structural nonconformities for existing homes built on narrow lots.This would prevent homeowners from constructing any additions or expansions without going to the Board of Zoning Appeals to obtain a variance. Depending on which lot widths were targeted, up to 600 homes could potentially be made nonconforming (if the regulations for all lots less than 65 feet in width were modified). It is also possible to only address some narrow lots, such as those under 50 feet in width, in order to limit the impact to existing homes while still addressing the most critical situations. Height While the City certainly retains the ability to limit the height of structures on narrow lots and to set the maximum height at a different point than for homes on wider lots (preventing the construction of a second story, for example), staff cautions the Council to be careful of creating restrictions that are too far out of line with what the current housing market seeks. In the 50s and 60s when the current housing stock on these lots was constructed, a Cape Cod or Rambler was often preferred. Today, families are looking for more bedrooms and bathrooms which means constructing two story homes. Restricting height may not stop the lots from being divided, but could impact the quality of the homes that are constructed and/or the potential sale of the lots. Massing The side wall articulation requirement can exacerbate the small setbacks because it allows bay windows and chimney chases to extend up to two feet into the side yard setback in order to provide visual interest.This requirement could be modified or removed for narrow lots. Currently,the zoning code allows for a slightly steeper angle of building envelopes for lots less than 65 feet wide.This has a potentially small effect on adjacent properties compared to the envelopes allowed for homes on wider lots. It would be possible to make the angle of all building envelopes consistent, regardless of lot width. Other Regutations Recent changes to the tree and landscape requirements in 2015 tightened the rules regarding tree removal and mitigation. Staff does not believe these need to be revisited at this time. Issues involving water runoff, solar access, and others are applied similarly regardless of lot width. Any consideration of modifications to these regulations should be looked at holistically across all types of development. Staff Request Staff would like to hear from Council Members about if, and to what extent, narrow lots present a problem that should be addressed through regulation. If there is interest in modifying the zoning code to address the construction of homes on narrow lots, staff would work with the Planning Commission to examine: 1. Which narrow lots should be addressed?All lots 65 feet in width or less? Only lots under SO feet in width?Other selections? 2. What elements of construction on narrow lots do Council Members feel need to be studied and/or addressed?Setbacks? Height? Massing? Others? 3. What are potential unintended consequences of increased regulation of narrow lots? How would existing homes on narrow lots be impacted by being assigned a nonconforming status? Based on an examination of all of the issues that have been raised around narrow lots, staff would feel comfortable moving forward with direction from the Council to look at adjustments to side yard setbacks, the building envelope, and articulation for lots under 50 feet in width.This would: a. Focus regulation on the size of lots that have generated the greatest amount of concern (those that are 40 feet wide—roughly 175 lots) b. Limit the number of existing homes on narrow lots that could be made nonconforming by changes to zoning regulations c. Bring the side yard setbacks into conformance with building code regulations that required additional fireproofing for structures within 5 feet of the property line d. Make the shape of the building envelope consistent across lots of all widths e. Address concerns of bay windows and other bump-outs extending into the side yard setbacks Attachments • Map of Existing Homes by Lot Width (1 page) R � � :. �.: H � � ; r---°�_ � °�' a � ��., � �, `— .� � o � a � � � �s '� m � � �? � � ^ r�". � � ; � a � � � � ;� 3 3 •3 3 3 ,,�� *i G� co 'a� 'v b� i� in �_,� � G� m � in �n m co ,�. � C o v � � c�c m � N ', ' � g T � o ��. // ,._'_'___'.�•'S�_ ._._.Y _.— � .�uvuxmasvvu_.-.� ` Mb t i , �ei � � . _r--� ��_ ""_'_'"_.'___,..w.w...,�.,._"i ._+ °e.n..w. L� ,..x � �an�. epa,. -+�y. � ,r�...,�, � ��� � ..,.....� �� � �� '�'� � � 3 .,�'°� ��;o, ��.��,` , � '�w�„� d€ � '° > ,� � € 5��, e � � � � �� �. � /r % ' � .,x.. g i �� i � � �'�s ,� � i '+ � ��,�� °° � �� ,�.. �� � " �� � i ' m��1�,.'�` �..-� � � � � ��� ,�«.�""` � � � ..,r ` ' �, �...o. ., � »...m.. � : ,.. �...��_� � . „�.o, �. ,T � ------- ��— -- --�,�,��_,:-t——� : � � ,,.�,..o.,` , .s� ..�... .— _ . . � _;� � ,� M o ...�.�� '� . .�,,, � � . eb ,. � e 4-: ,,! �, �...a� � 1 . .+'Y � [� / b"'^a ��Men 1 A.+ � In ' a �.. �_ I a..�•� e6� '^� �F a� «., ����,� ;. �_,.� ,.,.e...� t : �� �a l �`" - , * ` , . . . ..m.,, � � _ ,, ..�., .w_ � � �h,..,.�, , ...y � � .�..d. �.... � o ewr� row+�.ta � - b .; . •� _ ; Z n� �� \ .... . . _.._._._J *`' � . � ♦� `� � ^'b t�N m�<� . 1R � � 7, i ....... .�5 �� � - � < I i �. .,.--'---'_'— -"----'-----M..,. � ,. s�; . �. q �.a..r � .nw..., s o. �:� � mm a f i l'\ �r.a . p! �•. � � � � o6�f'f�' � � w.n..� '� ..r..� •rv«. n�M \. . :y * �{� w� �b"ce.u��w. � F e � W � �X .w,.., ,_^�rf �.§ �= d"w+ ... �", ,l m o . ` $ ono.d.. �3 �. � a i c . .......�, ....+�. g � 5 ,-%� . � s: � � � ,,.,..� $ w.! # „ "� H.,�, ' wmW t u.�.. ; „r°' � € � � f �� i .....,., ,„,.�.,,,.�„�, .... F,.�_�s�, «,.,... . ' �.a.. �. ' 9 «... ..,,....,. ���; i � . ,..� �,a; � s �,;; f ._,..,,. i ! 5 ..a�,b " � � w.�,� ,"�"� �;�� b ��.....�. � �� ��� ' : � g. �,� q�� � ..e.�, � ,.. : ,.... , & � � � .§��,. � � � �w� � �� .....w , � �` a we� g �� ... .ro o � � � ��� � .._�., ��..� �,....•-_ � , t .,,...., ¢ x � � �'_ � � �.-q :,� ' � � � � � �� �~ �'� �� s,. � . ., : � :..,..�.� a � I `�..�e E _ _.._.._..—�------ ...�., 4,... � �+' �� � I , ...�.. ; � . �- \ b�. $ �,.,�... ....s � . a ,, ,� �i iw.wmn ��huro.x x..v ex`*I` '��.-.�y�' w i �g . ��� � �� ` b'y� � } b�G�J� � } `� ( i ° �� �F'� a f f ww+a � �I ��� � ` & �� � I "� € ��y g � ._..,,, �� .-.a.� ae .rf 8 �# ..wc�, .-..�., � * " W " ' .�..., "'� � � , � „ *• .�,... � b p �"' � � � � ` 'Ii � '. � � C �� `M1b� � s � 2 5 I �• ^ . �i.+ � xw'+wn g naYm � wVary� + �«.�c.«s.. Kvrzs+�wr+�.�am+.-nv�«»wu. � k ,: �..„....., . sww.o� a " � , .b�, � .o�.,. � e... : ...,„., ` ff, � $ R �.�_. � . i " s ` i . a....« ;, � � � �`. ` ^ ,. � � �., : } ....�^ � 1 ". y� !� ,,,9 i % � ,,, � t, : ��'�.� � e ..,..w-,� ( p; � .�... i.+u � � . ra„� �' �� �.. � . � . a I , � ,' ;z .--... �,-..3'l`�u„�"e � '�r^�"" I p°.s`��� ` � � � ,.w� ��`' I "--� . ....a._.w. � -- ��k i iq�. r .-..+w.,,,,, r� �` 1 """ ,,,,, .» / -Y'.�- . '.b I a� '�.� °�u � .....m �•�-`.`ti.1�';�,�y��.�—, ' � � � _ - `� ,- E +; �. ;. .. .�,�.�.�,.,,.,.�...,,�s _�- - ., � . . � 1 ` �. . . .,.,... ,�� ._' �,�.�w�`' � £ �...� � t� .,...4,4�' A Po M ...��. p,� ,..., ,. 5 "� t �„�!''� �� a �� � x� � i ,�. �,.., i E . � � � � . �� ��.} I �J i `�� y g ... �. ' ��. 3 ! . �. , � q .w.d.,..> �z � x . , w,.�re: f �` A"' � g 4.Y'",� i, `" Ilf M�w� � o+`�� ~�' $ a wr��� ��s ....p� "�,,, ��;: ; ' � *� [ 8 ' � � . � ..+�., , ��F<' �w'.. . �a••��•.. �.t+.,�.u^'"�w,xw � � °� � --� e � � o,a,.i.,i _ ' �� ,,�� ...,.�..., . o«.w. O 9¢ . � ..» ,.�.�, ; � .�.._. ,....�, , ,� � ,� � � �� � ,_...,, �� ..,.,�...�,� � �� ,.��,.�� � � �'*�� .�.�.,,.......�„ � � � � , � �� ���'�, � � € ._.a� � r 3. ..... ,_..� ," _,�., ...w...,. � � � o� � � � �� �,.� � ��� � � � � I 8� ..�..� ••� _ ._,.� �_.....__.��,..�; , a � t ' � � w...n .-.e..-� 8 ,...,... .w...,,, ej] i � N���M��n $ • � s , � • .... ...___._ ..._. .. .. . ; ...a � ;�� . .a,..,,. '; +,sa .,,a.+' . ....m,�, � 1 � , ` . jA ,� x.a.w.m� w�wNmlY �� ,.Y $ rv,� � � � ,�P ; � .��.a. � �:;.��, i ....�.. , � b� � A.., { ,....� �..�.,, �� � I x,„> p .�,..,, . � , . w �. � � ,�� . o � ,.,,�,ro , _-- +�.•� � � `� l a �,..� t — ..,,�,.�.. ` � � � � �� ....,�.... 4 � � 4,,�.,�,.w,o� ...,,.,,,,,,�� I � .� .� � ■� ' � ' .� �,�` :: � � . � .�,:,� . „° v � � A�..�, o�.r��.�n �_..�,o� , ...,_,..� o.� •a+�A• � � � j s � �� � 1� i � Mwm°° I . a �� •�n�wms g � p � I � �� ��# ��� L` � y ..., ,� �, o .,����,� ,nrv�, ,.. ,s...�,., ..�. „� .__ ..a ��,..�,,�, � r� r �� . . � IS ° e / 'D ' 'ari•.r.,..,w„� ¢'i -,.� ° .w� • .....�+w. # . ... � n5h �` I �� ..« �� �z� � ` �p.y� � � x ��� .�„„�� �•'� ; .w = �� � ��� �� _ � p �e �� t � .a.�..� n : • i �. , . � �r . � Po.,..,, • „�,*`p � � ! ''4ro � > . �. . r..vw..�.w � .....a..,...... p . � e gq" : ' ' e.uv..y^^Ie ona ;�, + v.�.•.„��' � �� �n.w m a ,..,esr, ..... �� �, � �' u .t.. :...o,,.w.. g � s ��fF ��«-� 3 • n . �� ffi ; � , .�.....�� '�f - � ° / �� ' c. ..�.�„ .._ ! F �* t ' � a x p ....�� ....I J � .,.. . , ` �� ,...,� .v,..,.,. � i r _ � ,.F ` � �' '� , � � ,�...,.�.... . �.�.� .�.,w.,.., _ �, ,. ....., —, _ " ...,,,� s ..,�� f ' ....�.a ;k/ � a ! � r �� � �'� '!.�,^^^"„'>,..„,... � '� � +�` ' I ,...,. , . , � � . � i � . � �� � ��. �� : � , . i . t � -..e,N� _'��'1 .�„ � ,-- � � i � � i �_ � � £�,, ` '� i: 1 � ' g � � e € w� °� w 2 � �� A 8 � �.� s•- � ..v...e � ye � � ;� � .' � � ... _ � t.�. �� �t w > ;°`�.�. � � r` . � �" & , . M � ■ � �, � � ,, _ _���__ ■ .. _� --�— § � t ��. __ _�. _.� _._ ._.__ •---- �--�---- ---_._.—_ -- t � .��: � �� . ��, .s, �.�w _ .� _ . �>s � „��._ . :r��,��� �� ��>$" �"" --`"_�--' �����