HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-14-1980l 14 , 19,8
T a r x,;, z she T,c l h ;Plane! Co;,, is r ° ; in'
it, 71 at "ONO Plymoullh Souleva-.r-J at
PAM,,! G't±" " r +z& g pa xn x p± stprga «ED14'"R 4x.+R's x A is a ,,! . V a ti N Y Y6ont 'Vasil fou,. °L9bi l ate.,, , on ii'h n"'4" ! 3:Iien, y g fiCran, Paubb
Mc t 4 € ABSENT.- onmissi.one s Stei `f erw"Iy and #+mak-,son
g lo V - Director B}ir Te . rt ,
T& T -T P4 ts kM,h4S: xOrlmn" i qDevelopment ot n i p
v.3 yv eu o
i r ry Ray, Planning Secretary rbara Anderson and
ern Al n-hatnua
xFt M`.m1.urwrtM':uxea,WLFyya
Inc. A=141 -1,i :
mnva
k.
pn}
3 $} a j ,i y i'" a a e £ ka i *.f
then tie May 7, 193 staff report was waived Nlr. Daly en tips
representthe a r r`ar` gsrelative
she staff rep..
Chha`rworman Vasiliou stated r his was a public hearing and noted that one was
reset who wished to speak on, this sten* Staff co mented that the reason this
petition wathe m.. .ri on asai required form l r i treplacepa
Y¢¢s and Cpyflegal description, beforetheCounty would ac r3filing.
UlFiq iI WUFIaarf 41 kVU 1r1Wa % the ptuhl Tvchea Tx—j*
MNN, by Co.m.,missionerr n,, se oOded by Commissioner Wire to apt on this p i°
pis evening.
OT M"I by Cominivssioner Darron, seconded by ,C.'or,.mdssiorer }dire to reco.mmend approval
of the peel i nal plat for- Carlson Properties, Inc. for Carlson r p i s
3rd Addition" for one lot subject to the following condi tions.
n fiance wifth t,ie City Engineer's Memorandum.
Cormpliance with all applicable ordinancest, regulations and provisions of the
c i ltCode.
A191 deandayd6diseased trees shall removed from the site the sole expense
g
k.'zb.,vs&v ark'+p}L` Ali
4. Accessibility to the propertyrx shall be gainedfrom Derkshire Lane,
MICITION CARRIED --0 All in Favor
s A I t >>F 4 's S s,
w ,dk.,ixr;w.s.vau' „`
rV y @a
a e ;' Ig"*'4l a a rq
FIais 'tcm pias introduced 'by stafT WW reviewed the Mby 8, 11''u '"tf r Sta
4 she deficiencies in h I'ands p an `t' 5 foo i from h
ef',; ! rent yard setback to the park i ng, reqs# irerlent.
7mon'issi-aner Wire
R
buildings; staff responded
would be V5 ILaot hi gh and, the t-mi.m height allow -was 2 feat, per the Cimarron
vp t- Contract.
Discussion ensuedregarding needed buffering from the djd ni develop.
mem"'. Comum4ssioner Iffireinen requested the f"P"itioner 'speak to the reason `dor I.-he 2
foot an request*
t4fichael Bond, r r-Roscoe, Inc., stated 4"at the btuil ding s are all bvqlovi
percent f- num for let, coverage and they 3 re so positiomO as, to a tom dthe
off ice and the d q area lfhoy are r aut sti ng thevariance Itto facilitate the
passenger traffic and aill of buildings have beep, -",Wr nged! o° with the
ordinince requirevPents. The u r treatp. -_-nt and "~c along t south
bou r the site "requires," this arra ;earn f ` & Then v need the
variance to facilitate this.
Co!.n;rr s i rrer Threinen inquired the traff it circt.,11 ation or 'buffer desig n
was the basis for the variance request the buffering require,,,-,1ents, Mr. Bond
I responded that in rr effort to provide,,jodor-site circulation and meat the rear-
setback eapsetbackmquirn",s for the buildings t w rd ,:.-.he south*
mis r errs versus pa x
and 'tsked what it would look like when completed. Mr. Jigs Hawks, Centurion Coiinpany,
exrrained the approach they took to landscaping the site. He stated tete beets are
m s n the residential property adjacent to the co;maercial sides, this is to
al1t4 the commercial sites < to be large enough to be developed. The berms between the
parking lot and 21st Avenue r r ars for aesthetic screening. fir. Rcm*s explained
F the landscape plan i0lore visually view the y end rif r rI
props n the r1an. fie displayed copy the landscape glen which showed the
r existing PlanItings on the residential property e noted the grading and retaining
walls to assure sloes. He discussed the design of t)esite and the setbacks of
bu d n s issi ner Wire inquired as to whether the treatment in the Cinarron
East residential landscape plan had been viewed as total buffering for the industrial
sites ad-ac rt to it. Staff responded in the negative-.
Mr. flawks stated that Building # (eastbuilding) twould be the first structure built,
H stated that e ;d d . rseeownershipn n site'sme
the near r t m
Staff commented teat 11 f the setback variance were not granted the buildings would
have to be located further south* The size of the buildings could also be reduced.
mnission r hre nen commented that the ordinance allows a maximum of nt
lot coveraoq,, ass m nt a I other ordinance standards are net. Less than max,,imum
coverage sn*t valid grounds for variance r 4r the other standards* He also
reca eed that the Cimirren ..P . .D. d not contemplate variances such as the one
proposed.
j
i
inquired
respandcj that 4 would, bo partially tored, on the par',sric.4 lot i n. ss, whiCh is
IvA , ' on z".inmi r hr ei nen slto*ated hat* he
concerns rega ? f 1 sir:: Orr .
VC_ y i-, ++ -n, -ASL
A
Stated that they did review the. City's landscape criteria and they belive
they are within the intent of thecriteria although e did tako a different
appreach. They did F.,airk—o1 i. the sizes of plantingsbut feel that i
ris the ',r trialh, ThLv,t'` it she site to be to scale, and he re ferr° dto the size
A% $ 04 he tr s an i s t d their
Cx
once+ n w#E.Tp 'theh vp" tal impact. elaboratedgt'd the
d$f ferencens in the landscape, plan from the tLardscape Criteria Police, stating they
had mckt addressed h 2 L:1*2 inch minimum sizefor trees. The explained their
reasons for substitutiins and changes, and inquired, about "major or over -story" trees.
Ve s aN,,they were Lt+er,4ive to the inn effect of the property frotn,
Corraissioner Threinen noted "proof of Parking" d inquired he her the
variance -was relative to ul"Cimafe uses or to the rainipunn rtarkinq needed for the
sits,. The need for :actual parking was discussed; staff roted tie co-Mmon ratio of
a pvercent of r - } r - rehl o use- wool ed perhans reduce the neem for ; the " r
rina of Parkingstd: - whereas, if the proposed 40 percent of * 0 pervert tv-.1-rehouse
r a t i o i s used. hey w i I I nese all the parking sta,11s, shoun. If the 'Pl i7i rig ommlls l
were to limit the use ratio for tyre buildings, the outer r vir %k'ng stalls ;could
not be heeded*
r1r, v. stated percent Ti V60 percent warehouse ratio was
preferreui,,,
4iven thq rtarket. He acknowledgedthat the variancewas needed for the size and
use the building as pi,-ovosed.
Commissioner T rr °1'ed that this petition shoulddeferred for redesign
to clarify tdegree ' needed parKing involvedversus the "proof of parking" plan
a -t ';tet:. ria
Commissioner 141ire stated additional work was needed on the"landscape plan(which was
not very l sir rx= the approved Cimarron EastR.P.M. landscaping and to
reflect the landscape ci ria
INIWHOR by Commissioner `Thr seconded by Coi-maissioner mire to defer to allow for
redesign with the following direction.
Dinh ish the size of the build'ings if necessary to reduce the parking required.,
r relocate the south to maximize i on the site.
2. Staff to determine the variances needed with n without the front row of parking
stalls.
3. Coordinate the landscape plait with the Cimarron East approved landscape plan;
and reflect the e ndscapCriteria as to sizeand rwrir of trees.
4. she physical surroundings" variance criterion does not apply in this, case.
fir
AOL At kYitfht,time, a'a est, t " is zdl 9aYbntaf: 4y yn tOesire-
to intcreaie, the Glue orcvvie potential of the lend*
I s si t : o wou.T i wc rk with staff r x rd rrg the lav,dscape Plant.
5-0-0 All in Favor
Or Lar,
This twn leas ind roduceed y staff' who r iet:?d the May 9 1 "aff report and who
tan* alternate ro os l s submitted j r'r! the tiffferences between.
fleini. staff + t Mterplte 11 is rt e- eeT to thee rr rd -cater
4th r 11system witfhlq deJitated outlets and to the extent that it eliminates some
f the lot variances hich were nr wdth the rigi n proposal
C,, rwtn Vfasi relcogn."I.-ed Vernon ler County frZoad 47, who stated
that z Dens she riece of land south ' Kreatz La.ke north of the right-of-way
r p s d 9th Avenue N r h, and tie does not t u o b assessed r any street
nivr v t -which may result from this e""`i
Ml r` r r r a 542' Joyce Street, the enagineer representing the petitioner, i i r, spode to
te- il ms 1-4 of 'Che staff report regar(:.-,,g variances. He stated that a nu.ysiber of the
varianceshzid been I'li-iinishee but had not bee.n elim.in d. He indicated that, as
suggested by staff, s 4km d, stments could be ;,a d n lot lines in Block 3 butthat;
it was questionah-le whether t,,e variances court d be eliminated entirely. He inditated
that the trail corridor com,,;ng from the north could perhaps be adjusUd so that
to
n
air-r :e c In 11"-1-
lm t&
ti tItU1 3. T.
Co.-,miiss'loner PanPauba stated that it appeared tine - only way the variances in Block
nod be eliminated was by the reduction of one lot thereby spreading, the width among
the other five lots. He stated that could see theidt variance n the lots in
Block 3 was due, part, t the curve the street but' th , as staff suggested,
the variancecid be reduced.
Cogiroissioner' Barren inquired z tothe w-Zd h of the I. -rail corridor on the r n r
at it was n rr luer than that in the Fazendfin Addition. He also commented that ;
Fomnztain Lena is wider in tire, FaZendin Additionthis plat, Staff responded
that theB a r s have parr since hziend add i n urns platted amt gnat the
dimsensions shown it current proposal are consistent with current standards.
iss on r Barron stated that possibly variances could be granted as to the width
the frail corridor thereby giving more area to be'; spread among the adjacent lots
Chairwoman Vasiliou hated that iteirts I and 2 of the staff report Indicated the
petitioner had not i iini n d variances from h plat and, shy r i d Mrd'
relative to Lot I Block 14.ani has a depth deficiency due to the ig in rpt of
the road; and ftein 4 vidichrelates to Lots 3 knd 4. Slock 7. Regarding that item,
Mr. GroWberg t.1'ated it is the alig n:n rnt of the street and revisions had been
made from 4e original submittal.,
mnissi nar lroin n copinented that there were eleven. variances, requested, and only
two appeared to be due to City design standards such as road alignments.
May 14, 198J,
si; loner TWO= also inquired as to the trail transition from the Fuzordin
ldafti n ON; this rylat. Mr. Gronberg presented a graphic (staff ,Jitod iim'd
OAPTYPed the ettttlng Of the Kyll am! the btailding of a retaininng wall a psortiVit y)
of th-,- bime trail. Cor,.,-;AsF0oner Throinen: questioned the drainage from the riWige., and
Mr. Cxonberg showed a graphic illustratirg a cross section showing, how, they pro!t:KNsO
to cut down the ridge.
Oiscussion ensied regarding Ken 03 of the Engineer's wok orandwn relative to the
ultirilte extension of 19th Pmenu e to Punkirk ttane. Mr. Griorberg stated that it was
silgested ly the Rgineer's Worandtrm, a terqporaty cul-de-sac at the end of 19th
Avenue IN"arth could lbie prvivided at the west edge cif the arels property.
toy Karels Engwall, 4125 Beverly, Minneapolis, commented regarding the economics of
the Proposed method of extending 19th Avenue hotth to Dunkirk Lane and also as to the
de_r th deficiency on Lot 1, Block 1. Staff responded that the cost of a street through
the Karals, property to Dunkirk Lane would be expected to cost more if it were done
later and W in conjunction with this project; the City's i:tain Concern at this time
was addrassing that future lots on the barels property would have full street access.
Staff also comii-ented that the depth deficiency on Lot 1, Block I was due to the
curvature of 19th Avenue North and that it appeared the only way to eliminate that
lot depth deficiency would be to realign 19th Avenue North tvhich would rquire a total
redesi lp of the plat.
Ommissiener Paa stated he was not cofairtable with the nunber of lot variances
requested and that the trail corridor from the Fizendin Addition could be angled to
the east perhaps to better align it with the trailway along Garland Circle to the
South.
Bill Thurk, 1825 Fountain Lane, inquired as to the need for a full cul-de-sac as the
terrinition of Fobs atca` n Lane south of this plat, and notted cAo'=-erns aboullt, snow
stotzge in the area. Waff respondeJ That tnatton of Wuntain Lane was
prov.ded priviarily due to neighborhood concerns expressed at the public hearing, and
that the cul-de-sac design would be in accordance with City standards.
Yaff noted that the full turn around must be on public land Wich no longer would
r:lude the petitioner's property*
hairwoman Vasiliou noted that at the Varch 26,, 19,80 hearing, Ir. Thk had spoken in
favor of the cul-de-sac and asked thy he was raw apparently opposed. Mr. "hurl,
responded that he felt the cul-de-sac design would become a playground tor neighborhood
children. H; stated his concern that Wuntain Lane, termin4te, but not with a full
vul-de-sac design, which he did not feel was necessaqy given traffic porditions.
Ommissioner brainmmented that it appeared the petitioner was suggesting that
a I lot variances could be eliminated through, among other things, realignment of
nth Avenue harth, but that would be unduly expensive in terms of time and money. He
stated the Yetitioner was also indicating that no lots uDuld be lost with such a
redeisgri but that the existing design was preferred with a few variances.
Commissioner Pauba stated that it un s not clear where the "excess" land would name
from since most of the lots indicated were at the ordinance minimum; he reiterated
that it appeared there would need to be a reduction, of lots.
The petitioner,, Don Myron, noted that reducing the trail corridor width from 30 feet
to 20 feet would diminish the lot width variances in Block 2.
14
La" 3#4 xb r k R y s„LVA
no'w+e&thatt It,hoigintal Pa ii. .nq `S” e..sex•:g
ws
on
kLa #
t on had been t
el minae hor'a races, whiOh he did, not perceive as necessary for a now plat- she
µ "`"'amees irdica ed wrer Orimmrily attributed to be dear's to -_queezm ,
zan '
a w --- 4's. r,<h a
ito i-c4uas"oo$'Aryl"s. V . a va'€ih.`u #
a r orthe " discussio,i ensueetwaim posslble realigment of 19th Avenue atio °Itand
the possftlble redesign o !:'ie, t-alll corriclor urt- er to the e,,ast to match the
trailway ad I o n g, Ga r Ir€ Circle to the
Rout * fir`: ' r "_y a?
r ' relic,,Iniary plat -for 'Takdale 01',lier-nate 11) for Con ran allowr
redesign iith the following,
direction., 1.
Reflect,
3 ealign the southerly pion, of the north ;r*ail corridor by aligning it to
the seat thereby ppoviding a .ient. witi the walk ,,,3, along Garland Circle to
the
south, 3. ,formate: one lot in Block 2 to eliminateall lot width
variances. 4. Cite Engineer to examine the actual street and turn around needs
determination of Fountain Lanae in the atz Hh iart Acres,
Addition. 5. Provide a design graphic shorting the specific trail corridor tm s
rr 5ebaeen this properlty and Vie Fazendin Addition to the
north. Indi,cate the physical conneCtion of proposed 19th Avenue with Highway
101 on t4a
West-. 7. Graphically indicate a temporary cul-de-sac sin for 19th 1 venue
termination at the wrest boundary of the Karels
property. rur r discussion ensued regarding previous Commmission direction to the
petitioner and the desirablility of continued
deferral. MOTION by Chairmiman Vasiliou to amend ran %otion to recommend
approial there r., rrarplat subject to the, 41aions listed in the staff report as
well as those listed in the previous
motion. MO ' ON failed f.,r lack of a
second* Cn r.mAss er 'arronstated d his concern that the Commission staff had
spat extraordinary, time with, ii ai d design on the plat which was Oasical ly due
to r petitioner's failurerw ; a plat nos n b r nar s n ar
s SUBSTITME ION T)y Commissiener tParran to recomameni, denial of the
preliminary l v- 'Ta l 'Iest "u as bubmittedby Don Myron noting :the substantial
variances involved which were not in keeping with ordinance var4ance
criteria* t- ION failed a k of a
second airvi n Vasiliou stated her concer,i' that tKe iteat could be passed, on to
the City Council since it did not, appear the petitioner was ret,*red to
prvidethe redesign necessary eliminate thevariances.
tlay 141
N!00 10,t" 'y, >« a ', ':e [§ b a *tlan `5txC,
v,
111, a>. • Tom# SS eLs
rn-'- '
3 .t
f, lie
sutst-antial vartanvosinvolved.
During furthererdiscussion, s m r 1 4 stated given
r ew €Ej thaxt the petitioner iiad prov dee!'t Seevi"Ieel 4that a final d:afe r was
in order since : redesign vvas pkiss%le to eliminate at least all"v ":Ces net
at',trihutable to City designdar st i. ., 3 a„ * f '19th _Avr e !N r ha
kha i rwmza Vasiliou asked she patAtioner whether soh redesign couldnp saes
given the Comninission staff d-rection. She cautiot-led that staff was rat ewected
o provide M,Cieml design-related services for the petitioner, but wa to r wew
the submittal in germs of the issiot dlirecio*
Mr. Al r sae at the basic issues seeped to be with let width vas Lances or
Block 2 as viell asvieirorraltiariaIneeds; he consul t' t.;I[th hi s engineher and
inforred the (.hairwoman that they could take another look proposal.
s ` man Valsiliou called for a vote on the t.3 t c)amen&
111 IMN FAILEP Cmm i sioners Threfirlen.,
Wire and Pauba_ opposed
Chairwom.Ar Vasiltiou called for a vote on the.lotion to defer w4th d rec.en..
AL IO I N R"E-D Comi'Assiopers Barran
si: rse
Co;,T,-,dssiorer earron informed the petitioner Vit was his expectation, that revised
plans would eu.muted in keepingw aha Commnission-direct4on with elimination
of all variances and that he intended to act pr;ainptly on the Item at the next
The meet i r g recessed KM. rd res wed at 1 ),. 2I,
Site Plan kpproval
and Variance
The reading of the PUy 9,6 1980 staff report was waived. Mr. Bob Galush and Tom ttple
were present representing the `petitianer,, Twin City Federal* C h :,))I ss r r Threinen
copmented on the temporary facility, and stated that rigid d e evenCe to policy may
F eet discrintinatory in, relation E t the proxii—Iffill.-Yo f she City boundarywilth iN'4-ple Grotte.
Commissioner Wi . expressed concern r r ng, liability insuraIce, for the temporary
facility, while construction, was underway on the site, and asked why not move the
trailer totally off the sitear site. r. Galush responded that the oul-4
need to have a sewer and water hookup available as this is a modal un-,,-, not
be unit.
Co mi sioner W3skeat-out agf, o,;ry drive Up ww, in i. facili, and
asked. if it. Vm Y'vi l sir . t77r- Ga-'_Lmh rpr,"dd that thi,y had dc,vr d
t alt eorple uiluld w '1 feet, n .4h was aft' eater, watfld
drfve. They 'Felt the drive un tii romw was, o . 7 ".-o their business.
R M # Discussionioncontinuedoega ..t y p$
t .
ry *
s`# ; . ,'facilitytgat$ `i` ° b 5 ++G: twF +d E. '45. C 4a 4.i iW R 91 :
kR «
t "%
zk e
need.-"ated "'hat their business was dotuni, and they o e S t -a b ;
an identii'-,y in this Aareaa as soon as possible.
was dpiviq on. 1-11r, Palush easy "thwould -use the ring road for the modular
drivei „SI I as he filial "'Alding, and this should am-modate and
din wit' the of . i t A b sonz site preparation,
work done and mior will be rfon* before they, can Dean the tzmporary facility._
Viscussion ensued regarding the r - rough to the shopping cuter and I'm Galush
revim d varic s alternative o a , They have the b w
for, eat traffic Stackingxon the sitZe and will ` 9n the drive-throvqh to. limit
tralffic floe anid d"irection. Por.- Galush stated the petitioner refers Alternate 1114
e.*;m nss n hrei en, stated he could not suppott the drivt-thmmgh to' the Shopping
enter- it had trot yt t,, t and it could generate substantial ”
traffic conflicts. Hg Statedit w "16; clearly` essential to this operation.;
d
rtt ll observed that t " Grt support h
f i m
MVION, by C r4i r_Barron, seconded -by Commissionera no recommend
approval of the site p!an and variance for Twin City federal for plan 'labeled
Alternate subtect to the following conditions-
ComplianceWt'the i t.;
a nrfi' .,z Baas xe,,eis4-4
ark stll
aaYw z&. is a 3.<. ( a a $ n u.af e j k prior the o
OT " cpm te Q f 0- c, cy or ftu ; anths f rm tie date of C Ce-n
pn
Staff ,- ,.fiewe tnmtz-o dated May i7s, 1980 which e gist's the changes directed y the
Narnning Coi-Tmisslon at the April 23, 19SO hearing or. revisions to the zon'.1119 clrdinancA-.4
m rdinance No. 7S-Z). Staff briefly 1Xplained each of the eleven it-
p TM4x'g "A l d 2 "k ,o-q $t '! Mx R'3€ °k a`ks .5.. ss - ' paragraphs and ej. Section 1, vbdivi s D O,
of regardingregar, som im
greenannual
inspection of all buildings which have ii Certificate of O cuvancy "vage, 90 o
pg m en m entme-rboo-Q.,
Staff explained that regarding item, dj forinal Certificates of Gecupancy had not been
sstm 'Rnown rwr-conforzming uses although many non-conforming,mases hdd leen
d m" d, particularly the nvin-residen districts. x ` also cor-m-,ented that
wn lessee a mm fotT ii mg se mm mmm e requ s ' for e
of Occtipancy since me adoption Ordinancen .; -z
Ita4s the concensus of the Commission thath n mm iteim, d was to assure a
non m n uSes and to assure that as far as practicable -
e. minors or lessees of such uses would have nowl edgedthein.
Regarding it staff suggested that rather than a .r.iandatory annual inspection, it
could (! preferablem require _ m i mm also, staff indicat d than
present lanqzuage would require inspections s n9le family dwellings whict, ar,
certified for occupancy, upon mmm - i .. ssioner Threinen coifnented that time
section should also rcquire inspectinn.site - as well buildings.
Chairwoman Vasiliou wted than no onewas .-
4s.
to speak for or against the proposed
changes Ite meeting date had beQn announced mit 'ne originalpublic ring on April
2 1980.
M' y Col,-,tMssioner Threinen, seconded -
a Commissioner Barron to recommend pmt
of therin'm s to the zoning ordinance,, rdinanc No. 1 as reflected in the
Miy 71, 1980 memo-nora d-ton imp ion to those; acted upon and recommended at the April
2-41 1980 Planning Commission meeting,.
M O"T 10 N C AR R IES All i nm-
OTIN by Corm-ms s oner Throlnen., sec,Med by Coiiiinissioner Barron to recomnendapproval
Ifica 11, Subdivision D". item "e" to provide for
periodic rather than annual si c i s; to provide for inspection, of all norm..
residential rathe than all buildings wti m have Certificate of Occupancy; and to
provIdle for inspection of sites as well, as buildings*
e°'3kj S>< W:•ti.
Mtaf,* i g'7 . & vf3 th " "hop•i.,, :ri k Nt&rr ¢ .; 's t8^ ae c § p <, Aga f'• d e +y,{??y.
1 .'+ :a u.,R $! $flY y.ai. S.* h` v,+ a 5%
e+y A N' ,p a. iia, '} 'a •*'ad *x 'B* y"+ },' =# FA q${tpS p t 5' ('S rv are, E'k. l T., . `ary }. 6` tta ¢ , 8 w `s.1 . 5 CE,.j . § '4-: Lam. , i' 4 R+ V
b yl`yg wl ityalong t^+la otiw
4- A'T in Favor
Wiafi.
Ii'7 < i 'q s l nt+^
s`$
iK
a'* •K .,e, a
d o a`"41
a"+; . `a ra .,
NMHjttacM.nwra a'n,.gwxymsawi•r;'-. +b'..k' vMw+
rm3.' l i T
c
i n, t ,«,... *fix x t
x
i.a..a:, •, ., ` .wad" w =k. L..» ,«". .':4. ..,
q y+ yp,
t.',,:
p 1. E i,. a.E i $ T q$ ' y-9 `kk-i i -r
s<, TI' N C,, ri nth EL s' 4±`"w4. mnl h o iteWire :+."an 6S i 3§i»i+
4C lire, seconded 15y Pauba to approve the Minutes
Of
M1011.10N, CARRR IED M$
M
N iS4r 'h rei ny
YY@@tiedwidyb
4'M Wf+r
There beimg ro further
krro+KW!r WaSuacaxraa'aW R->`ub'N&ks;saaFr
bhusfiness lbefore the
p+.*rv.,.,q"µr
mi i n,, the, meeting adjournel at