HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCAgenda_91Jul22•
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
July 22, 1991
7:30 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER:
B. ROLL CALL: 3~ee-$arry Len Boche Donna Daykin,
John Duncan Ed Finegan Carra~lrM- r7.c +- ~ yGri
Jan Gibson T~~ot
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 24, 1991
D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: June 19, 1991
E. REPORTS, REQUESTS, RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. A request for a variance from section 9-2.06(f)(4) in
the zoning code relating to fence height by Mr. David
Bowers, property owner at 1530 Iowa Street in an R-1
zone.
2. A discussion of the comprehensive planning policies to
give the planner direction in drafting the final plan.
F. INFORMATION
1. "Share and Share Alike", the co-housing concept, an
article from Planning Magazine, July, 1991.
G. ADJOURN
~..~
r-~
~ J
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 24, 1991
7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT:
ee arry au ernia, council member
Len Boche Susan Hoyt, city planner, administration
Donna Daykin
John Duncan
Ed Finegan
Carolyn Nestingen
Jan Gibson Talbot
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Len Boche at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 20, 1991 regular meeting were approved.
REVIEW OF THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Fred Hoisington distributed the first draft of the comprehensive
plan. The commission members reviewed the entire plan with Mr.
Hoisington. They were requested to make any suggestions to the
city planner for the July planning commission meeting when the
• comprehensive plan policies will be discussed.
INFORMATION
Amended driveway standards, building inspection services for the
State Fair, and Idaho/Spelling park construction were briefly
reviewed and discussed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
•
Meeting Date 7 22 91
Agenda Item -
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: A request for a variance from 9-2.06 (f)(4)
o e zoning code relating to fence height at 1530 Iowa Street
in an R-1 zone
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. David Bowers, property owner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
Mr. Bowers recently purchased the property at 1530 Iowa Street.
He wishes to enhance the privacy on the westside of his rear
deck by constructing an eight foot high fence of solid wood
along the property line on this side of the deck (see attachment
1). The remainder of the rear property will be fenced with a
basket weave and/or cyclone fence not more than six feet high,
which is the maximum height in the zoning code. A variance is
required for the eight foot portion of the fence because it
exceeds the six foot height allowed in the zoning code.
ATTACHMENT 1 - Petitioner's Request
• ATTACHMENT 2 - Diagram of Request (top view)
ATTACHMENT 3 - Diagram of Request (frontal view)
ATTACHMENT 4 - Planner's Report
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve or deny variance
•
E 1' ~-
• July 12, 1991
David R. Bowers
Jeffrey D. Rezab
1530 Iowa Ave.
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55108
2 Maps attached. {1-top view, 1-side view)
We are requesting a variance to the city code of a 6 foot height Limitation for yard fencing.
Purpose: The proposed additional 2 foot height of the wooden fence 24 feet long would
provide containment for 2 dogs, an improved sound barrier between homes, improve the
value of the property at 1530 Iowa, would be visually pleasing and increase privacy
between a deck located at 1530 Iowa Ave and the neighbor to the west. The deck located at
1530 Iowa overlooks the bedroom windows of the neighbor to the west. The current b
foot high shrubs located on the property line between the homes lose their leaf cover during
the fall, winter and spring months. This fence will provide a barrier year around. The
shrubs will remain in place.
Description: The backyard would be fenced with a cedar wood fencing material. The 24
foot section of proposed fence located on the west side of a wooden deck structure at 1530
Iowa Ave would be 8 feet tall. The remaining fence would be within regulation of 6 fcet
tall or below. The total height of 8 foot is measured from the ground level to the top of the
fence.
Request for Variance
. Names & Addresses of bordering neighbors:
East: ~.~ ,~
South: Ql,r ~,vV
-~ o ~ rv5 a nJ
~Jor,~ker
(So-`-~ -.l ~~ ~
West: ~[`~to /vl r~-5 ~}- ~ G~JI~J~-
North:
Street Side
f s'a~ ('Jo~~'
<~~~ l ~.3 ~L ~..a wva
•
~ 1-L
~J
•
C
~ W
~ 1--3
•
Meeting Date 7/22/91
Agenda Item E-1
Attachment 4
MEMO
DATE: July 16, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
RE: Variance request for 1530 Iowa from 9-2.06 (f)(4) of the
zoning code
The property owner at 1530 Iowa Street is requesting a variance
to allow him to install an eight foot fence alongside the
westside of his deck for 24 ft, where his property is within 16
feet of his neighbor's home. The raised deck is designed with
benches whose top is almost six feet from the ground.
Therefore, the property owner feels that a six foot high fence
• does not provide adequate privacy for people seated or standing
by the benches because it does not extend higher than they are.
Currently, a line of deciduous shrubs between nine and ten feet
tall act as a screen between the two properties. However, the
property owner feels this screen is not adequate due to its
seasonal nature. An evergreen tree between the two properties
provides a modest screen, but it appears to be dying.
Mr. Bowers and I discussed an alternative to requesting a
variance proposed by the city's building official. This
alternative is to build a safety railing along the side ~of the
deck that would reach above the seats, to the height where an
eight foot high fence would reach. This is allowed in the
building code and zoning code. However, due to the angled seats
on the deck this would be impossible without redesigning the
deck's bench arrangement. Therefore, Mr. Bowers chose to pursue
the variance request to add the necessary height.
If granted, the variance will not substantially change the
character of the two properties since it will be adjacent to
taller bushes, fairly near the house and run next to a raised
deck. It will be part of a six foot or lower fence on the
remainder of the property. A variance of a lower fence height
(e.g. 7 1/2) could accomplish the privacy, but might be a
difficult size to purchase.
sH/ds
•
Meeting Date 7 22 91
Agenda Item -
•
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Discussion of the draft comprehensive plan
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Susan Hoyt, City Planner
Not applicable
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
As dart of the final preparation for the comprehensive plan, it
is important to have an in-depth discussion of the plan's
policies and implementation strategies. This session will focus
on those policies and implementation strategies that may require
the most analysis by the commission. Commission members should
highlight those areas where the most questions arise. The
following areas are critical from the planner's perspective:
1. The addition of a requirement to dedicate the community
park to the city if the agricultural fields along
Cleveland are developed (under Park and Recreation in
the land use section) (p.37)
• 2. The elimination of Garden Park and Lindig Linear Park
from the Park and Recreation Plan reference (p.37)
3. The provision of an LRT zone in the policy and
implementation section of the plan (under
commercial/business policies, southeast corner
redevelopment and LRT implementation) (p.29, p.48, p.49)
4. The implementation strategies dealing with housing with
particular emphasis on smaller lot sizes and "cottages"
(P.47)
5. The. proposed zoning district classifications (p.46)
The discussion is not designed to discuss specific text and data
revisions. However, if you have questions or suggestions on
these, please bring them to the meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion with direction to staff
n
U
7. Allow only one community-scale retail center at Snelling/Larpenteur.
• 8. Assist with the redevelo ment of the southeast uadrant of Snellin
P q g
and Larpenteur Avenues, if feasible.
9. Require that any redevelopment project that may logically extend
beyond the area already zoned for commercial use have a straight
boundary that generally correlates with a public street line or the rear
lot lines of residences and take all of the property to the project
boundary. Further, where such extension of a project takes place,
extraordinary setbacks and landscaping be required to mitigate
neighborhood impacts.
.--,
~...
10. require any major building redevelopment in an LRT District to
minimize setbacks between roadways, sidewalks .and building
entrances and orient building entrances to LRT to facilitate pedestrian
accessibility.
11. Encourage a transitional develoment pattern with aziult oriented
housing adjacent to commercial/employment areas and the LRT
station and family oriented housing serving as a buffer for adjacent
• low density. neighborhoods.
12. Facilitate the redevelopment and reuse of underutilized and
inappropriate land uses in the LRT District.
13. Prohibit developments in the LRT District that are not in keeping with
the high quality standards or densities required to support public
transit ridership.
`-~ 14. Participate in the land use and implementation planning of the LRT
~ .station and supporting development to insure the highest standard of
design, quality and function.
1 S . Establish design guidelines or standards for development of the LRT
District and consider bonus incentives to ensure the provision of
transit related amenities.
•
Falcon Heights Comprehensive Plan Draft Page 29
f
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
• PARKS AND TRAILS
With the exception of trails, the City's 1989 Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan is herewith adopted by reference as an element of the
City's Comprehensive plan. The revised trail system plan is included as
part of the major street plan.
Parks and Trails Objective
1. To develop a park system to serve both neighborhood and community
needs.
2. To provide adequate active and passive recreation programs and
facilities for community residents.
3. To provide an interconnected park and open space system that
provides pedestrian and bicycle linkages throughout _-the City.
Parks and Trails Policies
• 1. Upgrade and improve existing parks.
2. Offer park/recreation programs to residents that complement
recreation programs available from surrounding cities and the school
district, and duplicate programs only when necessary.
3. Cooperate with the University of Minnesota and the State Fairgrounds
in shared use of recreation and open space lands.
4. Acquire additional park land through the City's land acquisition and
park dedication program if the University of Minnesota's agricultural
land north of Larpenteur Avenue along Fairview is sold and developed
for residential use.
5. Build trails as an integral part of the upgrading of collector and
arterial streets identified on the transportation plan except along
Snelling Avenue.
Falcon Heights Comprehensive Plan Draft Page 37
IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT
• ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES
These ordinances will not require significant revision. While there may be
a need to correct current deficiencies, the primary effort should be to bring
the ordinances into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. At a
minimum, the following ordinance amendments will be required:
1. Amalgamate the B-1 and B-lA Districts into a single district.
2. Eliminate the E-B District.
3. Create a B-3 Neighborhood Shopping District and rezone the B-2 and
E-B Districts along Hamline Avenue to B-3.
4. Change the name of the B-2 District to Central Business District.
5. Develop purpose statements for all districts. --
6. Require spacing of group homes.
• 7. Create an LRT Overlay District which serves as a holding zone but
establishes development performance criteria, protects lands from
inappropriate low intensity developments and provides incentives or
bonus' for uses which will foster public transit ridership.
8. Revise the Zoning Map to reflect new districts.
9. Create an exclusively public district to be applied to all
public/institutional lands and eliminate dual zoning (P-1/R-1).
10. Identify and record legal nonconforming uses.
11. Require lot size conformance for lot divisions/subdivisions.
12. Develop a signage plan for retail developments in particular and draft
a new sign ordinance which will bring signs into compliance with the
Plan.
• Falcon Heights Comprehensive Plan Draft Page 46
HOUSING
• Since the Cit has virtuall no rivate vacant land available for the
Y Y P
development of new housing and no immediate need for housing
redevelopment, it will emphasize the maintenance of the existing housing
stock until such time as the University of Minnesota elects to divest itself
of its agricultural lands north of Larpenteur Avenue. If that occurs, the
City will make every effort to satisfy unmet needs for affordable housing.
Measures that will be considered include:
1. Reduction in single-family lot requirements of up to 25 percent.
2. Provision for relaxation of zoning standards for up to 10 percent of
new single-family lots within each development.
3. Provision that up to 10 percent of multi-family rental projects be
affordable housing, if housing assistance is available.
4. Continuation of support for Section 8 rental assistaa~e vouchers for
low and modest income residents.
• 5. Allowance- for small accessory apartments or cottages for up to two
persons on the same lot as the principal residence.
6. Participation, as appropriate, in the Federal HOME and HOPE and such
other housing programs as may be made available to encourage home
ownership and rehabilitate affordable rental housing. .
CORE AREA REDEVELOPMENT. AND REHABILITATION
The Snelling and Larpenteur Commercial Core is located entirely within
Development District No. 2 which was established in 1984. One tax
increment financing (TIF) district was created in 1984 for Bullseye Golf
(northeast quadrant). The TIF District is scheduled for debt retirement by
1999.
The northwest quadrant is not a redevelopment candidate but it is in need
of substantial rehabilitation and site improvements to reestablish it as a
competitive retail center. The use of TIF for low interest rehabilitation
loans will be considered to upgrade the exterior of buildings and improve
signage. Depending on fund availability, the City will also consider the use
• of TIF for a variety of public improvements including landscaping, lighting,
eliminating overhead wiring and improving parking, access and circulation.
Falcon Heights Comprehensive Plan Draft Page 47
Y
• The southeast quadrant is the primary candidate for redevelopment since
it exhibits substantial commercial blight. It will be planned and phased to
achieve high densities and interface with the future LRT station proposed
to be located west of Snelling Avenue.
Actions that will be initiated include the following:
Redevelopment Project
• Identification of a developer for the southeast quadrant.
• Formulation by the developer of a specific project plan with phasing.
• Establishment of project feasibility (City). .
• Creation of a new TIF District and updating of redevelopment plans by
the City.
Rehabilitation Project
• Formulation by the City of a master site plan for the northwest
quadrant.
• Solicitation of support from owners.
• Establishment of project feasibility and cost sharing.
• Creation/updating of Development District/TIF plans by the City.
SANITARY SEWERS
The City contributes only one-third of the total wastewater flow to the
sanitary sewer system with the University and State Fairgrounds
accounting for all of the remainder. The State Fairgrounds are served by a
combined storm and sanitary system which causes the City's wastewater
flow allocation to be exceeded. The City recognizes the need to reduce the
volume of storm water inflow and infiltration to the sanitary sewer system
and will continue to monitor and correct sewer and manhole deficiencies
and reconstruct those parts of the system that coincide- with City street
improvements. The City will also evaluate the potential to terminate the
pumping of storm water from basement sumps directly into the sanitary
• sewer system.
Falcon Heights Comprehensive Plan Draft Page 48
S
• LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
As a Group C Corridor, LRT is not expected to reach Falcon Heights for up to
20 years. The City will be involved at each stage in the Regional Transit
Board's Five Stage planning process but the clock has yet to start. The
process is as follows:
Phase I ................................Land Use Evaluation/EIS
Phase II ..............................Station Area Land Use Planning/
Preliminary Engineering
Phase III ............................Detailed Station Area Land Use Planning/
Final Engineering
Phase IV .............................Station Area Construction
Phase V ...............................Station Area Development..
The City will expect to play an active role at each state in the process with
the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority. Primary responsibilities will
include Station Area land use or redevelopment planning in Phase II,
preparing an implemementation plan in Phase III and defining a
development strategy in Phase IV. The Phase II Implementation Plan will
• include the preparation of a CIP, property acquisition and station financial
plans.
Once an alignment has been established, the City will consider the use of
official mapping to protect the LRT station and alignment from
development encroachments.
Falcon Heights Comprehensive Plan Draft Page 49
Meeting Date 7 22 91
Agenda Item -
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Information on something called "co-housing"
SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Not applicable
EXPLANATION/DESCRIPTION:
ATTACHMENT 1 - "Share and Share Alike" The Co-housing
Concept, an article from Planning Magazine,
July, 1991
ACTION REQUESTED:
For your information
C.
By Nancy Levinson
I n 1984, two young architects from
California, Kathryn McCamant and
Charles Durrett, traveled to Denmark to
study a new kind of quasi-communal
housing called bofoelleshaber, or "living
communities." First built in the early
seventies, these communities, which the
Americans dubbed "cohousing," are now
well established in Denmark; about 125
exist there today, and more are planned.
Similar projects have been built in Nor-
way, Sweden, France, and Germany.
McCamant and Durrett describedwhat
they saw in Cohousing: A Contemporary
Approach to Housing Ourselves ~ 1988, Ten
Speed Press, Berkeley, California). The
book is a detailed study of a type of
multifamily development in which a
group of private households shares a
variety of facilities and open spaces. The
idea is to combine the privacy and. satis-
faction ofindividual homeownership with
the greater social richness often found in
communal living.
Since then, the book has become the
• bible of a small but growing cohousing
movement in the U.S. Its authors, who
now run a design and consulting firm
called the Cohousing Company in Berke-
ley, estimate that about 70 groups have
formed in the past two years. While most
of the projects are still in the talking
stages, one is just about ready for occu-
Cohousing is catching on in the U.S.
In Ga(ayette, Colorado:
Houses will occupy 5.5 acres
of the 43-acre site. The rest will
contain a convnon house, gnrdens,
and orchards-along with eight acres
o(open space to he deeded to the city.
pancy, and construction is due to begin
this summer on several others:
• Muir Commons in Davis, California,
is the first cohousing project to be com-
pleted in the U.S. Built as part of a larger
development of traditional detached
houses and designed by Sacramento ar-
chitectDean Unger, it consists of clusters
of two-story attached houses, 26 in all,
organized along aneight-foot-wide street,
closed to all but service vehicles.
• Benicia Waterfront Commons is a
27-unit development in the Bay Area
suburb of Benicia, designed by the
Cohousing Company. This 1.6-acre
--"community will group two- and three-
story attached houses, from 600 to 1,500
square feet, around a courtyard and a
3,900-square-foot common house. Prices
go all the way up to $300,000.
• The Doyle Street Cohousing Com-
munity is an adaptive reuse of a 7,700-
square-foot factory in Emeryville, another
Bay Area town. This one, also designed
by the Cohousing Company, will have 12
units, ranging from 720 to 1,500 square
feet, and 2,200 square feet of interior
common space.
• The Winslow Cohousing Group is
building a 30-unit community on a five-
acre suburban site on Bainbridge Island,
near Seattle. The houses are arranged
along two pedestrian streets; at the in-
tersection is the 2,400-square-foot com-
mon house. The developer is the non-
profit Northwest Community Housing
Foundation.
• The Colorado Cohousing Corpora-
tion will erect a 42-unit development of
passive solar, energy-efficient houses in
Lafayette, just outside Boulder. Conceived
of as a "model environmental community"
by solar designer Matt Worswick and
several architects in the group, it's being
assisted by the U.~. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the Colorado Office of
Energy Conservation, and the Public Ser-
vice Company of Colorado.
The Danish experience
The Danish cohousing movement, whose
history is described by McCamant and
Durrett, started in the mid-1960s when a
Copenhagen architect named Jan Gud-
mand-Hover began meeting regularly
with a group of friends to discuss alter-
natives tocontemporary city and subur-
banhousing. Members of the group were
particularly influenced by Thomas More's
16th century classic, Utopia, and its vi-
sion of cooperative life. They dreamed
about recreating the traditional Danish
village, whose design and small scale en-
couraged spontaneous, daily socializing.
Gudmand-Hoyer's first design, for a
suburban community of 12 private, de-
25
A site plan jor the 6vinslow Colrousirrg
Group on Bainbridge Islmrd, 61'nsh-
irrgton, cells jor 10 semidetndred
]rouses and hvo townhouse
clusters in sizes r-nnging
jrom 500 to 1,600
~.,_ sclum•e jeet.
Hnthryrr McCnnrmzt
~
w /below, lejtJ reviews n
ed model jor the Doyle
~w"'b,.Po Sheet project in
a Emeryville, Cnlijor-
~s nin. The jinished
product will hm~e
~ 12 emits chrstered
~~ mrorurd 2,200 square
jeer ojinterior
conmron space.
0
U
U
~ i9 ~ ~~%
ched houses clustered around a com-
mon house and a swimming pool, was
never realized because of neighbors' ob-
jections. "Even though we had not used
the word collective in our description
...they simply saw 'red, "' he said. But
the architect persisted and in the more
liberal atmosphere of the early 1970s,
several cohousing communities were built.
These early developments, each of which
accommodated about 30 families, pro-
vided the fledgling movement with
models. Today, Danish communities vary
in size from two to 80 households, with
the average consisting of 20 to 30.
Although the developments in Den-
markfollow noformula, certain patterns
have emerged. In the suburbs (where
most of the developments are locatedj,
the units are either aligned along pedes-
trianpaths or clustered around a central
green or courtyard. Cars are relegated to
perimeter parking lots. Several of the
Danish communities are urban reuse
projects. In the city of Aarhus, for in-
stance, eight families have transformed
old junkyard surrounded by eight de-
pit rowhouses into a development that
cCamant and Durrett describe as "an
urban paradise."
Common facilities are cohousing's most
distinctive characteristic. Almost all the
Danish projects include a variety of com-
munal spaces-footpaths, gardens, play
areas, even barns and greenhouses. Some
include common interior space. One 21-
unit development, for instance, is clus-
teredaround an old iron foundry, whose
roomy interior has become an al/-weather
courtyard.
"The heart of the cohousing commu-
nity," write McCamant and Durrett, is
the common house. Analogous in some
ways to a condominium clubhouse, this
building-generally 3,000 to 4,000 square
feet-typically includes group cooking
and dining facilities and, perhaps, guest
rooms, workshops, darkrooms, music
practice spaces, and shared offices. By
accommodating many activities that or-
dinarilytake place at home, the common
house allows the individual units to be
smaller than their conventional counter-
parts-1,000 square feet as opposed to
the 1,300 square feet that is the norm for
a Danish house.
All of the Danish communities are
managed by the residents themselves,
with decisions reached through consen-
sus. Often, community responsibilities,
such as preparing dinner or cleaning
shared space, are rotated among work
groups. The projects have been financed
as condominiums and limited-equity
coops, with some rentals included as
well. According to Durrett, units in the
early developments tended to cost slightly
more than the market rate; today, they
cost slightly less, largely because a 1981
law made cooperative developments of
all kinds eligible for government-spon-
sored loans.
Obstacles
Cohousing groups in the U.S. face two
potential hurdles-zoning approval and
construction financing. Receiving zoning
approval will depend, of course, on state
and local laws, and on the open-minded-
ness of individual planning boards and
communities. Virginia Thigpen, a mem-
ber of the Muir Commons group, notes
that Davis has traditionally favored pro-
gressive housing. "Village Homes [the
solar community built there in the 1970s]
broke the ice," she says. "Its success has
made officials here more open to new
ideas-which certainly helped us with
our development."
In other places, the acceptance of
planned unit developments may have
paved the way. "I don't anticipate that
zoning will be an obstacle to cohousing,"
says architect Bruce Coldham of Amherst,
Massachusetts, the editor of the Northeast
Cohousing Quarterly. Likewise, JohnEverts,
a city planner who is now reviewing the
zoning application of the Benicia, Cali-
fornia, group, suggests that the fact that
a development is a cohousing community
"need not in itself be a problem. We're
processing this application the way we
would any condominium or planned de-
velopment," he says.
In some places, the cohousing tag may
evenwork to aproject's advantage. That's
true in Emeryville, where antigrowth
sentiment is strong, and the Doyle Street
Cohousing Community was approved
specifically because it is a cohousing
development.
Financing may be a bigger obstacle.
Connecticut architect Harwood Loomis,
who has long been interested in coopera-
tive housing, notes that "banks don't
know what to make of cohousing groups.
They're willing to deal with a developer
who wants to build a condominium with
two dozen units, but they're not at all
sure how to handle 24 families who
together want to build and finance a
community. "
Most U.S. cohousing groups are fol-
lowing the Danish model and working
with developers rather than trying to
develop their communities themselves.
Some of the firms involved are nonprofits.
Others simply believe that cohousing
makes good business sense. Stephen
Hannah, the developer of the Emeryville
.project, points out that "the very process
of working closely with a core group of
future residents means that, as you are
creating the project, you are creating a
market."
Will it fly?
cohousing is not, of course, a new con-
cept. One finds its roots in 19th century
utopian communities like the short-lived
Brook Farm in New England, and in
attempts by early feminists and other
reformers to collectivize kitchens and
nurseries. For a long time, however, as
UCLA professor Dolores Hayden points
out in Redesigning the American Dream,
the U.S. housing industry has been de-
signingwiththe traditional nuclear family
in mind, and ignoring the needs of two-
career couples, single parents, and the
elderly.
Today, architects and planners like
Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-
Zybeck, intheir designs for neotraditional
towns, and Peter Calthorpe, with his
concept of pedestrian pockets or "post-
industrial suburbs," are addressing is-
sues of community and of changing
household structure.
A number of organizations across the
country are also developing models for
cooperative living that are similar to
cohousing. One such group is the four-
year-old Shared Living Resource Center
in Berkeley, founded by planner and
architect Kenneth Norwood. The group
has developed a prototype called the
village cluster, which, in its concept of
individual houses grouped around a
communal building, is similar to co-
housing. The center is currently prepar-
ing a feasiblity study for its first project,
a low-income development in Watson-
ville, California.
Its advocates take pains to dissociate
cohousing from the image of a 1960s-
style commune. McCamant and Durrett
make clear that Danish cohousing is sim-
ply housing, unencumbered by any po-
litical,spiritual, economic, or social agenda.
"This is not a return to Birkenstock san-
dals and Indian-print skirts," says Steve
Mabley, a member of a cohousing group
in Washington, D.C. "This is a move-
ment of homeowners."
Make that middle-class homeowners.
Although cohousing has obvious poten-
tialfor affordable housing (just over half
the members of the Muir Commons group
have received low-interest city loans for
down payments, most of the U.S. projects
will be market-rate. As developers are
discovering, the money saved by build-
ing smaller houses and fewer roads is
generally absorbed by the common house
and landscaped outdoor spaces.
Some planners remain unconvinced
of cohousing's wide appeal. "It's likely to
appeal only to a very select group, who
are willing to live cooperatively," says
Robert Burchell, a professor of planning
at the Center for Urban Policy Researc}~.
at Rutgers University. And, he adds,
"cohousing groups maybe looking to get
more from lifestyle than lifestyle can
give. You can't easily recreate the kind of
cohesive communities that once existed
when people lived near their extended
families and worked close to home."
Meanwhile, others suggest that chang-
ing demographics may make all the dif-
ference. "Thetypicalfamily-twoparents,
a couple of kids-is now the slowest
growing type of household in the U.S.,"
says planner Lloyd Bookout, a senior
research associate at the Urban Land
Institute. "We're seeing a tremendous
increase in nontraditional households of
single parents, single people, unrelated
elderly people, and so on."
For these groups, and others, cohousing
could well be an alternative.
Nancy Levinson is a writer and architect in
Worcester, Massachusetts; she is the New Eng-
land correspondent for Architectural Record.
Residents of a Danish cohousing community relax after dinner in the common house.
22 JULY 1991
• SUMMARY OF PLANNER'S COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE JULY MEETING
1. The addition of a policy under parka and/or economic development that
would require the University or future developer to dedicate the
Community Park to the city as part of any development proposal for
the University land on Cleveland and Larpenteur. Such a phrase might
read:
In the event that the University of Minnesota lands north of
Larpenteur along Cleveland Avenue become available for
development over the life of the plan, require that the
University or developer, that the University sells
property to, dedicate the Community Park property to the
city for continued park space as a condition for approving
any development of the adjacent land.
Although I'm not terribly familiar with land use law regarding public
park use, I believe that the historic use of the land as public park
lends credibility to the city's claim that it should remain
park land. The University has rented it to the city since 1958.
The current lease was renewed in 1990 until 2,008. This fifty
year history of park use suggests that the landowner and city
acknowledge this is park area for the community.
2. The elimination of Garden Park and the Lindig Corridor Park from
reference in the Park and Recreation Plan (see attachment 1).
• When the City's Park and Recreation Plan was designed in
1989 it included some future areas for park development that
may no longer be reasonable to include in the city's park
planning due to the land availability and/or "reasonableness"
of the projects. Unlike the Park and Recreation Plan, the
city's comprehensive plan has some statutory authority, and
therefore, its elements must be carefully reviewed to make
sure they are reasonable, or their inclusion may result in
controversy at a later date.
Therefore, it may be useful to eliminate a general reference to the
park and recreation plan and to include the items in it that the city
continues to pursue such as the existing parks and the trail system as
modified by the park and recreation commission. Although the
comprehensive plan should not take away creative park and open space
opportunities, there area some items that might not be desirable to
include:
Garden Park, which was leased from the University until 1990,
was never developed, and the lease was revoked in 1990.
* Lindig Corridor or Lindig Linear Park, is a creative
use of the rear of some long lots on Tatum and Fairview. This
project would require purchasing the property outright or
public easements from the property owners.
It would require substantial upgrading and security so
property owners wouldn't experience vandalism or
break-ins. It may be unlikely that property owners would
be willing to part with this property for this purpose.
Controversy might arise if a small development was proposed
for this area rather than a park since this would be
• 1
• designated parkland in the comprehensive plan.
3. The provision of an LRT zone requires some discussion. Obviously,
LRT planning is a regional plan and the provisions in the city's
comprehensive plan may never come to pass. (The LRT is substantially
expensive and controversial.) However, its inclusion in the plan is
important since its presence has major implications for at least a
portion of the city. Metro Council will be carefully reviewing
the plan to assure that the LRT question is clearly addressed.
These are a few points to discuss:
* Does the city support LRT development?
* At this time is Snelling the best route through the City?
* LRT Stop at Snelling and Larpenteur.
Stressing the importance of a stop at Snelling and Larpenteur
in the plan may assist with its reality in the future. The
absence of a stop here would mean that the LRT would probably
not bring much direct additional development to the area.
* Redevelopment of the southeast corner of_Snellincr and Larpenteur
The LRT zone in the plan may have little impact on the existing
land use and development trends with the exception of the
southeast corner of Snelling and Larpenteur. As stated in the
plan, if redeveloped the corner should meet the high density
demands and setbacks of property across the street from an
LRT station. Although this may occur, rigidly applying these
standards might preclude any development on this corner until
LRT becomes a near reality, possibly twenty years. There
are also no guarantees that this corner will be a stop.
• One might also make the case that the market demands associated
with a major transportation shift, like LRT, will create
a shift in land use once the line is close to being a reality,
regardless of the existing land use. On the other hand, having
a development that is consistent with future density around an
LRT might eliminate another phase of development.
* Hollywood Court stability
The LRT zone should be designated in a manner that doesn't affect
the public's perception of the stability of the Hollywood Court
neighborhood. Due to the tenuousness of the LRT plan and stops, it
would be undesirable to give homeowners and future homeowners the
impression that the neighborhood is imminently subject to change
when there are so many variables out of the city's control in LRT
planning and siting.
4. The implementation strategies dealing with smaller lot sizes and
and "cottages" to accommodate aging family members and non two
parent headed households. (Attachment 2)
Fred Hoisington convincingly suggested that local land use patterns
should increasingly accommodate different family styles for a
population and society that does not have the affluence or spending
power of the 1980'x. He proposed smaller lots, and apartments and
cottages for aging family members. What does this mean
for Falcon Heights?
To respond to this suggestion it is important to put Falcon Heights in
a metropolitan perspective. The following points are important in
assessing the city's housing competitiveness and strength over the
• 2
• coming decade.
* The majority of Falcon Heights homes are small and on lots
under 10,000 sq. ft. Falcon Heights housing values have been
increasing at approximately 4 percent in 1990 and 1991. They
are higher than other north suburban cities outside of Arden
Hills because of location and neighborhood quality. Many
families are choosing to settle here. Many homeowners also
consider these to be "starter" homes and move to newer houses on
larger lots when financially able.
The housing market will experience a significant shift over the
next decade with the baby boomers, the major housing buyers over
the past two decades, settling down or buying a larger home. Metro
council anticipates a drop of 22$ in the first time buyer market
where historically Falcon Heights falls (although many homeowners
stay here). There will be an increase of 22~ in the "move-up buyer"
or people looking for larger homes probably in Shoreview, Eagan,
Plymouth etc.
The housing market is already experiencing a drop in the rental
market since the young renter age group has fallen by 14~.
This is already apparent in Falcon Heights where 27~ of the city's
housing is non-University rental units. In a survey of
landlords last fall, the staff found that landlords were
experiencing vacant units for the first time in their memory.
* The city will inevitably experience more impact from the
demographic changes in the central city population due to
its location on the central city's border.
• * To some extent the city's R-1 zone accommodates "mother-in-law"
apartments and differing family arrangements, such as group homes and
two women living with their children, through its definition of
family, which is four unrelated adults. However, the added
apartments cannot be totally separate from the rest of the
household because it requires shared cooking facilities.
Flexibility in the application of this might accommodate some family
arrangement's better.
The city's location adjacent to the University makes its households
desirable for student renters. This is not necessarily to the
detriment of the community 's neighborhoods. However, permanent
apartment arrangements and small dwellings originally constructed
for aging family members to live in for the remaining years of
their life, may become rental units for the population as a whole.
This need not have a negative impact. However, it may change the
composition of housing units in R-1 neighborhoods.
Finally, it is important to realize that change is inevitable. The city
will increasingly house different family styles and demographic groups.
The intent of the plan should not be to eliminate this change in the
city's population, but to accommodate it without sacrificing
neighborhood quality or reducing its desirability in the metropolitan
housing market.
5. The proposed zoning district classifications (Attachment 3)
* B-1 A to B-1 - makes sense to keep similar businesses zoned together.
• The B-lA allows for multi-family residential uses with a
3
• conditional use permit. The existing B-lA areas are
occupied by businesses and the plan suggests keeping them that say.
The residential option complicates this.
* B-3 - neighborhood retail to replace the E-B and B-2
in the Hemline area is useful. It will clearly
differentiate between these neighborhood uses and the larger
commercial center a Larpenteur and Snelling. It will also clear up
this unusual E-B zone. It will give the city an opportunity to create
a zone with compatible business uses, perhaps most of them requiring
conditional use permits for better control adjacent to the residential
community.
* Central Business District from B-2 - Again useful to
designate the significance of this area. It will also
provide an opportunity to review the list of allowed
business uses in this zone.
* Public district zoning for parks and public lands without
dual zoning. This is useful to cover the public/institutional
land. If the land becomes available for development, the comprehensive
plan will identify the general use proposed for the property.
The timing of the development will somewhat affect its actual use due
to market conditions.
* Parks and open space is best zoned as parks and open space.
C,
r ~
U
4
~+~u~- ~
712t ~~i~
r
•
LINDIG MINI
COMMUNITY PARK
UNIVERSITY GROVE
Existing Parks
Existing Parks (undeveloped)
® Potential Acquisition /Development Areas
LINDIG CORRIDOR
~-~ wwru w~ wv
i
~,r~
FALCON HEIGHTS
FIGURE 10
Park and 1ZeCreatiOn Plan EXISTING/POTENTIAL PARK LAND
• City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota O
IDAHO/SNELLING
~i
f~'c1~9z~,~~~ 2
TABLE 1
•
r~
I'OI'ULAT[ON DISTRIBUTION BY ACE
TWIN CITIES MhTROPOLITAN AREA, 1980.2000
~~
~e Groups 1980 1990 X0000 Percent Change
1990-2000
Young Renter, 20-24 205,000 172,000 143,000 -14.0
First-time
Home Buyer, 25-34
374,000
425,000
333,000
-21.6
Move-Up Buyer, 35-49 330,000 491,000 601,000 +22.4
Empty Nester, SO-64 256,000 269,000 356,000 +32.3
Young Senior, 65-74 105,000 130,000 134,000 +0.03
Older Senior, 75+ 83,000 101,000 122,000 +20.8
Source: 1980 U.S. Census, 1986 Metropolitan Council Projections
,U E~}'vD Gu~,t.,~t.l, 1'~U GISt^~
ti`fi-~~ Ih~II
TABLE 2
' NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
U.S, 1985 and 1990 (in thousands)
Number of Households Number of New
Households
1985 Percent 1990 erceat 1985_1990 Percent
Married Couples 50,350 58.0 53,012 56.3 2,662 35.8
Nontraditional• 36,439 420 41,215 43.7 4,976 64.1
--1-Patent 12,357 143 13,746 14S 1,389 18.6
-Male Head 2,228 26 2,581 27 353 4.7
-Female Head 10,129 11.7 11,165 11.8 1,036 13.9
--Single 24,082 27.7 27,469 292 3,387 45.5
-Male _ 10,114 11.7 11,946 127 1,832 Z4.6
-Female 13,968 16.1 15,523 16S 1,555 20.9
Total 86,789 94,227 7,438
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Middle Series Projections, 1986
iln~vu [,c~~N.t ~Nt~~~
Mlr~v~. ~ Gt ~1 )
TABLE 14 ,
HOME PRICE AND PROPERTY TAX REVIEW
ROSEVILLE AREA COMMUNITIES
1989
Average
_-- _ House Price Average
t (Assessed) Avetage House Taxes on
Communitv Value Estimated Tax S80.000 Home
Little Canada,. $ 91,017 $1,107 $889
St. Anthony 94,635 1,213 932
Vadnais Heights 96,986 1,087 806
Roseville 100,723 1,258 812
New Bri3hcon 105,916 1,280 739
Shoreview 109,214 1,321 _
719
Falcon Heights 112,521 1,436 749
r en i s 124,459 1,790 752
Lauderdale N/A N/A N/A
Source; Citizens League
A~~•~r- ~
~~tzl~1
r~
C
•
b
.D .O
O 1
• e !A a Vi ~
M
W N ~ ~ a
m ~!
•
e
•
d
t1~ Y• f. O tY
'J Q O !
e
O W
w w 'O H
O
m O' ~ w
m 6 '.
~ b r p
d
1 pf
W yc Y P' y
c c
b'
y
~ c
C
a ~I
4 0 C p K ~* ~
O
~ ^i K 4
e r C
b cr < i V e e
~ ti ad
~
r
M` w
C
e µµ
I •
7 ro O
w O m c* D p
O 7 O~
(py~
~~ ~
O r
a < ~ ~7 <
M
1 r N<~
1-• r a
~~I
O
~
K ~ C1 + _
~
m F
• 11-+ w m m 9 O m w
o c
G M
N ~
µ ~
B O "
a O O~ a
~
f
y O
p O
n
e I
+ C
• G ~. . N
O v
p • p r
K ? A
' *
G IE m y
+ t
r
p M~ M . •
p
t w r m
e ~ m •. cr µ
~ C
r
W r
A p r
e7
7
e H
~ p
d M
e
~ _ a µ W ~y m N
•
e
~ 9
! OO Rl
'7 w 6 F+ R
1 I
a v g i
o
$ v
N ~7 p
'
'J '7 l7
O p 1w
w
-~
ry
m
p 0
m ~ y
! B ry
~ O 6~ tC Q N O K O N p
`7 p
d ~r
e 0 e 6
c
+' F• e''
O
' •'f 6 6
b '
7 1+
m s+ O p
~ ~
~ h ~ a+
1
e '7 "1 p
.f f
A
1+
b m
_ w
m
~ ~ ti . . p a
e 9 ~
c. b C N
O O
O. O O O- t.• -~ N O N tOa it r
+ .
a F r
m 1ry+
y m O y d O grg O m~ w wr m:~ d m 6 W ja K tnD N K
~ P
.r p
6 C p ~* m I+
R
Ce b'C t 6 r F+ ~+
i w b o
a0
t e
d
m
m m O
a y d
p O W
' C ~
. e
p
N p ~ ~d 6
K7 :
U W o ~'
a '~tnn
. d 6!a c.r C
O
0 6
~
+ . r O CY m
w O ••O~~ C
fe
a. O ~ m C O' ~ m ~ ~. ~ ~ i ~ ~ e O ^Rf ~ ~ N m
• N C w r •f n ti N ~'! 1
K N 6 M O n r m B W
•
• m p1 v and r µ s K a r ' c~ ° c i v ~
~.yy .
:a ~D
1%• ~ R
p
~ ~ O µ 0 .
m y `~.
•
K 0 ~
p d e 6 t. O Op0 O
y .+ lyD c+ Wp .+
~ b ~ ~ O
•
µ s
Fµ-•
P pp SS
Q 00 F'• b w P
~ N~~ c* • a
N
C e ',
~ m
~
'~ t
+ 7
~ V µ 1
'
N
m
w D b b O ebi y°
~ y K ~ m O N
~ ~ ~ f
~ N
m p µ0 C
dm wrn ~ p, MN N
m
m ~ `~ °' ° ~ m m ~
'
~' m o ter .
' p. e ,
w o~m~b~ ~•' w : ~• m u
d o
' o
p
y
O 00 ~~mtpp~
O b' O e e
G' p m 6 N _~ -d_J_ p f d O 9 C01 'I
pp C rd O
l0 m m K
V
. m
p
~
~
O ~ R /~
~
e K r e , ^l a
c
. ~ j
m e O 6 ~
p
~ 0 6 w
cpr p -' t - e m
~° ao
o ~
y
K Fy
°
' a i
I~xc.
r
p' Oo ~fe o.o o'
Aocow d
p~•q
~~e
wcd
n g
v Q
r
y
w
~F„ eo
..I. .i
..
• .... e n p o e r e m
^f r I
+
W
Fa''
a
:nme
ece
~, C71'b 0C-ro7a•A'~4
rcr+roKww R O d N•
~'f p:
'+ e o
d~ Mr
0o ' m n to
µ ti ~'ao
ry 2
a •1 m O p
~. xcr
~eyve~ o r
do r
mum wawrdd~
:+
r ti
u rp .rm.-.
D c~uM Fd- ~, rr
pp p
j ~
'1 '7 ~
~+ -r
p e
~a ~• J e r r e
•
O
O '7
r b ~ 'O1 6 K 6 w p r
c. o. c* a+ O N
t . :
C m
6 .* M O
p pf /o n
w y
m W S r p O
.* P O r O
O . ~ ~p~
d .
p
p' N w p
O• w
w
K 0 O~e O O e C p~ b~' 6 o fT N p O O. OV 6 W F+ v
y ~ pp e~ ~
p
m
o c
o ewmo dtr
d a r_ ~ o a .. you
m~ m e y wo
c p ` o ~.. ~°-~ ~ d Nw ha~ vN C
m
~I~
fr`
mvovw~m
adAm•°~
~r d-
~'t„ o>
eew d o e w c v
c "b
d"
or
~
° r
p
mao •ei ~ ~~°nem e"~
a• y b p' m-~'
r np
e c.oa
v e d
e
p v
v
e owwel.+
• i
rr
m
y
a
~
° n y y
s w e d 6 .+
B u
6~
°
°O
~ Mr
a
~ ~w `
'dma~ mIN-• co r~-ei r "' ~cw"ppq
~
m m
. rd.
o.
'm ww u°op°°p~ 1"o
m
e b rti mod ° ~ ~
`
m~ o
m
•
O
to 6 `1
' r
c
n
~ V d w .
+c
m
O d
O Ci -.
µ w
w
,
n O b
C7 ~ r
-
vo r
~ Oo
7atr
'~ c~m°oc~i eco •f
N'",~e ve
'em a
bn mw
~r p
r y
r ~ti bra
w ode .r •-
p' n '
.r
71°-~ d ~ ~~avrr ° ° m y o
.w*
r
v. ~ a ~°*
ru w o~
ruc
pp rY p
x
do µ~
dr pe
o 5
mmmc
~ o
.
7
m p
R
O 0
0
w
m
~ s
~ dp n
m
K r•u .
R
1
., + ~, r
„ y Q/
e F
'• m d OV e r w t+ m < O y
m /
p p
~ ~ m~ Q 7
F O ~ G
5g 8
, p r1 w C
~ ~ W G
gg ~ C r ~ N w O
W~ OV
.
pp
p ~
m
$~ O m C •1
e y
p 0
C N e
8 N !A S
k
N
O O C e
~
r
G r QC O gm
~
G• ~ m O
m
r
1+
'1
GG p o
m
yy
m
F m O~
'7 K O
c
a~
w O g
~ p N O Id+ F+
'~ 00
p
6 4 {~ b M
u m p el•
.,
µ
~ µ ~ 4'' ~ pr a0+ ~ W Opq 6
~
~-a
~'° ~
r'o.So
o ~d ~aw ~" ge°w c'
a
- p
P p tr Be O' µ~ ~ ~o
''' y
r ~~
e-rta
e. O e
~
m~ e
u~ yy
aF., .
~o
~r ~ F+
r
e r
a ti o v m o
ram ~ r n
o
•°
~ _
w
C
"'e
~
e
' e m i
~ tJ c
. ~
i•
e
'
Y f R
r
~a v m 6C ee N 6r\•O'~ C
g
e
u c o..
n r
s*o er
a
~= o.N..
~
o
a rr~
n n c e' d
v m
k .
O .+tv-do
Li 5 u
p Oa _ ~
AT-~pt~tM~•~- 3 Q ~(2~tc
N•qx <c .+ P 'f a ~I od er-CC..rd'ao.~m ao on
N ~C x~ t t n n 7 .O O O p B r lK.+ r aOO M m p0 o'P
N V M t< C~ n 7 .O b O p B~ r K .+ r b' 00 h m 6 0 O' w
~ H ro O O O ro x ~ •L7] t7 O t•1 ~ tl lppf7 1eO+' ~hpf tf FCx+.. x'1+7 'tl 4 H hf ~1 7pO1tl. r m w•~1'V C m m y~ R+ ro o z a r r e,'~ Ctl ~t G] ~ M !7 ry C t1 ~ Cl ~. f1 g7 m 7 ~ C "~f 'O
r~~ b'.aaj t'ry~ W m a. ~ 60~ ~'t7 F~GF+R Kvd Xm d 070'G Y'~K'wf 1~+'f m K O m ~yw "1m m rw m O y
. m p' ~ P 'O p m O r c+• O B m 6 p0 •7 M m R O r m t~ O C r m tt n O 6'" M t w a C ~ '~ ~ ti ~ y~~ m~~ ~~ r b O O m ~7 t~ sw~ T1 N
N m P O w r b P r r m '1 ~ d W O r b d ~µ 70 00 ry~• m 09 4: pr w~~ b O e' O n~ W' ~~~ ~ m O e* O n !O-~ n w w~~ X F~ n 'i w 6 w r C
r r O' 'O ni o m o m m 01 ac n a~ m h. w O m to to cr p7 r 0! P a Ov m n B `7 .;~ m c• c' P o m m O a b m
m O m tl C 0 7 m C w p w s* b O 07 d y d' Lf ~p ~y P P m 6 b' '7 P <* N '< O `< n~~. '7 ~ ~1 ~~ O~ y p. r ~'t n 07 O O
O 7 b' O r p ~b m b ^l H r r <* 6 O 6•< O .r t. 0 O F+ '1 'O t' pp P tr O N g b m P OG 'f b o o '! P O m m m O
p. rrr •1 w 6'O m b ~ C?' t,~. 7 ~ 0 Y p w C 4 t7 m w C O O p. 'o O ~~• 6 lx0 aw* w "OS n ~! O p1 r m n 6 TJ m r w & n O "/
I+ p1 O P O. c' O `J F+ 00 P ~ s' F' P P.~ d0' F' µ < ~8+. W'7 N P. d O w r" F'' • c. F-' m ar '7 < P P b b . m .. O F+ n Iy P
t0 P C m r (Y < 6 n `< N m• ~ y ~+ . C y O ~ P m• n O. {o O O t7 ~ O m r. O C m t+ c• 6 QV d 'O O m N n O O w
a+ 6 b n. d m r ~~y~y 9 n •f P 6 yy F+ w tf O b' - r 01 r •Y O w y w nm b m R K 'O'f 'Of 'f ~ o C p Np W p nprr P '~< FO+ mr ~-!
r h O b w P m C C K N '7 r r G. d `7 r M 0 O n ^! O O G '/ K mo d' N O •G m m ~m 6 O~ H V p Iw-+ P P P c.
O I~+ b O r b O' 0 0 0< O k r m PI m r '1'o p u t' m• •
C ~. W r '7 <* F-~ ~ "1 '< r m m n O r t~' O O P OI b ~O a m er C~ n~
C.MKr m RrC m m O~ ~C P p m w 0 p1 5 w K O' µP d m 6 a '7 ~y ~r „~ O ,y F, n O'O
p O ry n b~' ~ m 7 N b O. m b' ~ d 8 e' m C7 'O m r m o O W O P 'S r < O 'f w w e• Pa '< ~ ~~ O' b
b' t0 b r 6 . n •1 w 'O ~ . ~ y
°~~ m~vod~ o~a'w vw o owc m ~ ~ ~ roy w ~mn o °co wb
w o ~' o m v w < o <* ~ r ~ .~ v r ar r c .+ ~ ,~~ ° <* v° a -ri a mo w,
% `+ gyp, a ~ Bmi o a Irya 9 o up o ~F[~ ~ aI°o N n e ~. ~~ ~' o o. n p' o n o r
FO+ p .7 'b'1 w w cw* M G w SI w d~ N ~ o ~ fro ~ . C .7 P a r 'O c m o C* "f 7
mP w o ~.Cirr ry ur d a+brn ~ a <<r r m n r v ti w r m
n b O r C• O O r K O b O ~p ~ d O "S '7 n O 7G' ~ Q 5 r P/
w m m b w d m ~* < r w m O wO. t7 O W m m w K O I •G r O
yy K ~+. K `f
~ `ryG 1+ n µ 7 Ira K W~ m 6 6 b 9 9 0 b ~~ ~ ~ b n A C m h
O n b O~ 1~ O Z a b B w. A a P O C f°i d N < cni "Of C~~ OO
~ .O ro to M d b O [Y . r O $ OmV n Pr. B W ~ 'm1 R C.."~ ~ n
Id+ r •C "1 O
m ~. o c m rm ~ y m c w m m In-. m
N p N 1c+. t0* IP+dtJ 6 P b w ~ a tY ~ n a7 n m o m O
W rp4.~~ p n
g N Ipa O 6 Oa O 1~+~ O p r ~ ~ p
P {{yy WCW O 1-+ m O b b 00 "{ ~ ~ t7 '1 ~ m O IOC, c*
p• b N '1 C b 'l O e.'o ~ I+ O b N n r m w
O 6 6 <* m m b' pr1 •C p b p r w O '
C o ~ w m ti O m P ~ ~ m O y ~~I r ' m µ ry f,
o ~ room •c ~~. ~,d ~ x'mo ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m o °co r ry mo ~ a. ~ m y ~ ~ a n
P
µ Ip b' x n r P ~ ~ • m ~ O
w ~ M O
r b b R
m m p b v R 6 n y r.
Y
°' x .°. w
•
m~ '
°oa~
~ q '. N
O W
~ p m
C'
C ~ w
° •' r
•b !y
~. m G
yyy ~n+
•f ~ p
g M P
P
m G d
•1 V h
R .. r
er n
m ~ ~*
•~ o
N ~°.
~ "y
C m .
m O
P `l
d
ybpt'
1-~
g:
c
O.
pp ~r1 ~+ -10e~I
i O~. C~ O Q C p C "mb'! p u G M T< n O m0 f0 ~ _ .. '07 b'
o, n o. o m t7 G
a e°e °~ ~ i ovc.<~ "`.MOr `~n~o ~ a o p"~~ `' ,? v o µv,d a B r oR oaCC. _r. ~ b' a -~ s _ v o s.° ~°a o<
~m~'. o `vygmr m~e~'~.~ ~o°oav~~.o~ ~ ~ r m tl~m ~ry v° no two a o~ ~' o a u g o° ro~ 00
r •e tl : m .r o e* to m ao g. ~. c m~~ V k o x ~ r~ .* o v <* r g cr n R m B ~ o r .w* @ ~ u j tl .a W p ~' tl
-w°• b o w s wg ti d' ~ d op m ~ Pc m o '~ e a p m ~ •~~+ r ~~ ~~+ ~ '+ o °~ ~°y ~~y m a p1 g7 y ~'. m b m a ~ ~ N
y~ w~ ~ •' tl '00 ~ O N .Op C r m ~ O n p s~1 O Opr M~ 1~+ 'f 6 r Q Oo 7 . m Fwy-~ C ug 'Y d w O ~ 6 O tl wO M ~ C I. ~ I ~.
In+ I7++ CoV Cppl O M O p '. !O/ f~a n C m O ~ 6 `! ppB O OV Itl~ 6 '03 ? 'O o r ~ n d ~ p B 7 i+ m .Ky 9 B V p p~ n ~ ~~ Vl ~ ~ pO
O p 0 6 O~ d m° 9 ~+ y~ G A B d' 'f OC M f! O tl C f°a t7 O w • w~ ~ x O a 1°+ O Q O OC ~ C Wt' w^1 w w P ~y v cnr O n ~Cp 6
py 6 M tl M-~ m C r w {y O O tl m n Q '1 O 6 f] p 4 N 7 m m '1 y O m C n a .Oy `-' p ~ t•r m r
K N M M ~ •'! •4 0 O r e/ r .7 tl~ P e. i~ B 1 `7 f. P 8 p "01 Y l<D t d' p• 'O n N Fa~' ~ H m O r e* 6 CT r w n t'
rb d r O I..~ n !!c* cr cr 6•q '7 rn v M ~ ~ 0 r
O m C ~W Oy ~ 'g O C y K m Q O' p m m 0. d ^l y m w c* m PI .•. p m pPC~ O C ~ u ~~ n .y n r s~ M /r'~ d pr N p Ow
wpf (N~ tl 1-• ~ ~ m Q N 6 a OV 'O W aY ~ O tl ^O! time} ~ Gr. ~ u 1-. N ~ M N I< O ~ 'i N bM' O G g~ N 4 ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ u ~ F'
6 w W O 1~+ m O< n ~ d~~ m ~~ 6 O 9~ d Q ~ r ~ O U p n O n ib • ry m 'f O tl K J C P
rn m o a o m m rr er m ~° .+m ~ ~ e ~ n~ g ~~ s°rmv u - ~ r ~ ens mob' vm
yti r po N t* ~ o. ~ p < wr * ~' c o. a ~ m ti tl' p p o -• cam. ~a n
00 D 07 _°~ •p m~ P F' O la tl m &" fma '7 0 m i~ M r 00 w Y r M O m p O 'O m tl I+ N p, n b m
d 4s+ c Cp 0p0 g (((~~~~+ m 1~ ~p u w O g m < 'f tl 0. ~~ ~. m G v O O
O. 1 G w .* a v a e o e .* ° c.. ° g. o
o r d u ~ p r ~° oa a e n r r m .y N
m O K~• an*rm yl-~'.,,~~ Iy7 FOY`G a y O w YO ~~ r ~ n n 9 O O e1 ter O O < O O r
Sao C Nr•<ti rm~<~' p ~ sme `~ ~~ r e u an m a ~. r ~ <* <* . u
~+~~ °•°e~dQ~ OO..a°o romto ~g~•cfw c~m~ ~.'. ~o •ni~ Poi o. ~ ~ ~ o o ~m °2
memrc - ~a6`'o ~ctlruw n ~°b"'~e~vro~n oM~Y a-°i m e o°c ~ ° n ~ -• ~ o~~ ~c
Im..ro F+' loan him NO ematl'oro~pr ~a ~ccy. -°ia P°c ~a o~im ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° a°ro wm
tl r w WO O m O t' r P O p w Oi'4 O R tl 1+? P twa O G ~ m 6 COf I~+ n m ~ 0 • •Of ° O
p^7 ~ O 'wOCU O eQ ~ ~ .C o ~ 1+ O ~ w ~ C C f°a m fOa t~y+ ~ ~ /~0 W ° O. O a~ o M B ryg~ 'pYt
tl R. O R M 'f 0 0 h p ~~ K d m~~~ Or0 n01 R F+ Q K m 6~ O ~ ~! p M- g m 1+ L7
6r tl n O tl°y~ ~°pM rw p O r ~ p w m n n m ~1 'f O p w n v'd
p ~. .r. O n • 00 C I... r Ci '7 B F+ r t ~ K ~+ mM ! n r d 'f pyp ~~t c tl0 s' t
tCa ~~ ~ t"''m ° mmo ~Kl aIB~ "~f u O'µe' a a a 6 0 o wH 6 N Otl ~S+ ? .o o w yp°
m ~I ~ ym µ ~ n t+6 prp p tl w ••fffe. O O [Y.~ < Cgr Hwy F' < r er O b ~ n P6 i-~
p' 0.n M nn ~° A tl w i lm'~ G O. ~ '007 W 0 6 U O Q~~. P N° 'f P ~ 'p pto* w M
K Q° d~~ ww ~ D F A K O '! O N b m •f ^ '1 C ~1 m b ~ O'
Oer6 r Q O' c r °;,d V a t+ J i O. n m
v~a° o. Yarn h~ oo r w ~ ~ pi ~o .~°° am ~ a ~ P~ ~i ~u
a ~ m ~ V/
N