Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/1994 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA May 11, 1994 6:30 P.M. SCANNED I. Call to Order and Roll Call: II. Approval of Minutes: April 13, 1994 III. Approval of Agenda - Changes/Additions IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. 94-12-P, Lot Reconfiguration, Steve Andre, 495 & 545 Ash Street (Co. Rd. J.) B. 94-13-P, Lot Reconfiguration, Al. Mathe 1, 7140 Sunset Road C. 94-11-P, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, Trappers Crossing, Hokenson Development, Holly Drive VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS: VII. ADJOURNMENT: ** REMINDER - Special Meeting on Wednesday, May 18, 1994, 6:30 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Board FROM: Mary Kay Wyland DATE: May 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Summer Newsletter Please note that the Planning & Zoning Board will be the featured front page article for the next City newsletter. Photo's are planned to be taken on Wednesday evening. Bring your "smiles"!! ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6127765591 PARAAAOUNT E H a 7 h E E OIL N G & RtrS I G N TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DATE PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: NAME ff ' ' f1-" COMPANY-/ +'1-49[r'�f� - - ADDRESS FAX # THIS TELECOPY IS BEING SENT BY: NAME 6) b A) FAX # 612-776-S591 �f IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE _ PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET, PLEASE CONTACT: AT (612) 771-Oa44. REMARKS: P / Witt uau E. NSvADA AvENuc ST. PAut-. MN G5io1 (612) 711-444 FAX: 776-6561 P-01 r .a ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6127765591 TRAPPERS CROSSING 5/8/94 BLOCK LOT TOTAL I UPLAND WETLAND I AREA AREA AREA 1 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 13 14 15 -1�- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 • 2 3 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15609 13755 14571 15804 15117 14557 15019 15380 20777 65809 13661 15891 33949 33701 32492 31294 23680 16741 15104 13797 12965 21920 27309 18303 33319 31846 17349 13680: 136 0 16448 19320 47037 54784 22703 ..18.971.._. 18065 16"654v-- 40430 46442 24234 17998 20895 23127 23769 23968 16346 29046 15609 13755 14571 15804 15117 14557 15019 15380 20777 29157 11172 13661 15891 15624 13730 1,251..8_ 22285 31294 23680 16741 15104 13797 12965 21920 27309 18303 31511 20211 17.349 13.680- 13680 16448 19320 31174 23393 19133 15106_ -13871 31984 18806 19610 17998 18191 17 414 17983 19362 15029 23199 18325 19971 10207 1808 11635 15863 31391 3570 3865 5380 2783 8446 27636 4624 2704 5713 5786 4606 1317 5847 i 302 P. 02 L EMGIWMERIWG DEPARTMENT 3 1 18443 18443 2 14394 14394 3 12920 12920 4 15846 15846 5 20030 20030 6 23091 21628 7 24136 15204 8 18448 14191 9 32243 20953 10 22445 19922 13. 17354 17354 12 13623 13623 13 14128 14128 14 30547 30547 4 1 18354 18354 2 13463 13463 3 13463 13463 4 16606 16606 5 18900 18900 6 16173 16173 7 16452 16452 8 16102 16102 9 17205 17205 5 1 28911 28911 2 16694 16694 3 13873 13873 4 27911 13854 _279IT1 __ --.---i 2132 _ 6 14511 14511 7 13730 13730 8 21256 20409 9 27875 20838 10 17695 17695 11 16543 16543 12 18511 38511 13- 22997 . 21633 14 21968 _18025 '-15_________ 4014 5 12437 16 18365 18349 17 41938 16125 18 27233 27160 19 26078 26078 20 16415 16415 21 14986 14986 22 20537 18172 23 16738 15122 24 32956 23059 25 19796 18918 26 24702 14607 27 39329 15045 28 38999 17746 29 22451 13799 30 20229 15772 31 14704 14704 6127?65591 P.03 1463 8932 4257 11290 2523 14057 5179 847 7037 1364 3y53 27108 16 25813 73 2365 1616 9897 878 10095 24284 21253 8 652 4457 3 3 82 ENGINEERING D.EPARTMEIJT 32 14408 14408 33 17551 17551 34 15481 15481 35 14372 14372 36 12872 12872 37 12893 12893 38 17628 17628 39 22143 22143 40 19273 16964 41 23913 23826 42 14385 14385 43 13247 13247 44 23112 17720 45 21675 21675 46 13599 13599 47 13430 13430 48 13430 13430 49 16472 16472 .6127765591 2309 87 P. 04 Pli' lnni ng and zoning open mike May 11, 1994 I'd like to express my concern about the direction of future growth in Lino Lakes. While we ci nt stop growth overall, we do have ways to control its spread within our own city limits. The tool for accomplishing this is ci'tlled zoning. Few decisions made by city officials cary more impact than those regarding zoning. People looking for a place to live make one of the most important decisions of their lives based on zonign. Some may choose an area because it is close to where they work, shop or go to school. Others may prefer a more rural atmosphere or a hobby farm. It is lrevistating to the people who have made such important choices and life -time investments when, without much if any warning or apparent reason, the city decides to rezone the area. There have been situations in recent years when city officials have appeared insensitive to the disruption and frustration that zoning changes can cause. Sometimes notification about proposed changes have failed to reach the people most affected. until drastic changes become "done deals". Sometimes reasons for making the change have not been explained. Sbmetimes the people involved have not been consulted or their arguments in opposition seriously considered. Often the stock response to peoples opposition from the city is that development is inefitable and that if they don't like it , simply move away. Most people understand that changes in zoning may occasionally become necessary. I suggest that guidelines for making such changes be de follows: » . Look for alternatives. If none are apparent notify all residents who would be affected in writing- preferably certified mail of the proposed zoning change. 2. Before any decisions are made allow 3 months for further evllustion after residents are notified. 3. Hold a public hearing to explain in detail why the change is necessary. 4. If controversy continues, meeti with opponents on site to better underttand their concerns. 5. Withold final juisvgement until reasonable efforts have beenn made to resolve all conflicts. 6. Avoid expensive lawsuits by entering mediation. Mayor Reinert has said many times that developers are guests in our city mind are not the driving force behing the tack that our city takes. Sometimes it looks like the developers still run the show. Case in point, the Trappers Agin Proposal which is on your agenda tonight. I think situations like this could have been avoided if reasonable, good -faith notification methods were enacted- not just a vhgue notice in the paper that may or may not be noticed and if it happens to get noticed, would it be in plain english and clearly stated? This kind of decision must include the real people involved- peoples' lives are at stake- their quality of life, their vii ues and their neighborhoods could be devhstated by a decision made to appease a single developer's wishes. We hope that your decision tonight will be fair to all parties involved. And that you consider some of the guidelines that I have outlined tonight. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 CITY OF LINO LAS PLANNING i ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson moved and was supported by John Landers to approve the minutes of the March 9, 1994 meeting as submitted. All voted aye. Motion carried. Ed Schones congratulated Jame Schaps on his reelection to chairman. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Al Robinson stated that he had an item to add under "Discussion". III. OPEN MIKE: No one was present to speak under Open Mike: IV. ACTION ITEMS: A. 94-8-C, D. Kastner, 154 Pine St., CUP Kennel License Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this request which is to allow a Kennel License for four dogs at 154 Pine Street. She explained that the license request was the result of a complaint involving the attack of a passing dog. Since the complaint was initiated the subject dogs have been contained within a building waiting for the frost to leave the ground to the allow the installation of an invisible fence. Staff has recommended approval with the condition that should the invisible fence fail the applicant be required to install a suitable rigid fence. Chairman Schaps opened the Public Hearing. Al Robinson advised the Board that it was his grandchild's dog that was attacked while walking with the grandchild along Pine Street. He had no objections to the proposed request but questioned the effectiveness of an invisible fence. Jame Schaps stated that some of his friends have tried the invisible fence and it was not effective with older dogs. Mr. Kastner's representative, Joan Falkers, stated that they 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 had been advised that the fence would work on their dogs. She also indicated that they were willing to try it and if it is not effective, replace it. Tom Mesich stated that the effectiveness of an invisible fence depends on the psyche of the dog, its tolerance for pain, and its "want" to run. He felt it would be a bad precedent to say that an invisible fence is a fence. A cyclone fence would be more effective in this case. He added that the existing Dog Ordinance is vague and that extensive work has been done on revising the ordinance which has been presented to staff for further review and adoption. Ed Schones stated that dogs should be able to run on their own property. He also had reservations regarding this request due to the attack previously mentioned and was not familiar enough with the effectiveness of the invisible fence. Ms. Falkers neighbor was present and indicated that her children play with the Kastner dogs and have had no problems with them. She would support the proposed invisible fence. After some discussion Al Robinson made a motion recommending approval of the kennel license with the following conditions: 1. The Invisible Fence must be installed by June 1, 1994. 2. The Permit shall expire in 12 months and must then be reviewed and renewed, if so recommended, by the City. 3. After receipt of complaints concerning the effectiveness of the invisible fence the CSO Officer shall instruct the owners to install a rigid fence within 20 days and the dogs shall be immediately contained within a structure. Tom Mesich seconded the motion. On roll call: Ayes: Robinson, Gelbmann, Schaps, Nordine, Landers, Mesich Nays: Schones Motion carried B. 94-9-P & 94-10-Z. Subdivision and Rezonincz from R to R -1X for Randy Rehbein Property. 1585 Birch Street. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed this item which is a request to divide 2.96 acres into 4 single family lots and rezone the site from Rural to R -1X. Three of the proposed lots would front on the new Sherman Lake Road and become a part of the Pheasant Hills Preserve Development. The fourth lot contains an existing dwelling and fronts on Birch Street. Sewer and water services are available for the three lots on Sherman Lake Road, but not the property on Birch Street. Mr. Brixius reviewed the Judgement Criteria regarding the 2 PLANNING 8, ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 Rezoning and the preliminary plat and recommended approval with the conditions outlined in the report dated April 7, 1994. Mr. Landers asked why the proposed mitigation on the wetlands was 1:1 when the new rules require 2:1 mitigation. Staff advised that the mitigation plan had been approved by the Watershed District prior to the new rules being in effect and added that criteria to determine replacement also involves types of wetland being filled and created. The wetland being filled, in this case, is a degraded wetland along the side of Sherman Lake Road. The wetland to be created will be of a higher quality than that replaced. Mr. Landers was also advised, in response to his question, that the property was located within the MUSA Boundary. Mr. Schones asked why the zoning was proposed to be R -1X rather than R-1 and if that would have an impact on the wetland replacement. After some discussion he was advised that Pheasant Hills Preserve is Zoned R -1X and that the zoning does not have any effect on the mitigation or wetland replacement plan as far as the Watershed District is concerned. Mr. Mesich expressed concern about the installation of silt fence during development and was advised that the property is being sold to Contractor Developer Properties who are developing the balance of Pheasant Hills and that they would be required to sign a Development Agreement and post financial guarantees to insure proper development including erosion control. There was some discussion regarding the location of the transportation trail. Ed Hasek, representing the Developer, indicated that they are working with the County to locate the trail within County right of way. The location of the trail in the right of way would be an acceptable alternative to the Park Board and is common practice along Birch Street. After further discussion Mr. Schones moved and was supported by Mr. Robinson to approve the Rezoning from R to R -1X and the Preliminary Plat as submitted with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report dated April 7, 1994. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. 94-11-P, Trappers Crossing, Holly Drive & 12 Avenue, Preliminary Plat, PUBLIC HEARING Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed this item which involves the platting of 72.4 acres into approximately 127 single family lots with a Planned Development Overlay to provide some flexibility in lot width, depth and/or square foot area. The overall density of the proposal is 1.72 units/acre. Mr. Brixius explained that there are several items which must be addressed regarding this proposed plat and it is recommended that the item be continued until the May 11, 1994 meeting to 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 allow the developer time to modify his proposal. Mr. Brixius briefly reviewed the history of this property and explained that in 1981 the Comprehensive Plan indicated the site as Rural and Expansion Residential. The 1987 Comprehensive Plan amended the MUSA Boundaries and indicated the property north of Holly and west of 12th Avenue as urban residential. Beginning in 1989 through 1990 the City was involved in a Comprehensive Plan amendment to enlarge the City's MUSA. The area south of Holly Street was then brought within the MUSA. Public hearings on this amendment were held by the Council in July of '89 and December of '90. The plan was reviewed by several advisory boards and the Council officially closed the public hearing in December of 1990. The Metro Council approved the plan in March of 1991 and the City worked to fulfill the conditions of the Metro Council's approval and formally adopted the Plan in June of 1992. In August of 1992 the City amended the Zoning Map, after public hearings, to reflect the new land use changes and Metro Council recommendations that certain zoning districts be eliminated. Finally, in February of 1994, the Council rezoned the subject property from R-1 Residential to R -1X. The City Attorney has reviewed the historical account of the property in regards to the comprehensive plan revisions and rezonings and has stated "that there has been no improper actions on the part of the City under State Statute and local ordinances and that the current zoning classification of R -1X is proper". John Landers stated that there is a question pertaining to the rezoning of the property from Rural to R-1. He stated that he had looked through the minute books from March of '87 through '88 and found nothing relating to a change from Rural to R-1. Tom Mesich stated that he thinks the P & Z has enough direction indicating that the zoning was done properly. "I do not think it is our place to insinuate that this was not the case". As far as the P & Z is concerned, we are working off the Official Zoning Map and should not let this other issue direct us. Chairman Schaps stated that he agreed with Mr. Mesich. Map rezoning is covered under State Statutes, we have asked the staff for direction and received it, and the City Attorney has advised that the zoning is legal. CITIZEN COMMENT: Sue Walseth, 1101 Holly Drive, stated that she has been a resident for nine years and her comments are coming from her heart. She feels that she is losing the use of her property and will no longer fit in with the neighborhood. When the property was changed from Rural to R-1 she did not receive a notice and when her land was added to the MUSA, although she objected, the designation was changed anyway. She was originally told this plat would consist of 90 large lots. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 Additional comments included the following: -Would like 10 acre parcel zoning returned to the area. - Holly Drive extended to Centerville Road - An evergreen buffer installed between her parcel and the development on the north and east sides. -No variances for anything less than R -1X lots. - No road abutting her property on the north side. Mr. Al DeMotts of 6265 Holly Drive had the following questions in response to the request: -Where does the water run-off go. - What happens to the land on the west side of Holly. Who will pay the taxes or will it become tax -forfeit property - Where was the land surveyed from. -P & Z members in other communities tell me you should get business development before homes. We are way ahead in homes. - Will the run-off go into the wetlands. - Can the City send out a survey to find out what the people think of more development. - The groundwater will go under Holly Drive. - There was no add in the Circulating Pines for this request (Staff checked this item and proper notification was made 10 days prior to the meeting as required by the Zoning Ordinance). -Who will pay for the schools. - How big are the lots. Tom Mesich asked Mr. DeMotts if he was aware of the change from Rural to R-1. Mr. DeMotts stated that he had not received any notice. He was also unaware of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. John Dahl of Holly Court stated that he owns approximately 11 1/2 acres south of this proposed development and has lived there since 1990. He would like to see a buffer between his property and the development and asked if there was some such provision in the Ordinance. Planning Consultant Brixius explained that the lots proposed to abut his are very deep. He questioned the surface drainage and run-off. Mr. Weigert, the developers engineer, explained that according to City Code, they must demonstrate that the surface water run-off from the development will be no greater after development than it was prior to development. The actual flow off the site will not be increased. Mr. Mesich asked if he had checked with City Hall before purchasing the property. Mr. Dahl indicated that his wife had come up to City Hall and was told that the area was Zoned Rural. Mark Payette, 6266 Holly Drive, was present and stated that he had moved into the area in 1985 because it was Zoned Rural. 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 He indicated his frustration in not being able to determine when the property went from Rural to R-1. He further stated that he appreciated the work Mr. Landers had done in researching the minutes. Carolyn Dahl of Holly Court was present and state that when they built their home in '90/91 she went to the City and asked if there were any plans for the area. She was told the property was Zoned Rural and that there were no plans for development. In less than six months the property to the north changed from Rural to R-1 - she would like to see it remain Rural. She asked what is the procedure for getting into the MUSA. The City needs a balance of housing and some areas should remain rural. If this development goes in, an additional outlet is needed for Holly Drive - Holly Drive East. She added that she would like to see some proof that the property was properly rezoned from Rural to R-1. Chris Lydeen of Holly Drive provided a map of the proposed plat indicating several lots not conforming to the R -1X standard. He indicated concerns about open space and park dedication and stated that he would like to see more open area in the plat. He questioned the rezoning from Rural to R-1 and thanked John Landers for his efforts in researching the matter. He stated that he had checked on the rezoning with the Quad Press and found some poor copies of maps of the area. He questioned when the area south of Holly went to R-1. He stated that Holly Drive east "obviously" needs to be extended. He questioned where the sewer/water would come from and would 12th Avenue have to be dug up again. He stated that he has lived on Holly Drive since 1992. Charles McKenna, property owner on East Holly Drive, was present to voice his objection to the extension of Holly Drive. He has lived in the area since 1979 and there was no road there. The property owners along East Holly have 5, 10, and 20 acre parcels. After 15 years - now you want to put a road on the back of my property. He stated that there is no road easement on the back of his property and he does not want a road forced on him. He indicated that an alternative would be to rezone the area for 5 or 10 acre lots. Al Klemic of 1390 Karth Road stated that he has lived in the area since 1981. He is opposed to the opening of Holly Drive East. He stated that he does not want to see any tax money spent on this roadway. Carolyn Dahl read a letter from the City Attorney written in 1985 indicating that the City may have right of way for east Holly Drive even if the roadway has not been maintained. Ruth Sepanin of Holly Drive presented a petition requesting that Holly Drive be extended to the east and statements from 10 people indicating that they remember when you could get from Holly Drive east to Holly Drive west. 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 Paul Behr of Karth Road stated that his property line ends before the road begins. The pond is on his property - not the road. Furthermore, the road has not been used as a road since before 1981. It is in Cedar Lake. Jeanne Cummings, daughter of Mrs. Whitcomb, stated that they have farmed the property since 1971. Mrs. Whitcomb decided it was time to sell the property so they sought developers. They have lost over 14 acres to wetlands. The lots proposed will be over 3/4 of an acre which is larger than required in an R - 1X District. The land is valuable and people knew it was not going to stay rural forever. In response to a previous question by Mr. DeMotts, she indicated that they still own the property on the west side of Holly Drive and have no plans for it at this time. Al Strommen of 6177 Holly Drive indicated that he has lived there since 1979 and the rezoning was a shock to him. There was no notification that he was aware of. Additional comments were received. Kirk Corson, representing Hokanson Development, explained that the original parcel contained 120 acres but due to wetland constraints their purchase included only 85. He indicated that a lot of the wetland is Type I and II and will most likely end up being mowed and considered yard by property owners. MOTION: Al Robinson made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to the May 11, 1994 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Tom Mesich seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. In response to the extension of Holly Drive East, City Engineer Schneider stated that the City probably has the ROW for the roadway, but that is not the problem. The City Charter would prohibit us from just building the road. Adjoining property owners would have to agree to pay for the improvement. This could be a million dollar project. Wetland constraints are an additional problem. Al Robinson stated that in the '40's & 50's this roadway was barely passible. Mr. Schneider further explained that adjoining property owners will not be assessed for any sewer and water or road improvements to 12th Avenue and Holly Drive West as a result of this proposed development. In response to an earlier concern, both Mr. Mesich and Mr. Robinson indicated that they would like to see a buffer between the rural area and the R -1X area. The audience was advised that the developer will be presenting a revised plan, meeting with the Park Board on May 2nd, and 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 returning to the P & Z on May llth with revisions. VI. DISCUSSION: A. DRAINAGE: Al Robinson stated that there appears to be a problem in new developments with drainage easements. He suggested that before occupancy a final grade inspection is done. Darrell explained that we do require certificates of survey with new homes indicating drainage patterns. Staff has discussed installation of "green tops", survey markers indicating final grade points and has adopted a policy of not issuing any fence permits on drainage easements with certain conditions present. B. EDAB - Al Robinson reported that things happen in regard to Economic Development. working on several proposals. The 49/23 funded and will be initiated in July. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. 8 are beginning to Brian Wessel is Project has been of the Board the AGENDA ITEM B STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE May 6, 1994 TOPIC 94-13-P, Al Matheson, 7140 Sunset Lot Reconfiguration Mr. Matheson is in the process of selling his property at 7140 Sunset. The area is Zoned R1 and those properties along Sunset are within the MUSA Boundary. Mr. Matheson owns two parcels and discovered that his out -buildings were actually located over the property line. To correct this situation and facilitate the sale of his homesite and adjoining lot, Mr. Matheson is proposing to add 24.5 feet from Parcel B to Parcel A. Staff has reviewed this request and would recommend approval. Utilities are available, from Blaine to serve the vacant Parcel B and a lot width of 100' is more than adequate to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code (R-1 Lot Width is 80'). 1. Approve subdivision/lot split with the condition that a Park Dedication Fee be collected with the Building Permit for Parcel B. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. Option 1 FOR: AL MATHESON 7140 Sunset Avenue Lino Lakes, MN. 55014 z 111 O 21311nJ UNV sang ONO 15.4 SURV North 276.27' 40.6 71.6 PARCEL A 0 10.4 ♦ ----71.4---- 10.4 88°35' Measured ti o t PROPOSED NEW DIVISI❑N LINE--' 0 0 PA 35.9 276.92 -- —22'641 277.21' Measured 88°34'05" Measured C 0 0 277.57' PARCEL A Lot 7, Block 2, and that part of Lot 8, Block 2, Tying north of the south 100 feet thereof all in LEXINGTON PARK LAKE VIEW, Anoka County Minnesota. PARCEL B The south 100 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, LEXINGTON PARK LAKE VIEW Anoka County, Minnesota. at* -"_ denotes Iron Set Drown By: G.M. Book: 37 Pg.: 36 Disc: 29 Job No.: 94140 LS • Denotes Iron Found Bearings shown ore on an assumed datum. 'ereby certify that tris pion, survey or report wos prepared by me or under my ect supervision and that l om a duly Registered Lona' Surveyor under the lows the State of Minne_ow. Doted this 29rwdoy of 1994. Registration No. 5'B69 E.G.RUD 4 SONS, INC. LAND suRvEYORB 9.,150 LEXINGTON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA SSOIh-3b25 18'0-5551, =.' NW. -J CORNER - 11 0 \ SAAAe STREET) - — H z, 0 - < • - 7 , (27) 9 /0 FAIRMONT LLJ ID !AA AA" 1:2 2 /9 LAW( 3 4 pA 5 6 /8 K 17 /6 /5 7) 7 14 8 /3 9 /2) /2 10 DRIVE 2 (22) 3 4g) 4 (.1t9 . • own' I A/ 7S:7/ 20 /9 /8 / 7 AGENDA ITEM A STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE May 6, 1994 TOPIC 94-12-P, Lot Reconfiguration, Steve Andre 495 & 545 Ash Street (Co. Rd. J.) This request is the result of an Anoka County Mediation Services agreement that was initiated from a boundary line dispute. The property in question is Zoned Rural and located on the north side of County Road J., east of Ware Road. Several years ago a metal shed and driveway were located on a portion of property that has been determined not to belong to that parcel. In an attempt to resolve this situation, the attached lot reconfiguration is being proposed. Staff has reviewed the request and would agree that this is a workable solution. Parcel A, containing the driveway and metal shed, will be added to the parcel to the east, thereby eliminating the previous encroachment. Parcel B will be added to the property to the west, compensating for the reduction in that parcel. 1. Approve lot reconfiguration as proposed. b(2". 2. Return to Deny request and require removal of driveway and shed. 3. Return to staff for further consideration. Option 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR STEVE ANDRE 1 Scale : I = 501 4 Denotes Iron Monument Bearings ore assumed DESCRIFTIQN QF PROPERTY The West holt of lite Southeast quarter of Southwest quarter of Section 32, Township 31, Ronp• 22, Anoka County, Minnesota except the Cost 220 feet thereof. rNor 44 /.ire o!' St r! JWYr of Ste St, r!! REr — 436.82 N 89°59'04" E 2 �r I Mosey owl* dwl ew pen, iourelfkodon or ropes no. Punned W Iw or under nu Arae •uporol•Mn end don I • duly reet•Ia.. •d land Sur, undo. Ile b.• ern M SIM• ol 1114womot. and. N. /.f/r e.I. .f -IS -1.1 Po. .d try -a u4? MIDWEST Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. 199 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Ph. 612-786-6909 Joe • sl -.W 8i.SPg rr/ry The West 32 feet of the North 500 feet of the east 220 feet of the Meet Self of the Southeut Ou•rter of the Southwe.t Quarter of Section 32, To.nehlp 31, Sena. 22, Anok. County, Mlnnaeote. the West 64 feet of the South 250 feet of the Erma 284 feet of the Meet !tall of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Sertlon 32, 24.4.61,10 31, E.nea 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. COUNTY e, ,..I,•rvo/ r,r e ROAD J 11 :s3 2 els a — 436.&4— N89°56'47"E $19 of .rW.4 r/ hr L r!% Rr1 ASH STREET 0EE MEM Om NOM Mira MEE MEM NM= MEM � a =WA MUM MUMMUM NEMO MEM MUMO M® ©EM ®� �- o©10 11111 M®Rtirr �- to- © I Imicono 0_ -• 0 ■Ei�n BEIM 0■OIE■� RESHANAU Mediation Services For Anoka County 1323 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 (612) 755-5300 Case Number: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The parties entered in an Agreement to Mediate on v 7� The dispute described in the Agreement to Mediate is settled under the terms of this Dispute Settlement Agreement. This document is not intended to be a legally binding document. Parties are referred to an attorney to determine whether this is a legal contract. In consideration of their mutual promises set forth in this document ,Sfe,p*r //✓Idr f eV/1 Xr Y1� r r agrees to V see d Q. 51Y," �' / C Fret m' � a � �� �/ t1trJ, o h v tti t ro�� ly r0 a�1 �S6 fry t di, ry . .'.g IV -7 -,- Soo 01 (4,25(Cnr►�rr Dt/1 Tti, 7ki%z ,o(�' S64, 5w/ �o+f Stc1Z T % . 3 / /�4n .22 �C'hDl<at 1��Gfj/�• -k'i1C )% eqs I- v?�� ,(17/7(60 uh (.(-1-k C0 i1 TL "Plc d✓ivi 1,/a rr/ .4. 5) ecJ to /y(_ 1 4/6/1 - / 5 /c yr 7r'G PA Cos �S1/ S�hd;''5/on q '/ n' er- ) �3- rv{ .f Qv;' T C /a;; -n 5 / ��t' �pror d,'�j ' � — d- -fTr S.. (y•yi r /4 ha � F u agrees to 1 5)(r re 6/ 3Q And `99�I Q10/roX e k/, :-lr Q 5 r f r c✓ n n f y r 47 ✓ 741,; r t ,,/Gt r J `o % frr.� i t fir V Y 741-1 / i `, / Co Y,q r r o fy G/. .?,?D fe e jc. / rk e roles F 11,,/co f five 5 L 'f r' S 1 /� 0F- _ StC, 3.2 I tu f // 09 oz9 / r10K ( c 1// !r(i/�r i -d S��vt K 0?aN»'‘e , Peed s are. ID he gull- cla' ns. S!cVi qAJ Jihiiy: r Art f'D 'rt fa e 4 P7_Y Sped r 1/ Grtir s it !►,rvf cr,it$ To 6f co 79171 j /7. ti Date -, e -- 9 } .. Party% \ \+ X �-' j d,� cf Party ,?7 5,s J qv'r r��� ✓�J a�-/ $ �r c CJ,'ll S,, n , / S r �r'1( n6 c> r1 r Y `r 1 • AGENDA ITEM C. STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Nyland DATE May 6, 1994 TOPIC Trappers Crossing Preliminary Plat The Public Hearing concerning this item is being continued from the April 13, 1994 Planning and Zoning Meeting. The Developer has revised the preliminary plat in response to City concerns. In the process, the total number of proposed lots has been reduced to 124. A copy of the revised staff report is enclosed and will be reviewed by Mr. Brixius at the meeting. The Park Board has approved a park dedication/trail arrangement. A copy of the Park Board recommendation is attached for your information. 1. Approve with conditions outlined in Staff Report dated May 4, 1994 including Park Board recommendations of May 2, 1994. 2. Refer to staff for further consideration. �'y>P'o �� .gip,,• Option 1 A MOTION: Ken Johnson made a motion, seconded by Pam Taschuk to: 1. Grade and gravel transportation trail #4 as indicated on the plan. 2. Grade and gravel trail segments #1 and 3 and sign on both ends as "future park". Sign "future park" at both ends of segment #2 and cash dedication for equivalent value of grading and graveling. 3. Finish trail segment #5, as indicated, which would include a combination of grading, graveling and boardwalk. Verify egress approximate to peninsula as nearly as possible. 4. Remaining park dedication, proposed in cash payment of $76,680.44, to be verified. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Sharon Lane to purchase property from the Whitcomb family. The procedure would involve a delineation of the property desired, by the Park Board, a fair market appraisal and a negotiated land purchases. Amy Donlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 05/02/94 13:18 FAX 612 784 9136 HOKANSON 1004/004 FAC Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN P L A N N I N G - D E S I G N • M A R K E T R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Mary Kay Wyland Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 4 May 1994 Lino Lakes - Trappers Crossing Rezoning/ Revised Preliminary Plat 194.01 - 94.02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Hokanson Development Inc. is requesting preliminary plat approval of a revised 124 lot single family subdivision entitled Trappers Crossing. The subject 72.4 acre site lies south of Birch Street between Holly Drive and 12th Avenue South. The site was recently rezoned from R-1, Single Family Residential to R -1X, Single Family Executive Residential District. To allow a degree of design flexibility within the subdivision, the applicant has requested the application of the City's PDO, Planned Development Overlay zoning designation. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Recommendation Site Location Detailed Site Location Preliminary Plat = StSovm• C cl Proposed Plat Modifications Based on the following the following: A. The application of subject site. z\c -6‘11,h4 ttlw review, our office recommends approval of a PDO, Planned Development Overlay upon the 5775 Wayzata Rivd. • Suite 555 • St. Lrnlis Park. MN 55416 • (6121 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 B. The Trappers Crossing preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant demonstrate the buildability of Lot 6, Block 3 through the submission of building plans. 2. The forthcoming final plat include ten foot wide utility easements centered on rear and other lot lines. Drainage easements should also be placed over the site's wetlands. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. 3. The wetland in the southeastern corner of the plat and a strip 15 feet wide trail corridor (above the OHWL) be formally dedicated as park land. 4. Fifteen foot wide trail corridors are provided between Lots 19 and 20, Block 1 and Lots 43 and 44, Block 5. 5. In conjunction with the said trail corridor establishment, Lots 43 and 44, Block 5 are reconfigured to provide an additional 15 feet of depth. 6. Lot 10, Block 1 and Lot 20, Block 2 are reconfigured such that approximately 20 feet of additional rear yard lot width is provided. Lots 15 and 21, Block 1 are reconfigured to provide widths not less than 85 feet. 7. 8. 9. A grading and drainage plan is submitted review and approval by the City Engineer. A utility plan is submitted subject to approval by the City Engineer. 10. If applicable, a phasing plan is submitted City approval. 11. Comments from other City staff. „- ISSUES ANALYSIS Property History. Lo„., cy_ subject to review and subject to o 1(3 ck 1987 Comprehensive Plan With the adoption of the 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City of Lino Lakes amended its MUSA boundaries and Land Use Plan to extend MUSA to cover that portion of Trappers Crossing West of 12th Avenue and North of Holly Drive. the Land Use Plan was also 2 modified identifying this area for urban residential development. This 1987 amendment was adopted by Resolution 50-87 in September 1987. 1991 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Beginning 1989 through December 1990, the City was involved in a Comprehensive Plan amendment to enlarge the City's MUSA and define new MUSA area. This amendment brought that portion of Trapper Crossing south of Holly Street into the City's MUSA. The City also amended its Land Use Plan to designate the area of Lino Lakes for urban residential development. City minutes reflect public hearings on this Comprehensive Plan amendment were held by the City Council both in July 1989 and December 1990. Between these dates, staff refined the amendment and it was reviewed by the City Advisory Boards, including Economic Development Commission, the Design and review Board and the Park Board. The EDC and Design and Review Board recommended approval. The Lino Lakes City Council closed the December 1990 public hearing and made motion to forward the plan amendment to Metropolitan Council for their review. Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment with specific conditions in March 1991. The City of Lino Lakes worked to fulfill the conditions of the Metropolitan Council's approval and formally adopted the Comprehensive Plan amendment through Resolution 92-79 in June 1992. Zoning In conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City was required to update is zoning map to be reflective of the new land use changes and the Metropolitan Council recommendation that the City eliminate the zoning districts that allowed unsewered lot size of less than 10 acres. In 1988, the City adopted Ordinance 1-88 approving a zoning map consistent with the City's Land Use Plan and Metropolitan Council approved MUSA boundaries. In August of 1992, the City formally amended the City-wide zoning map with the adoption of Ordinance 15-92. This action included public hearing on July 13, 1992. With the adoption of the amended zoning map, the land including the Trappers Crossing proposed plat was zoned "R-1", Single Family Residential. In February of 1994, the City rezoned the subject property from R- 1, Single Family Residential to R -1X, Single Family Executive Residential. Generally speaking, the R -1X District holds more restrictive performance standards than the R-1 District and is intended to encourage higher value homes through its larger lot and dwelling unit size requirements. The rezoning of the property was found to be consistent with the City's land use objectives to balance housing type and encourage higher value homes. 3 Planned Development Overlay. The applicant has requested that the City's PDO, Planned Development Overlay District be superimposed on the subject property. The intent of the PDO District is to permit greater flexibility and consequently, more creative and imaginative development design than is generally possible under conventional zoning regulations while maintaining the density and land use intention of the base R -1X Zoning District. Recognizing the physical limitations of the site with regard to wetlands and slopes, the application of the PDO District is considered appropriate to give some design relief in area impacted by environmental or physical constraints. General Development Concept. The general terms of the proposed layout responds to the site's configuration and physical constraints in a positive manner. The plat economizes on the buildable land and minimizes on the disruption of existing wetlands. The lots are oriented to local street preventing direct access to Holly Drive. The overall subdivision gross density is significantly below the maximum R -1X standard of 3.0 units per acre at 1.7 units per acre. Subtracting 14.1 acres of wetland within the subject property, the proposed subdivision demonstrates a net density of 2.13 units per acre. As such, the proposed residential density is consistent with the R -1X District. Building Requirements. The intent of the R -1X base Zoning District is to provide a single family neighborhood with higher value homes. Reflective of this statement of intent are the R -1X District minimum building requirements as listed below: (A) The minimum outside dimension, floor area for single family dwellings shall be as follows: Rambler 1,260 square feet 1-1/2 Story 1,092 square feet Split Foyer/Entry 1,248 square feet Split Level - 3 level minimum 1,248 square feet 2 Story 1,040 square feet (B) All basement -less dwellings in this district shall be required to provide an additional 100 square feet of floor area to house utilities. (C) All dwellings shall have an attached double garage of a minimum 600 square feet. While the PDO is intended to provide some flexibility in regard to lot area and width, an assurance must be made that all lots are of a size which can accommodate the City's dwelling size requirements. This includes appropriate widths to accommodate a home and three car garages. 4 Blocks. According to the City Subdivision Ordinance, the maximum length of blocks shall be 1,500 feet. Blocks over 900 feet long may require pedestrian ways near the center of the block. At approximately 2,320 feet in length, the southern border of Block 5 significantly exceeds the City's maximum block length requirements. Given the site's wetland containment, however, the proposed lot width is considered justifiable. Setbacks. Within R -1X Districts, the following setbacks are imposed: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Setback 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet Generally speaking, the proposed lots demonstrate an ability to meet applicable R -1X setbacks. As stated previously, an assurance must be provided that all lots provide buildable areas suitable for R -1X home sizes. Lot Configuration. Generally speaking, the proposed lot configuration is considered positive and responds well to site design parameters (i.e., wetlands, slopes, etc.). One concern which does exist, however, relates to the configuration of Lot 10, Block 1 and Lot 20, Block 2 which hold extremely narrow rear yards. To improve the general buildability of the said lots, it is recommended that they be reconfigured to provide + 20 feet additional feet of rear yard width. Lot Area. According to established City policy, lot area calculations must exclude unbuildable areas (i.e., wetlands). Within R -1X Zoning Districts, a minimum lot area of 12,825 square feet is required. In review of the submitted preliminary plat, the following lots fail to provide 12,825 square feet of buildable lot area: Buildable Area Block 1 Lot 6 Lot 15 Lot 27 Block 5 Lot 4 Lot 5 * Lots contain wetlands 12,600 sq. ft. 12,600 sq. ft.* 12,600 sq. ft. 12,600 sq. ft.* 12,600 sq. ft.* Considering the physical limitations of the site and the degree of lot area deficiency (± 200 square feet) , the proposed lot areas are considered acceptable via the provisions of the PDO. 5 Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum lot width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 for corner lots is required in R -1X Zoning Districts. Considering that the subdivision's overall density is consistent with R -1X density requirements and that the site's wetland containment establishes design limitations, some lot width flexibility may be granted via the PDO. To be specifically recognized, however, is that the PDO application (and subsequent lot width flexibility) is not intended to challenge the integrity of the R -1X Zoning District provisions. In review of the preliminary plat, the following lots have been found to present widths less than that required in the R -1X District: Block 1 Lot 1* Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 21 Lot 29* Block 3 Lot 1* Lot 3 Lot 4 Block 5 Lot 6 Lot 50* * Corner Lots Lot Width 100 feet 85 feet 80 feet 80 feet 100 feet 105 feet 85 feet 85 feet 85 feet 100 feet While the PDO is intended to provide a degree of lot width flexibility, it is believed that the proposed 80 foot lot depths challenge the integrity of the property's R -1X zoning designation. In this regard, it is recommended that Lots 15 and 21, Block 1 be expanded to present widths not less than 85 feet. Lot Depth. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within R -1X Zoning Districts must be provided at least 135 feet of depth. For double frontage lots, a minimum depth of 145 feet is required. Generally speaking, the vast majority of proposed lots conform to R -1X District lot depth requirements. Specifically, the following lots provide deficient lot depths: Block 3 Lot 6 Lot 13 Block 5 Lot 20 Lot 35 6 Lot Depth 100 feet 125 feet 130 feet 130 feet Via the provisions of the PDO, some degree of lot depth flexibility may be provided. Considering the significant deviation of Lot 6, Block 3, however, it is recommended that as a condition of plat approval that the applicant demonstrate the buildability of the lot through the submission of building plans. Wetlands. As shown on the preliminary plat, the subject site contains numerous wetlands. As required by the City Zoning Ordinance, all wetlands have been delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or persons recognized as qualified by such agencies. In addition, the plat has been subject to review by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Streets. The proposed street system is considered well conceived and provides appropriate right-of-way widths and cul-de-sac radii (60 feet). There are, however, several concerns which must be identified: 1. Holly Drive. Holly Drive, which bisects the subject site, has been designated a "collector" street by the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Reflective of its classification, the City Engineer has recommended that the street's existing 66 foot right-of-way width be increased to 80 feet. In this regard, an additional seven feet of right-of-way has been dedicated on each side of the street. 2. Cul -De -Sac Length. At ± 1,200 feet in length, the subdivision's northerly cul-de-sac significantly exceeds the City's maximum 500 foot cul-de-sac length requirement. Such cul-de-sac length is due to the configuration of the subject property and area wetland containment. In this regard, the proposed cul-de-sac length is considered justified for the following reasons: a. The subject property may not be put to reasonable use if the City's 500 foot cul-de-sac length requirement is imposed. b. Circumstances unique to the property were not created by the landowner. c. The hardship is not economic in nature. d. The allowance of the proposed cul-de-sac length will not impair area property values. e. The allowance of the cul-de-sac will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. The allowance of the proposed cul-de-sac length may be accommodated via the provisions of the PDO. 7 Drainage and Utility Easements. The forthcoming final plat should include 10 foot wide utility easements centered on rear and other lot lines. In addition, drainage easements should be placed over the site's wetlands. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Grading and Drainage. In accordance with Ordinance submission requirements, a grading plan should be submitted for review. Such grading plan will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Parks/Trails. The subject plat does not include any park land dedication. In review of the submitted preliminary plat, the City Park Board had recommended the following at its 2 May 1994 meeting: 1. A 15 foot wide trail dedication be provided between Lots 19 and 20, Block 1 and between Lots 43 and 44, Block 5. 2. The wetland located in the extreme southeastern corner of the plat and a 15 foot wide strip above the wetlands OHWL are formally dedicated as park land. In conjunction with the trail easement establishment, it is recommended that Lots 43 and 44 be afforded an additional 15 feet of depth. This will likely require the reconfiguration of the cul- de-sac which serves the said lots. Utility Plan. As required by Ordinance, a utility plan must be submitted for review. The plan shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Five Acre Exception. In contrast to the previously submitted preliminary plat, the revised plat does not provide for a future street extension through the five acre exception which lies west of the subject plat. The elimination of the said street extension is intended to respond to property owner opposition to the street extension. To be specifically noted is that development of the five acre parcel will require sole access from Holly Drive. Phasing. If the proposed subdivision is to be developed in phases, a phasing plan must be submitted subject to City approval. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested PDO, Planned Development Overlay application and Trappers Crossing preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Darrell Schneider Randy Schumacher 8 NORTH 1 MILE CITY OF LINO LAKES MINNESOTA EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION Sherman Lake SEA 40, 11 R w 9aAT as roma OR. 4 s� 62nd 3 ANOKA 0 ASH 8i LINO LAKES iii? eseoi Fla. R. 5 T. Poplar Lake RAMSEY 0 5 .0 .T 4.40.M p~ CENTE PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY 0 COUNTY LOCATION MAP RVILLE ST. Amelia Lake co. RD. J EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION INCREASE LOT WIDTHS TO 85' NORTH 1" = 200' SUBMIT BUILDING PLANS TO DEMONSTRATE BUILDABILITY RECONFIGURE LOT TO IMPROVE BUILDABILITY RECONFIGURE LOT TO IMPROVE BUILDABILITY e PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LOT DEPTH AS RESULT OF TRAIL DEDICATION HOLLY DRIVE / / /,'.1/ \1 r ' / r / ',/, ''' i>. . / 7 . \<0 / r---'-----. 14/ \ \i r I3 19 1 \ 3�//j r -, 4/1(° \I • II :\ 7 2 ? \ \ /1\ J ( � i` ��� / \ i \ 1 NOTE: BLOCK #'S ASSIGNED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES —olimegia PROPOSED 15' WIDE TRAIL CORRIDOR PROPOSED PARK LAND DEDICATION 11 -s -a -o -INV r -t 1F71 -7l -4f 2 VOW V r aw • i OF31-4441003 —31-22-44-0e11 f ROUX DRIVE , r--1 r--1 r--'1 r 1'.' 14911 ii[. ii;ii 4 / f lease NJ Ir....P1l lwtt/lP! I,n,.,.1 1 a....; 4/ �I f L__J L --J L__J L_ -J L,� / / m.i. I I w w < �I f - IC VAD T \ 44 I� `%`. I" rt. .I t. z .gyp, 3 1 4 1 4 1 J 1 L_ J �" III _ _ III 31 I 13b % . 1 �J L__J L__JIL_� M ripe a wa t I Il=l af. v. - I $a•••• L 42 DIY M. l 39 , n \ / / �--, r sea \v`7/ ..0 ;OLOCK Gy \__—--_ M i -. — �- i / DD•�� j!ees I 31 aDa ^ a Iir\1r4LJ1L4_i L- `$ J Lb�� l 16 w r D! 1 w m f w \„777 1 atlea•a Rol 33-31-32 Vaal 11 -31 -23 -D -/DM v L ..1_') L ---w- .21 Sera ‘, 11-11-of-14YMt SCALE r . lee' . 1� GRAPHIC SCALE Ca1MY Y -i I a: : ntilt 1.30,11311 M. IV pot of Wo Ma of So Wawa VW. of *VW XL lowlat Ana WwrWd at War True horn Woe Wow=eat V VW,a Wawa WIMP fell OW = At'nY M+It Wampum tea Woof eV lloak at awiwtt WNW It wooed Witmer WV eataeaattaow elamt. ease Wow MlrlVit yam II WV OP raw= eta • trrwM WOW WVlowaww awe= tarts rwtorrl•Mttwoof foa r=taw ems M =twetatga NM awrlMS 014110 bMMw float VIM= Watedst lamte•la tea Ito MeV wont WINO M WWI tlltYr 1•lefIan i. w eat roof w tat NAM lettM wear ear Fr waft aw waft awl ttoolldeaImo • Vara of WV IVY Smoak liwftwoft WNW warWoe oota taxa Mof Illo Vara Vivo Wow ealota VI.a Wawa 1rVaal IV to SawaV aIo taw Vega OM MM Mroo NIS& NV Iwo VW= of 11.111 al *ova We M Wawa lM W a. ma Velma OWow�wI*.0say. YVal oat rot• l=ane MTO Ioa r w Walla at as WO at IIF Wawa aware Ova ._.Owe wawa rwa Wawa of alit IVa Vpat of gtlaf ND IlvtWV WOW orf laWawa wa M Ma==lt, tallyD 1120. Cart 111••••• IiOw{ pPlnot M=W =Wale= =awaoMw=Nos Ms= of ala= Ot NtwyaC yl=YA Nato Cwttarwetwr.ralI M==IN Yoo WS Oanes-Wm mM Molt rallIN Malt orae SOS _v_ 1111111111101 to amt waw Par a aluL .lase Mr a4 rte /.wY11a1R Arta reef WWI WIN= witainn Lw MI Oer M. verosr LOT IrWIMPS=OD wrlM tralfrat Ii Iota at Per Mir WO rte. MK Malarial OA Aar tap OOgO OCTA — wrltM-wr LIIMMIli AL MINIM or D' �yae�at1r1t1ofwNlt7wb[ MIDIlYfIQ1 VS W CMW LOIS W sr arttArf •Par O Vale at arta Gr/(111A44 1 Ig ro • • • TRAPPER'S CROSSING