IDC Agenda 05-16-2002
IDC MEETING
AT
•
REMMELE ENGINEERING
213 Chelsea Road
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 - 7:00 A.M.
•
AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
• Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 7:00 a.m.
Remmele Engineering - 213 Chelsea Road
MEMBERS: Chair Dick Van Allen, Vice Chair Mary Barger, Kevin Doty, Tom Lindquist, Bill
Tapper, Tom Ollig, Don Roberts, Mike Benedetto, Susie Wojchouski, Barb Schwientek,
and Uan Olson.
COUNCIL: Mayor Roger Belsaas.
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola, Fred Patch, and Ollie Koropchak.
GUEST: Greg Pickert, Plant General Manager, Remmele Engineering.
IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to
create jobs in the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
7:00 a.m. l . Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting.)
7:02 2. Vote to approve the April l8, 2002 IDC minutes.
HISTORY AND TOUR OF REMMELE ENGINEERING
7:04 3. Updates by O'Nei!I.
a) Gold Nugget parcel.
b) Otter Creek Crossing annexation.
7:14 4. Report of Planning Commission Public Hearing and consideration of
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan by Van Allen.
a) Feedback of the Planning Commission Meeting.
b) Results of the Planning Commission Meeting.
c) Next steps by the IDC.
7:34 5. Continued discussion to change the IDC focus to economic development (both
industrial and commercial).
8:00 6. Reports:
BRE Visit Report and Follow-up - Polycast Specialties
Economic Development Report -Koropchak.
Mayor -Belsaas.
8:20 7. Other Business.
a) Mayor's Brunch and Chamber's Golf Outing -Today, 10:30, Silver Springs.
b) Industrial Banquet hosted by the Chamber, Tuesday, June 1 1, Monte Club,
Guest Speaker, Norm Coleman.
8:25 8. Adjourm~~ent.
•
r1
U
MINUTES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 7:00 a.m.
505 Walnut Street -Academy Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Dick Van Allen, Vice Chair Mary Barger, Tom Lindquist,
Bill Tapper, Susie Wojchouski, and Barb Schwientek.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Doty, Tom Ollig, Don Roberts, Mike Benedetto, and Dan
Olson.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Roger Belsaas.
STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak.
IDC MISSION STATEMENT: To maintain and increase the industrial tax base and to
create jobs in the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
Call to Order. (Please read the minutes and information prior to the meeting.)
Chair Van Allen called the IDC meeting to order at 7:00 a.m.
•
2. Vote to approve the March 21, 2002 IDC minutes.
Tabled until May meeting.
Updates by O'Neill. In the absence of O'Neill, Mayor Belsaas gave the update.
a) Public Hearing Date for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, May 7, 7:00 p.m.,
Planning Commission.
b) Gold Nugget parcel. Belsaas reported the Gold Nugget law suit is "waiving in the air."
Additionally, he informed members that prior to March 1, the Municipal Board accepted
the Remmele and Groveland parcels for annexation by ordinance. With the MOAA's
existence in question and the Governor's ruling on annexation, the State Planning Board
will not honor any filed annexation petitions for two to eight months. Lastly, Belsaas
informed members that the Council on March 11 authorized an appraisal of the Gold
Nugget property. According to Koropchak, she did not believe administration had
ordered the appraisal.
c) Otto Creek Crossing annexation -The owners had requested annexation of 60 acres.
An annexation petition has not been filed at the State nor the public hearing held at
Council level. It appears at $.95 per square foot without improvements, the owners are
not interested in selling or developing.
4. Feedback from the Planning Commission Open House and IDC presentation. Van Allen
reported that the format used at the Open House was disappointing. After a short
presentation by Planner Grittman and O'Neill, participants were requested to ask
questions and give comments to individual staff members or the consultant. Van Allen
reported to the IDC members on his comments made at the Open House which included
IDC Minutes - 4/18/02
the need for administration and the IDC to measure or track goals. He noted the number
of jobs and wages created and lost within a certain span of years which resulted in the
IDC's focus to strength the aRE visits. Additionally, he noted the questions developed
by the IDC; reported the IDC supports a balance development of residential, commercial,
and industrial; that IDC supports an industrial land use and development at either a
portion of the Gold Nugget parcel or the City/Renunele parcel for the short term; and
supports the westerly Orchard Road parcel and interchange for the long term (10-20 years
out). Lastly. Van Allen presented a graph outlining the city's tax levy, tax capacity, and
budget between 1997 to 2002 and noted the increase in the taY levy and budget and the
decrease in tax capacity. Members also noted, given the 2 to 8 month wait to honor
annexation petitions, the number of housing permits may decrease this and next year.
Koropchak added that the Planning Commissioners and Council members had left the
Open House prior to Van Allen's presentation which was unfortunate.
5. Reports:
a) BRE Visit - Polycast Specialities, April 26, 9:30 a.m.
b) Economic Development Report
I) Koropchak reported that the Prospect Team of Van Allen, Brad Barger, Ron Hoglund,
Tom Lindquist, Clint Herbst, and herself visited UMC on April 8. On April 2, Don
Tomanu and .Koropchak revisited site options in Monticello and the sites were ranked
accordingly: l a) Monticello Commerce Center. 2a) City/Remmele, and 3a) Monticello
Market Place. In conclusion, Tomann liked the Commerce site to the west of Twin City
Die Castings because of its proximity to the school and proposed image along Chelsea
Road. In order to accommodate a squarer dimensional lot, he increased the acreage
requirements from 6 acres to 10 acres. He requested a proposal from the City of
Monticello by April 15. Koropchak presented a copy of the proposal to the IDC members
noting the project costs and the additional costs to a business to acquire 3-4 acres in order
to obtain a desired dimensional lot. It is estimated that TIF can reimburse the land costs
for six acres and the Council agreed to waive the trunk fees for 6 acres. On April 4,
Pfeffer presented a site concept to staff outlining 7 acres to the immediate west of TCDC
for Production Stamping and the next abutting 10 acres to the west for UMC. The point
being, UMC once again has a long narrow lot. It has been Pfeffer preference to sell the
remaining 40-50 acres on the south side to one user and avoid further infrastructure
improvements.
2) Production Stamping -Koropchak again presented IDC members a copy of the
proposal mailed Les Wurm. This excellent company also plans to construct a 60,000 sq
ft manufacturing/office building. The Prospect Team visited this company about a year
ago. Both companies looked at the H-Window and Right Choice buildings and have
selected general contractors. Neither company bas committed to Monticello at this time.
3) Visited a company in Plymouth at the request of Department of Trade and Economic
Development Company submitted offer on H-Window building, according to realtor,
the offer was not accepted. Company renting 3,000 sq ft from Fay-Mar. Looking for
financing to employ workers to manufacturer a new product: forklift attachment.
Company encouraged to prepare financials and business plan.
4) Plymouth company Looking to construct 14,000 to 18,000 sq ft facility. Worked Tom
2
IllC Minutes - 4/18/02
Feaski. Elected to rent in Buffalo for couple years. Waiting to see if asking land prices
and the market equalize.
2002 Continental Breakfast and Golf Outing -Thursday, May 16, at Silver Springs. IDC
members were invited to the breakfast. Reservation are required. 65 invitations were
mailed to contractors, site locators, and developers far gratis breakfast and golf. The golf
outing is a Chamber fitndraiser.
c) Mayor - Belsaas noted the Cowlcil can't continue to relax the trunk fees. The State is
eyeing cities with surplus reserves.
d) Follow-u~ with Dr. Nemec -Tapper reported on his conversation with Dr. Nemec. Dr.
Nemec told Tapper he had several talks with Business Administration. Because of the
Privacy Acts and Laws (non-disclosure clauses), there are many reasons why the Clinic
can't provide the service of drug testing for employees of local businesses. Secondly, the
Clinic was not interested in servicing commercial/industrial because they do not have the
capacity. Schwientek added as the Privacy Acts keep getting worse and programs such as
JMC for the homeless go away, it leaves a greater % of the population without coverage
resulting in no way for the Clinics to recover their losses.
e) Industrial Banquet Date - Wojchouski informed IDC members that the Industrial
Banquet has a tentative date of June 1 I at the Monte Club with Norm Coleman as the
guest speaker. Regular Chamber meeting, today, 11:50 a.m., Hero's in Becker, Steve
Hammer, NRG, speaker.
6. Discuss chan<=ins the IDC focus to economic development (both industrial and
commercial.)
The discussion as to whether the IDC should change its focus to include commercial as
well as industrial stemmed from the IDC Workshop of February 2I, 2002. Tapper
recalled in the summary of commercial and industrial zoning comparisons provided at the
workshop, the bottom-line was commercial development is allowed in industrial zoning
through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. Although the IDC. supports the
over-all development of residential, commercial, and industrial, was this the most
effective and efficient land use and zoning? Tapper continued stating Monticello has a
unique opportunity located along I-94 and Highway 25 and between St. Cloud and
Mimleapolis for a major shopping center. Those decisions must be made now. In 195,
at Hwy 55 and County 18, there was nothing west to Wayzata. Monticello needs to plan
for the future. Susie felt the comp plan is short-sighted with land use for
retail/commercial. Big Lake and St Michael have no down-towns. St Michael had
McComb study and Big Lake retained Minnesota Design Team to assist with planning.
What is the amount of acreage in Maple Grove? Members felt data needs to be collected
such as population projections, land use consumption, income projections, etc. to assist
with comp plan decisions. The IDC members concluded it was premature to make any
recommendations as to the future focus of the IDC until discussions are held with those
members absent.
-,
J
•
IDC Minutes - 4/18/02
Other Business.
Bill Tapper made a motion to cancel the July 2002 IDC meeting. Susie Wojchouski
seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment.
The 1DC meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m.
•
r:
~~- ~ ~l .
Ollie Koropchak, Recorder
4
t3RE VIS[T
• SCHEDULE ANU WRITTEN SUYIi~1ARY FORM
11)C MEiVIB1~.R INDUSTRY
Name Van /~Ilen/Koropchak Name _Polvcast Specialties. Inc.
I'honc
I~ nx
I~,-Mail
Mailing /lddress
Primary Contact Rov Schulz
Phone 763-271-6600
E-Mail_rovnpolycastspecialties.com_
Location 112 Dundas Road
FAX 763-271-6612
Web www.polvcastspecialties.com
• Date of Visit April 26, 2002 Time of Visit 9:30 a.m.
Summary of Visit:
Roy was concerned about the vacant buildings in Monticello: H-Window. Right Choice.
Fay Mar. and of most recent Lake Tool. Van Allen/Koropchak informed Polycast that
the vacancies resulted from buy-out of businesses and the decline in the economy. The
buildings are being marketed and have been shown several times.
~'. Polycast has an interest to install a sip-toot chain link fence around the back and side
perimeter ol•thc lot as a safety and liability measure and to protect the trees along the
north side from snowmobiles and ATVs. Are there any requirements? He was informed
by the City Lngiiteer Consultant that the pond in the rear of the property would be tilled-
in but has not occurred. .Iohn Glomski, please inform Polycast.
3. Polycast plans to plant trees alone or near the boulevard of Dundas Road and install flag
poles tier the .~m~rican and ISO 9000 tla~~s. Are there any requirements? John Glomski,
please inform Yuh~cast.
-l. Polycast noted that the: lot lvin`~ to the immediate west consist ofover-grown weeds. Can
the City keep an eye on this and send a bli~_ht notice to the owner if necessary? John
. Glomski, please note this to Polycast.
~. Polycast was concerned about the excess speed of traffic (delivery trucks) along Dundas
Road where employees walk.
6. Polvcast expressed their appreciation of the helpfulness ~~iven by Gary Anderson.
Building Official, during Polvcast~s construction period.
Polycast reduced their employment by 7 to 12 during the economic down-turn and
recently hired 2 new employees. Their employees come from Buffalo, Maple Lake, St.
Cloud, Elk River, and Becker areas, not Monticello.
8. Polvcast recently received ISO 9000 certification.
9. Polycast agreed to be linked to the city web site.
•
n
U
Polycust Specialties Inc.
.~pril 26, 2002
IDC Visit Roy Schultz visit made with Ollie Koropchal:
Roy ..'as concerned with the recent vacancies including Ef-Windows, Fay Mar, Right
Choice and as of this -norning the for sale sign posted in front of Lake Too(.
Business has been affected by the economic downturn, although at this time Polvcast
is holding steady. Layoffs total about 7 -) primarily those operators who ran a part
for along-standing customer who moved to another vendor in Ohio.
Current emphasis is to produce parts that do not require an outside vendor for
subcontracted parts. Polycast is currently working on a series of parts that should
have a very positive impact on their business.
Polvcast has become ISO 900o certitied within the past three weeks and is waiting
for their award tlag for the consulting company.
While not particularly enthused, Roy did agree to have his company web site linked
from the Citv of Monticello web site.
Ray reports that Gary Anderson was particularly helpful during the construction
phase posing questions of things to consider (things Roy thought her would never
have thought of) and potential answers without suggesting vendors.
Roy is taking action in some areas that ultimately may have some zoning /ordinance
implications;
• Polvcast is planning to install asix-foot high chain tinlc fence arounc! the back
yard to reduce ~-~TV and snowmobile trattic. Snowmobiles in particular are
using small hills to jump over the ornamental trees on Polvcast land causing
some tree damage. (Safety and liability issue)
• Ponding -Roy advised by Brett Wiese that city had changes its mind about the
pond and city would fill in the pond. It has never happened.
• Neighboring lot becomes over grown with rvecds each year and is never taken
care of by the neighbor.
• Speeding -concern for safety of some other companies employees who walk
along the roadway and the tact that vehicles, includin ;trucks are not observing
the speec! limit.
• Ray is planning to add a row of trees along the front of the property in line with
the trees on the adjacent Excel Energy property.
r~
U
Amendment to Monticello Comprehensive Plan
Monday, May 13, 2002 From Dick Van Allen
Dear IDC members,
this is going to be a lot of reading and I know you are up to it. Please review this
stuff before the Thursday AM meeting.
I attended the 7 May meeting of the Planning Commission and am pleased to report that a
30 day moratorium before adoption of the amended comprehensive plan has been granted.
This gives the time for the city to call a workshop meeting to allow input by the IDC, EDA,
HRA, C of C and Planning Commission.
My concerns are underlined on the accompanying pages used by the city at the meeting.
References to Industrial land placed limitations that exclude manufacturing.
What's required? Some of the following topics need to be considered.
I'm convinced that some of the frustration IDC members may feel, is due to our not having
been clear enough as to what we think the needs are. Please examine the following:
A) The IDC needs to put together a team to define and express clearly our intentions prior
to the city workshop which is likely to be called before the regular Planning
Commission meeting which is 4 June 2002.
This workshop will allow us to signal what we envision as an adequate plan or signal
• our plan approval as it has already been developed.
B) IDC needs to define the zoning classification we are thinking of when we say industrial
to assure we are understood. Do we want to include manufacturing?
C) When should the property be ready including infrastructure?
• Short term - 0-10 years
• Mid term - 5- 20 years
• Long Term 15 -25 year
D) What size, how much land? Our most recent industrial requirements have averaged 5-
10 acres per company.
• Picture a downtown city block, 330 feet x 320 feet which is equal to about 2.5 acres.
• How much land? -One way to consider this is to picture the development necessary to
replace the lost revenue due to state changes in the tax rate. The state has been
discussing this for years and some of the effect should have been anticipated.
E) At what price? -
• There is a natural conflict between our ability to provide land fora $1. to compete with
other developing communities OR
• Provide TIF financing and city sponsored exclusions to development fees. The city
sponsored exclusions require a commitment by the city.
•
The plannin~~ commission felt they would like to have an informal meeting with the
commissions stated pre~~iously, prior to making any decisions on the comprehensive land
use plan.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION. PENDING INPUT
FROM "THE MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP. COMMISSIONS OF THE IDC. EDA. HRA,
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL LIAISON GLINT HERBST, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINALIZE AND
MAKE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON
THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was fi-rther discussion advising that the various commission should be prepared to
show their rationale when presenting at the meeting. O'Neill asked the commissioners if
there was anything they felt staff should modify/clarify in the proposed plan prior to the
meeting and Frie stated possibly offering options, but also asked that staff come to the
meeting with an open mind. Herbst agreed with the meeting and asking for rationale as
well. O'Neill stated he would schedule this within 30 days, after each committee has met
to discuss. Van Allen questioned having Township representation and Frie advised there
was no formal presentation to Monticello Township or County officials. There was no
further discussion and the Motion carried unanimously.
14. Public Hearin<=• Consideration of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining:
to recent amendments to the Residential Development Standards. Applicant. City of
• Monticello.
Steve Grittman provided the staff report stating that the proposed chan~~es have been
discussed generally, and are intended to affect the way new plats are laid out. Chair Frie
opened the public hearing, and hearing no response the public hearin~~ was then closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. BASED ON A FINDING THAT
THE AMENDMENTS SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS OF
HIGHER QUALITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
There was further discussion by Herbst regarding development on the Schultz property
and his concern is that they would not meet the R-IA standards. and then sold off to
another developer. as in the case of River Forest. He also asked if they need this in the
form of a developers agreement and it was stated they cannot force this issue. Grittman
stated the only way to enforce would be that if the developer imposes private covenants.
approve ~~~ith the condition that the covenants can not be chan~~ed.
•
-14-
At the 16 May regular meeting I would ask us to consider and approve a series of actions as
• above and suggested below?
1) Should IDC have a temporary Comp Plan committee to make the presentation and who would
you like to participate on it?
•
•
2) MEASURE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SUCCESS in terms of annual business accomplishments, local jobs, payroll and tag base.
Success is not measured by Commercial /Industrial Land designation but by:
• Businesses Retained
• Businesses Lost - 2001-2002 - 170 jobs
• Businesses who have or are building in Monticello -
Incidental data: 1990 thru 1999 New Business built in Monticello
Commercial - 3-Market Value $448,000- jobs created - FT 24
Industrial - 14 Market Value $ 9,932,000 - jobs created FT 545
Shyould we start to measure our own success?
• Tracking actual development results in the categories of Residential, Commercial and industrial.
• Commercial and Industrial development to follow the "Big Lake Pattern" of goals.
• Designate 200 Acres for industrial Development
• Avoid the rezoning of land designated as Industrial through the use of PUD designations.
• Buy reasonably priced nearby land outside the city for long-term. development -this could also
be seen as an investment.
• Actively lobby MNDOT concerning location of the "WESTERN" I-94 Interchange for its affect
on the areas toward the western end of Monticello now coded as Industrial.
November 2001 Performance Measure - City of Big Lake
Goals Established at the Outset of the Park Current Status of Goals
Land Size 72 acres Develo able land 50 acres
Infrastructure Phase I Roads, Sewer and water Installed 1999 service to
3 lots /15 acres
Cost to Develo $ 800,000 estimated 13 lots
Eg ected Private sector Investment $11 to 13 million
RESULTS RESULTS
Jobs er Acre 5 Acres 4.2 'obs /acre
Land to Buildin Ratio 4:1 s ft 4.6 s . ft.
Develo ed Land Assessed Value $250,000 /acre $320,435 /acre
O en Stora (Not Allowed None
Years to a back incentives (5 to 6) Not determined
Percent of buildin covers eon lots 50%) 21.40
Trans ortation Pro'ects? None None
Return on Investment A rog 17% Not determined
Big Lake has reported they would negotiate
different terms of agreement for future joint
ventures Special Note ! Note
Bi Lake Back round Data:
• Joint 50 - 50 ownershi Cit and Townshi
• Shared develo ment and o eratin costs
• Shared benefits
• Phased develo meat -Land urchase 1996
• Bonds sold, TIF district used
• Marketin ,consultants at first then networkin , acka a incentives includin $1 land
• Results as above.
2
Monticello Extraterritorial Growth Plan - 31191-02 Draft
Background and Purpose
This document serves as narrative support for the land use mapping being
considered as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The City of
Monticello is developing a land use plan for an extraterritorial area that
includes and far beyond the foreseeable period. The aurpose of this exercise
is to develop a basis for aroiecting roadway and other infrastructure needs,
and to protect corridors for those needs to accommodate the future Citv
boundary.
Commonly, a land use plan uses a 20 year time horizon as its planning
framework. However, the limitations of this period can be seen in the
conflicts created when the interest in annexation and extension of utility
services does not exactly match the demands for growth in either pace or
location. A longer planning period is also suggested by the expected lifespan
of infrastructure development -usually forty years and often much longer.
To address this issue, the City intends to establish an extraterritorial growth
line that incorporates planning and land use objectives of the City far out
into the future. The graphic plans that this document supports are developed
• around the following goals:
1. Allocate land uses in a way that supports all types of growth,
with the opportunities for the City to maintain along-term
balance of land use demand, land supply, and housing choice.
2. Develop a transportation system that supports the growth of
the City, and protects transportation corridors in areas now to
avoid rater conflict over corridor expansion.
3. Preserve, to the extent possible, a visual connection to the
rural areas of the surrounding township land.
4. Provide for an opportunity to protect future urban areas from
interim encroachment by non-urban uses.
5. Facilitate opportunity for land owners to recoup increasing
land values in ways that complement the City's growth
boundaries.
6. Provide a framework to identify major infrastructure needs
early to supped the City's land use planning and growth
demands.
7. Communicate the desire to grow in an orderly, contiguous
fashion, and set a foundation on which a renewed
relationship with the township can be based.
3
Land Use
The land use plan focuses on extraterritorial areas, generally However, there are
certain locations within the current City boundaries that merit some attention. As a
rule, areas within the City are expected to continue their historical land use pattern.
The most notable exception would be the County Highway 18/Interstate 94 area.
This area has been planned primarily for industrial land uses on both sides of 1-94.
with limited areas of commercial and use. With an expectation that a full
interchange will soon be constructed at this location, however, commercial uses are
now more viable. There will be only limited impact on the south side of the freeway,
but the north side should support the opportunity for larger-scale commercial land
uses.
Extraterritorial areas include the following:
a. Northeast Area. This area includes land that is adjacent to both City and
Township residential areas, and in some places borders the freeway. This
area is guided in the plan for low density residential land uses, although
there is an expectation that in larger areas, some examples of medium
density housing styles will be considered when the overall density in no
greater than three units per gross acre. This area is able to be served by City
utility services, but the plan intends to limit growth in this direction to
preserve utility capacity for downstream relief, and to encourage a rg owth
pattern that is more westerly in direction, it is anticipated that rural
residential uses would be reasonable beyond the boundaries of this planning
district. Expected zoning districts to be incorporated into the development of
this area include R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts.
b. East Area. South of the freeway, the limitations of sewer service, existing
development and other factors create another natural edge for urban
expansion. Some areas include well-wooded land and hillside areas that lend
themselves to higher-end housing opportunities Other areas would be
expected to be entry- level to mid-range in housing costs. An emphasis on
natural feature preservation will be important in this area, including
capitalizing on view opportunities where they are available. Expected zoning
in this area would be R-1, R-lA, R 2, and R-2A. Density levels would be
below three units per gross acre.
c.. Southeast Area. The southeast portion of the planning area ties between the
Monti Club Hill and Pelican Lake. County Highway 37 borders the north
shore of the lake, and would serve as the primary south boundary for the
planning area. Much of this area is designated "Future Growth Area, and
does not have a density or land use label attached. However, it is expected
that the bulk of these areas would be dominated by low-density residential
development. An exception
•
Page 2
4
to the land use designation is the area around the intersection of County
Highway 37 and Fenning Avenue. This area is seen as ahigher-density
development area, perhaps with a mixed pattern of townhouses. some
commercial, and mixed use buildings. A broad band of open space should be
incorporated into the plan to protect the shoreline of Pelican Lake. Density
in the district is not designated at this time, due to the long period of time
before this area would become urbanized, however, single family homes
would not be expected in the core of this area.
d. South Area. The land south of the current City limits includes the Gold
Nugget" property and other land between 855th Street and County Highway
37. The Gold Nugget property is guided_for a combination of one third
office-industrial, and two thirds residential. The residential porton is seen as
a mixed density project, with overall densities at three units per gross acre.
The office-industrial area is projected to be a mix of office, ofTice-warehouse
office-showroom and other similar land uses. To support the transportation
network in this area, an extension of Cedar Street is planned to continue
south from School Boulevard to connect to 855th Street through this area.
This roadway may take the form of a frontage road, or a service road
serving development on both sides, depending on engineering and routing
issues.
• South of 85th Street, the plan has designated the area for Future Growth,
without listing a specific land use pattern or density. One of the features of
this area is that urban development is intended to be buffered from Highway
25 by one half mile on both sides. This concept is intended to reinforce the
feeling that Monticello retains a connection to the rural areas surrounding it.
and to help make the community feel smaller than it is or will be. A system
of development rights and credits could be established to compensate land
owners in this area for the plan's prohibition of development in the Highway
25 corridor.
A similar plan is proposed west of Highway 25, with an office industrial area
mirroring the Gold Nugget development, and residential uses expected
elsewhere. A buffer zone is planned here as well, keeping the Future Growth
Area one half mile from the Highway corridor.
e. Southwest Area. The southwest area is a region of significant changes in land
cover and a mix of existing development, agricultural uses, and natural
features. The plan anticipates a preservation of the natural areas, using them
as amenifles for both private development and public view, Some public
recreation would be programmed for areas that are encumbered by utility
easements. An area of higher density mixed use development is shown in this
• plan around the intersection of 90 th Street and the extension of School
5
Boulevard. Other land uses include attached residential housing, and limited
commercial. Zoning districts in this area could include all of the City's
residential districts and a mixed use district to be established. Residential
density would likely range between six and fifteen units per acre in the
attached housing and mixed use areas, with densities below four units per
acre in the remainder of the area.
f. West Area. Extending Chelsea Road to the west and north is the feature
of this area, creating a parallel south collector street. Chelsea would serve
primarily higher intensity uses, including commercial and industrial uses.
North of County .~ Highway 39. Chelsea Road would serve as a dividing
boundary between residential uses along the border of Silver Springs Golf
Course, and industrial uses along the interstate highway. The plan
discourages residential uses slang the highway where possible. Broad green
spaces and landscaping buffers are programmed to help separate existing
residential areas.
g West Area. This area is dominated by industrial uses that would be
developed in concert with an interchange at Orchard Road. This area would
take advantage of both the freeway exposure and the natural tree cover to
create a higher end commerciaVindustrial park. A new interchange in this area
will minimize truck traffic impacts on either the existing developed areas or
the `~ traffic conditions at Chelsea Road and Highway 25.
h. Permanent Rural Areas Outside the boundaries of the planning area,
the land use is proposed to be labeled "Permanent Rural Use" .
Although it is anticipated that at some point in the future, the
boundaries of the City's planning area will need to be reevaluated,
any development in the Permanent Rural area would be well beyond
the foresight of this plan. The proposed planning area, in fact,
encompasses much more and than the City's utility services are able
to treat. As a result, other major infrastructure changes will be
necessary even to serve the identified districts.
Summary
The proposed plan is established to help establish roadway needs and
issues, and to create a framework under which both the City and the
Township might work, with the goal being that orderly planned growth
can occur without Township fear that land will be annexed before it is
needed, and without City fear that administrative opposition will
interfere with the timing and process of development and growth. The
City and the Township would need to work together to protect the
areas for future development shown on the plan.
6
i
Planning Commission Agenda
OS/7/02
13. Public Hearing: Consideration of an amendment to the Cit `s
Comprehensive Plan and future land use guide plan. Applicant: City. of
Monticello. (NAC)lJO
A. Reference and Background.
The City has been working toward the development of a revised future land use
plan that would address areas beyond the current boundaries of the City. As
growth has accelerated over the past few years, available development land has
been consumed, and project proposals are beginning to encroach on the edge of
what has previously been used as the boundary for the orderly annexation area, In
order to plan for future transportation routes, land use planning, and utility
service areas and capacity, a draft long-term growth plan has been formulated.
This plan has been reviewed in concept form by staff and City officials. and has
been presented at a public open house for review and feedback. Several of the
affected landowners were present, and had the opportunity to provide information
• about their property, and to question City staff and officials as to the impacts of
the concept plan. In general, feedback received has been positive, with the
majority of input being in the form of questions of clarification. There have been
a small number of property owners who have
• sought to be included in the long-term growth boundary, and a few others who
would prefer different land use designations on their land.
Below, we have summarized comments received that have requested changes in
the draft plan, or questions raised that could affect the overall concept.
At the east edge of the growth area, a landowner has requested that the
City include an additiona180 acres of property within the growth
boundary. This area was excluded in the original draft due to the
likelihood that the onYy probable land use is some form of residential,
with a significant exposure to 1-94. Because attached housing is likely to
comprise the majority of the City's mixed use development and original
plat redevelopment, staff limited the expansion of the City in this area to
minimize competition with these other attached housing areas that would
not suffer from the 1-94 exposure.
2. In the southeast portion of the growth area, a landowner has requested that an
• additiona140 acre parcel be included. The parcel abuts the east boundary
line of the `Hermes property and has exposure to County 18. The property is
7
• generally wooded. Staff discussion has been to limit expansion of the City to
the east, and maintain a rural buffer for roadway traffic entering the
community from this direction. This parcel, however, may provide an
attractive location for P-lA housing opportunities, and should be considered
for inclusion in the planning area. it also sits at a favorable elevation relative
to existing City service line which may make it
Planning Commission Agenda
OS/7/02
readily developable with the need for a lift sta6on~
3. Staff from the YMCA have been contacted regarding their interest in being a part
of the future development area The draft plan includes land owned by the
YMCA east of the series of lakes at the west edge of the City. The YMCA staff
that reviewed the plan expressed positive comments but were careful to note that
any decision regarding future development of a portion of the site was in the
hands of YMCA policy makers that have not had the opportunity to review the
plan.
• 4. The parcel along the west side of Highway 25 south of the Kjellberg West
mobile home community is owned by the Kjellberg group. They have asked that
the property be designated for commercial development rather than industrial as
shown on the concept plan. Staffwould consider this industrial classification
similar to that of the Gold Nugget" industrial area across Highway ZS to the east
a combination of office warehouse and showroom space rather than
manufacturing.
The Industrial Development Committee (IDC) asked about growth and
annexation of property to the north across the river. Although this concept was
explored when the "Bridgeview" residential project was being considered, the
expense of extending utilities across the river is great, and a very large industrial
user would be necessary to ensure that the expansion was affordable. Even more
at issue, from planning staff's position, is that Highway 25 is the only access to
this area, and another bridge across the river is even less likely than a new
interchange along 1_94. The traffic issues raised by industrial development in this
area would cause additional concern for the downtown area Staff continues to
support industrial development to the west with an aggressive funding_plan to
create a new interchange as soon as practicable.
6. The DC asks about the prospects for industrial zoning for the Pemmele" property
along Highway 25 now owned by the Cit,~Planning staff is reluctant to
• recommend this land use, based on the property~s location and greater potential
S
. for future commercial use. Commercial land is much more sensitive to location,
access, and visibility, and eroding the existing supply will compromise the future
land use, potentially discouraging additional commercial development. If the DC
goal is to control industrial land as a tool for attracting industry, the City should
consider acquisition of land suited for industrial development in accordance with
the plan.
7. The owner of land north of the Remmele nronertv has su~~ested to staff that their
property between the Remmele site and the large vond be designated for mid- to
high-density residential, rather than commercial as now shown on the land use
plan. While this site may provide a site that could support an attractive residential
project, staff makes the same comments regarding the long term supply of prime
commercial land as in note 6 above.
Planning Commission
Agenda _ 05/7/02
8. The DC challenges the Chadwick PUD plan for a mtx of uses, including
some commercial as proposed by the developer along the highway. The
land use plan calls for industrial (a rather broad term. and the developers
intent is to propose highway oriented commercial uses along the freeway
frontage The Planning Commission should comment on this issue as a
part of its review of the Plan Amendment.
• 9. The DC also asks about the Planning Commission's opinion of various
opportunities that the City mawpursue to own and develop its own
industrial park, including the Gold Nugget, Remmele, and Chadwick
properties. Planning staff has considered this question to be one of
implementation strategy, rather than land use pattern and policy. It has
been staffs position that an appropriate land use pattern should be agreed
upon apart from the issue of whether the City should be the
owner/developer of industrially guided land.
10. A common question regarded the meaning of "Urban Mixed Use", a and
use category shown in two areas of the draft land use plan. This concept
is intended to identify areas where the City may encourage a mix of both
attached and detached housing, commercial uses, and support facilities in
an urban or traditional development pattern. Although not intended to be
a Central business district, the pattern is likely to reflect that type of
urban development style. Two areas area designated in this way: One
area to the west, near the future intersection of ~h Street NE and the
extension of School Boulevard and one area to the southeast around the
intersection of County 37 and Fenning Avenue, north of Pelican Lake.
These areas have been called out separately to distinguish them from
• what is expected to be a land use pattern that is otherwise dominated bX
more common residential or commercial districts.
9
•
As noted, apart from these comments the open house generated questions, but
few other comments affecting_the general content of the Plan amendment, The
Plan is designed to encourage growth to the south and west, taking advantage of
the natural tendency of residents in these areas to take advantage of Monticello's
commercial markets, rather than the commercial areas along the commuting
routes to the east. With the exception of the area around County 18 and 1-94. the
existing land use pattern is expected to remain the same. This latter area is
proposed to be amended from a primarily industrial area to include more
potential commercial development north of the freeway. due to the coming full
interchange at this location.
B. Alternative Actions
Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, based on a finding that it provides a reasonable baseline for guiding
efficient,
Planning Commission Agenda
05/7/02
• coordinated future growth of the City of Monticello This motion should
incorporate any changes to the concept plan to be made pursuant to the
discussion in this report or other public testimony
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, based on a
finding that the current plan is adequate to guide growth for the foreseeable
future.
Motion to table pending input from Monticello township Although an open
house was held, there was no formal presentation to Monticello Township or
County officials.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends adoption of the amendment, Since the last plan update in 1995, the
City has grown rapidly, consuming much of the planned urban land. The line established
in the early 1970s, now about 30 years old, has served the City well, but is no longer able
to help direct land use and infrastructure planning decisions being made now that will
affect the extraterritorial areas in the near term, The intent of this plan is to provide a
long-term framework that will assist in guiding the growth of the City in a logical,
• efficient manner, and will avoid the consumption of the remaining farmland. In this
10
• regard, the plan also seeks tomreserve the rural impression of the surroundin arg eas by
holdin dg evelopment back from the highways leading into town, avoiding a stripped
development pattern along these thorou hg fares. As development grows toward these
areas, the city will need to prepare a process for selling and transferring development
rights to allow land owners to recoup the value of their land investments.
This strategy should also have the advantage of maximizing access management benefits
in each of these roadway corridors. These benefits should include easier flow and greater
capacity, as well as the opportunity for less disruption of urban development when the
roadways need to expand.
D. Supporting; Data.
Extraterritorial Growth Plan and Map
r~
•
11
0
• Planning Commission Agenda - 1/8/02
Update -IDC and HRA Recommendations
No action is required of the Planning Commission at their January 8. 2002 meeting. The IDC
and HRA submit and request the Planning Commission and City Council consider and
incorporate their respective recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan update and
amendment process and to take the applicable action to accomplish the recommendations.
Reference and Background:
On December 7. 2001, the Marketing Subcommittee (HRA Commissioners Darrin Lahr
and Brad Barger and IDC Members Dick Van Allen, Tom Ollig. and Don Smith)
reviewed data including current local industrial land prices ($65.340 per acre), the
decrease of tax increment revenues collected due to class rate reductions, and the Big
Lake Industrial Development Plan. The group recognized the availability of three local
industrial buildings and the current recession; however, they also could not justify
spending $20,000 for marketing non-competitive industrial land prices. They agreed
Monticello is out-of-the ball game. Additionally, the group considered the $~6~.000
Industrial Development Fund set aside by the HRA and the Council for industrial land
acquisition and/or infrastructure development and the additional pool of non-restrictive
TIF funds pledged for industrial land acquisition or infrastructure development. The
• Marketing Subcommittee made a motion "asking the HRA and the IDC to approve the
Marketing Subcommittees recommendation to rezone City (Remmele) parcel from
commercial to industrial and to develop an industrial park forwarding the
recommendation to the Plamiing Commission."
At the IDC meeting of December 20. 2001, Jeff O•Neill gave an update to the IDC
members on the status of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He gave a detailed
summary of the preliminary land use plan and noted reasons why the City (Remmele) site
has been identified as an important parcel for firture commercial development and noted
that the mediation session for the Gold Nugget parcel was scheduled for January 10.
2002. Additionally. he noted city acquisition of the industrial/commercial portion of the
Gold Nugget site, either by purchase or via swap (City/Remmele), remains a possibility.
IDC Chair Van Allen informed members of his recent conversation with UMC. an
industrial prospect, relative to the relocation considerations and economic benefits to a
community. After discussing the Marketing Subcommittee's recommendation and
hearing O'Neill•s report, the IDC was ready to make a motion which included preparation
of a time frame.
IDC Recommendation
"IDC ;t~Iem(~er I3urh Sc•h~rientek mode a motion reconm~enc/i«g the conh•ol of a site for
•
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/8/02
irn/ustrial development and to commit to construction completion of utility and road
improvements by Full of 2002 for either the City (Remmele) or Gold Nugget parcels, and
to prepare a time frame, for the City (Renunele) crud Gold Nugget parcels, beginning with
the infi^astrirctt.n-e improvement completion date and working backwcu°ds identifying the
applicable steps and time frame to accomplish control of site and infrastructure
completion. This 1°ecommendation to be forti>>arded to the Planning Commission and City
Coamcil. IDC Member Bill Tapper seconded the motion and with no further discussion,
the motion passed unanimously. "
At the HRA meeting of January 2, 2002, O'Neill gave an update to the Commissioners on
the status of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and stated he agreed that City
ownership of industrial land is critical to getting industrial development going, but
thought that use of the City (Remmele) site should be considered after other viable
options are exhausted. After discussing the Marketing Subcommittee's recommendation
and hearing O'Neill's report. the following motion was made.
HRA Recommendation
"A ~~~otion ~i~us made by Commissioner Brad Barger to recommend to the Planning
Commission aj~d the City Council to hove a completed industrial park otirned by the HRA
or' City tirith lots ready to sell in April of 2003. Commissioner Darrira Lahr seconded the
motioM and with no fzn~ther discussion, the motion carried unanimously. "
Again. the IDC and HRA request the Planning Commission and City Council consider
and incorporate their respective recommendations into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Update and Amendment and to take the applicable action to accomplish the
recommendations.
Supporting Data -Copy of Big Lake Industrial Development Plan and copy of Van
Allen's discussion with UMC.
• 2
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONTICELLO
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Balance Sheet
December 31, 2001
ASSETS
Cash in Bank $ 790,782.40
Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc. $ -0-
Notes Receivable - Muller Theatre $ -0-
Notes Receivable - SMM, Inc. $ -0-
Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp. $ -0-
Notes Receivable - Custom Canopy, Inc. $ -0-
Notes Receivable - Standard Iron $ -0-
Notes Receivable - Vector Tool $ 39,369.58
Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc. $ -0-
Notes Receivable - SELUEMED $ 20,467.90
Notes Receivable - T J Martin $ 60,097.27
Notes Receivable - Mainline Distribution $ 92,569.07
Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp II $ 94,643.96
Notes Receivable - TCDC $ 82,243.72
Dotes Receivable - IRTI $ 72,192.02
~otes Receivable - GWJ,LLC $ 29,777.68
otes Receivable - VisiCom $ 9,741.42
Appropriations Receivables -
2001 ~ -n-
TOTAL ASSETS
FUND EQUITY
$1,291,885.02
Fund Balance
Reserved for Participation Loans
(Economic Development)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
* 2001 transfer to Liquor Fund $77,000
Original Liquor Fund transfer to EDA $383,000.
$1,291,885.02
$1,291,885.02
r ~
J
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
2002 CASH FLOW PROJECTION
BEGINNING CASH BALANCE, January 2002
RECEIPTS
Appropriations, Expected -
GMEF
Notes Amortization Payments - $ 0
Tapper Inc.
Muller Theatre -0
SMM, Inc. -0-
Aroplax Corp. -0
Notes Receivable 0
Custom Cano
PY, Inc. -0
Standard Iron -0-
Vector Tool ($509.98 Mo.) 11-03
$ 0
119
6
7E
Tapper's II ,
.
SELUEMED -0
T.J. Martin ($1,716.12 Mo.) 3-05 $
$ 20,667.08
20
Mainline Distrib.($702.08 Mo.) 6-04
$ ,593.44
424
96
8
Aroplax Corp. II ($730.93 Mo.) 12-04 $ .
'
8
771
16
TCDC ($1,457.29 Mo.) 7-07 $ ,
.
17
4
IRTI ($549.57 Mo.) 10-06
$ ,
87.48
6
5
EDMA ($193.89 Mo.) 9-06 ,
70.84
VisiCom ($115.78 Mo
) 5-04 $ 2,326.68
.
Interest Income - Investment
(est . ) $
$ 1,389..x6
30
Loan Fees , 000.00
Loan Fees Other $ 400.00
Miscellaneous $ 191.75
$ 1,000 00
TOTAL RECEIPTS
TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND RECEIPTS
EXPENDITURES
GMEF Loans -
Production Stamping
UMC
Re-payment to Liquor
DMRF Grants
Chamber
Loans
Legal
iscellaneous
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
Fund $ 79,000.00
$ 12,827.18
$ 2,172.82
$ -0-
S 1,000.00
~ 1,000 00
EXPECTED CASH BALANCE, December 2002
$ 790,782.40
$ 123,942 51
$ 914,724.91
$ 446,000 00
$ 468,724.91
~Ci
Q
H
W
W
I-
Z
Z
Z
Q
W
W
U
Z
Q
J
Q
m
a
J
Q
d
U
Z_
d
O ~ O CD f~ f~ O M M r In N ~Y CD Ln CD
(p O Co r ~' ti r N In O l!7 I~ O r- M LCD
. . . . . .
O O M O M t,C) M f` r O M CO V r O N
1` M tt op I~ M O ~t N LI7 M r -~ O lf~ O
r (p M 07 N M N LCD ~' M M r ~f I~ M CO
tf~ M O of O O O ~~ O ~' N o0
~ r r r r r M r N r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 op O O 1~ h (D N N 00 N
0 0 0 0 0 0 lf) O O N O O f~ O CO d;
O O O O O O ai O I~ t` Oi c~i ch cV f` ~-
eo~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ti ~
O O O N ~' N N O O
M N CD O O 00 I~ N
O O O o 0 0 N O O M M ~t of OO N 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 cf O r t~ O O N O M t.C)
O O O O O O O O N N O CO CD I~ N N
O O O O O O M O M O M t.C) tf) O N O
O O O O tf~ O CD O lC) ~ ~t M I~ M N O
a0 O O lf') N lS~ 0 0 0 f~ I~ ~ ti
N Ln Lf') 00 ~ I~ r 0 d' N r
r
Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ o0000000000oooo~r
J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~t
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In O O O l!~ O CD
J a0 O O tf~ N 117 O O O f` O O O N O O
Q 00 to lC) 00 ~ 1~ t1') O 1` 00 O O O 1~ M r
Z r r r r
~_
O
.-.
~ O O p ~
M O~ O O O
O O O
O O ....~ ~ N ~ ~
,~ O ~ C O .-. .-. .. O O
QOj ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ I- ~ O ~ ~ ,~ O
~~ O~ ~~ ~ O~ O U~ v
r v
r O U c c~ -- o -~ ~ ~ E
~ a~i c E h o rn o~ N rn p a~ r o
~ L fB X Q ~ ~ r ~ ` O ~ ~ O •~
i ~ .Q ~ ~ N Q. ~ ~ ~ r ~ -p O
~ ~ d ~ ~ = N ~ ~ ~ v ~_ ~ v ~
aci o ~ ° U ~ U a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ Q '
Q ~ E ~ ~
`m ~ ~ aci ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ r
aa~ a,o ~,om~c~~~Q~ ~w~
d ~ L ~C f~ O r M d' ~ O -~ 00 O
~ ~ ~ V = O r r r r r r r r r
F- ~ m Cn m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
O
N
O
M
N
N
O
N
O
r
r
O
O
M
r
~'
O
O
r
O
Ef3
O
0
r
r
r
J
Q
F-
N
O
O
N
v
0
~,i
X
Q
W
o ~ o `0v, ago v ~ c o ~ ^ °~
q CO M _ ~ ~ N q M
(D CD O OMO ~ ~ q ~- r ~ ~
N N r-- lC) CV ~-
~ `- ~" N N «~ t~ ~
~ .-
_Z
Z
Q
W
F-
W
W Q) O) pOj q~ Q1 O) q O q p J
Z .- .- r. rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O F¢-
H ~
Z ~
W
H
W
Z
y
I.n
RS
7~. .7y
~ v ~
~
~1 ~ y y
h iw L L ~ O
~
~ N ~ ~ ~
v
ue
~
~
y O ~ .
~ ~ s
~''
~n N ~
~ ~ N ~
~ ° ~n ~ >, >,
~ o 0 0 ,~ ~
c0
c ,~ o a
i
o° o 0 0~ o ~, >
°~ R , ~ o
a a .a ~ .o v~~ O o 0
>
y "t3 ~ }"
>'
v ' ~ O O ~ N v >' ~,' O ~ R
'~ O
N ~ N N N
o ~
N
~
~ >,
~ N
C~ ~ '~ O
N 0 -C3 [~ v .~ N ~ O p ~ d N o N O
~
N «3 :O N w ~ '" '" ~ N N
~" ~ O O
O cC ++
~
O oo O ~ LC O ~ R ~ i N~,~ O ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
~ R R
~
~ c
0
o O~ ~ ~ t17 ~ o R ~ O..
~ o~ N L~ r4 q to O N
00 00 Lf) °~ ~ ~ ~C ~O O ~O O N ~ n oo
~ ~
'''' ~ ~
~ O ++ ~ I.f)
RS Rf ~ ~' O .u O ~p
RS O lC O i i LA
~
0
O
O
C O O O
0
~ O
O
to O O
O ft? ~ ffl O U ~ ~ eM
O
O N ~ O p C~ ~ CJ ~
O
~
~
~ cC
q
~
~
~ d3 ER
p Ef3
y. O [] GJ O
O
~
5
F?-
-[
vi .
~. ~
vi ,,,• ~ 59 y ~ O ~
~ ~ C Gl M f~
~ 41 41 G1 t4
V 'C! ~ tC ~
~
0!
~ ¢ O
v ~ ~. _~
C
Q ~ H cn N
,
F+ S
W ~
~ 1
r-+ N ~ tC)
0 0 O O
~ n
~ ~ ~ ~ n q ~ ~
-r
~
O O O '-r '-~ '""' N
O
O
O
O e
~
ti
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-.~
O N
c
C ~ RS c
C
O O O O C C C G G C C
R
O O O O O O
O q
p O O O O ~
w w Gz, w F
F
w w w w w w w w w w w w ~
X
W
~7~