Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-20-1976AGENDA
Monticello Planning Commission
Tuesday - April 20, 1976 - 7:30 P.M.
Chairman: Howard Gillham
Members: Fred Topel, Jim Ridgeway, Henry Doerr,
Dr. C. D. Bauer, J. W. Miller.
1. Approval of March 16, 1976 minutes.
2. Public hearing on rezoning request for Elderly Housing
Project - John Bergstad.
3. Public hearing - rezoning request by Curtis Hoglund for
Machinery Sales.
4. Public hearing on rezoning request by Stuart Iloglund P
for motel.
5. Public hearing - conditional use permit for 4 unit family
dwelling -Jay Miller.
6. Public hearing - request for rezoning - Howard Gillham
for billboards.
7. Request for variance on sign requirements - Kentucky
Fried Chicken.
.9. Request for variance- on side yard setback requirements -
Arve Grimsmo.
Mailing to: Stuart Hoglund
I' Curtis Iloglund
.. Arve Grimsmo
t John Berkst.ad
Rick Fencis
Howard Dahlgren
Agenda Supplement
tem 2. Rezoning Request for Elderly Housing - John Bergstad.
This matter was taken up at the March 16, 1976 Planning
Commission meeting and the main problem centered around
the parking requirements. Included in the fifty unit
proposal was parking for twenty five spaces.
Contacts were made with several outstate communities
with parking for elderly units varying from 22 to 50
per cent. In talking to various cities they expressed
differences of opinions as to whether 50 per cent was
adequate and some had experienced some problems, however,
there were others who have twenty five per cent and they
felt this was adequate.
A petition has been received from senior citizens
indicating 103 people would be interested in an
elderly housing project. Almost 55 per cent further indicated
they needed a parking space, however in talking with Karen
Hanson, senior citizen center director, she indicated that
this per, cent drops way down when considering those on the
petition who would fall in the lower income categories.
A petition has also been received from fifteen property
owners in the area who are opposed to the project..
Mr. Bergstad has been working on obtaining additional land
for parking through means of outright. purchase or option,
which he would exercise as the need arises.
Also of some concern was the ability of the fire department.
to fight, a fire in a three story Niilding. I have talker) to
Like fire chief, ked Michaelis, and he was concerned that. the
apartment should have a sprinkler system and Mr. Dergstad indica-
ted this would be put, in. rhe city rlur_s not own a ladder truck
so additional ground ladders would have to be purchaser) for a
three story building.
Item 3. Rezoning Request. by Curtis Iinglund.
Curtis lloglund is requesting the parcel of land on which
his equipment sales area is located be rezoned from R-3
(medium density residential) to I1-4 (veninnal Nosiness).
Reasoning behind request is that under the current zoning,
Mr. Hoglund cannot expand his business whereas, if it were
zoned to B-4 our zoning ordinances could be amended to
allow for such a use in this district.
This matter was brougH.up at the Commission's February 18,
1976 meeting and was referred to Howard Dahlgren, city
planner, for further review and recommendations. Also,
to be considered were other property owners in area who
wished their property rezoned.
Howard Dahlgren met with Curtis Hoglund and other property
owners in the area and indicated the wholezoping situation
would be reviewed after the completion of the second phase
of the Comprehensive Plan which would include the orderly
annexed area. Since the property in question was on the
outer limits of the city, the zoning in the orderly annexed
area could result in some changes of zoning of the area. Un-
less they wanted to pursue the matter before then, the prop-
erty owners were told it would be reviewed in conjunction
with the orderly annexed area.
Curtis Hoglund has decided to go ahead with his application
at this Lime as he would like to expand, possibly this
summer.
Item 4. Request, for Rezoning - Stuart Hoglund.
Mr. Stuart Hoglund of Monticello, along with lid Larson,
Steve Ellefson and Melvin Flick all of Sauk Rapids, art--
proposing
rcproposing a 42 unit motel to be situated on an eleven acre
site. They reviewed their proposal at. Lite March 16, 1976
Planning Commission meeting and indicated site could be
expanded to 100 units.
Mr. Stuart Hoglund owns the parcel to be rezoned and is
requesting that. an additional twenty acres adjoining the
site also be rezoned fur a total of 31 acres.
initial plans indicate a cocktail lounge seating 73
people and a restaurant. seating 118 people.
'Lnning request would be from 1-2 and a small section that
is 1-1 to 11-3.
-3 -
While the developers are interested in both city sewer
and water, they indicated they could provide their own sewage
system and it would appear that water would be forthcoming
within one year if the city goes ahead with the construction
of a ground storage water reservoir system
Item 5. Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit Request by
Jay Miller for a 4 Unit Family Dwelling in a R-2.
Jay Miller is proposing a four (4) unit apartment at the
NW corner of Fourth Street and Minnesota, Block 27, Lot S.
Since this is in an R-2 zoning district, a conditional use
permit is necessary under our zoning ordinances.
For your information, the following is a list of some
applicable provisions of our ordinances pertaining to
building and parking requirements, etc.:
Ordinance Reference Subject
10-3-3 (C) Setback requirements:
R-2 Front & rear = 30'; side = 10' -
except for corner lots which are 201
on street side.
10-3-4-(B) Lot Area:
2,000 sq. ft. per unit
10-3-4-(D) Uscable Open Space:
500 sq. ft per unit
10-3-4-0) Floor Area:
720 sq. ft.. per unit for 2 bedronm units
10-3-5-(0-8-0 Parking Area:
Shall have curb harrier.
10 -3 -5 -(D) -8-P Parking Area:
Shall be screened by means of fence
or planting strip.
1L would appear LhoL all provisions of the ordinances are
adhered Ln except, a setback variance would be necessary
for side yard requirement since it is on a corner. Variance
would bo 8 feel.. �.Of
The apartment complex is 3,744 sq. feel., 2 bedrooms and
has 4 garages. Copy of plan is available at. City Ifni!.
-4 -
Item G. Request for Rezoning - Howard Gillham.
Enclosed, please find a copy of a letter from White
Advertising International to Mr. Howard Gillham.
In effect, the letter indicates that unless the tract of
land owned by Mr. Gillham bordering the freeway is re-
zoned from residential to commercial or industrial.
three current billboards will have to come down plus Mr.
Gillham loses a fourth potential billboard.
As a result, Mr. Gillham stands to lose $2,000 in rentals
per year and therefore has applied for rezoning the land
to commercial.
It should be pointed out the current city ordinance does
not allow billboards. However, the city council decided
to "grandfather" any current billboards, plus any sites
for which a permit had been applied for and thus "grand-
fathered" in all of Mr. Gillham's billboards including
the one proposed for a period of five years.
Problem: The problem is the state will not recognize
the city's grandfather clause unless the property is
rezoned to commercial or, industrial, and therefore under
present conditions has ordered the signs taken down.
ILem 7. Request for Variance on Sign Requirements - Kentucky
Fried Chicken.
Kentucky Fried Chicken has applied for a sign permit to
install the standard Kentucky Fried Chicken sign. Several
variances need he granted if the sign is to be allowed
and they arc its fol lows:
I. Size- Since Kentucky Pried Chicken is in H-3 zoning
district and is desirous of putting up it combination
of a pylon sign and a wall sign, they would fall
under ordinance Section 10-3-9-00-2-(2) which
would allow a wall sign of 101, of silhouette arra
of front of bui Iding ar a maximum of 1111) squarc
feet. plus a pylon sign of 50 square feet, wi th an
15 foot, height limitation.
Problem: Kentucky pried Chicken propuses a sign
which is 112 square feet.; however, this by itself
could las allowed if the perimeter around the letter-
ing would be 50 square feet. It, is proposed at, o2
square fret. Additional problems arise as a revolving
six font, bucket with lettering is proposed and No
is it changeable rupy panel adverciaing specials. etr.
ZZ
2. Height: Ordinance section allows 18 feet in a 30
MPH zone on a major thoroughfare, see ordinance
Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2 -(B) -(4) -III.
Problem: Proposed sign is over thirty feet high.
3. Revolving sign: Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -2-(C)
prohibits signs which move or rotate.
Problem: Bucket rotates.
4• Flashing sign: Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -2-(H)
prohibits flashing sign.
Problem: Sign includes arrow which flashes.
Item 8. Request for variance on side yard set back requirements -
Arve Grimsmo.
Mr. Grimsmo's home is situated on Lot 1, Block 9 of Lower
Monticello and he would like to add on to his garage.
In order to do this he is requesting the city allow him
to go up to the property line on Hennepin Street (see
map enclosed) since the street only leads into the river.
In checking with our engineers, there is a future storm
sewer planned for Hennepin Street leading into the river;
however, the street. right-of-way of 40 feet, is adequate
to place this storm sewer line without. obtaining case-
ments from abutting property owners.
PLANNING REPORT
Applicant: Kentucky Fried Chicken
Variances to Sign Regulations
Stewart Hoglund
Rezoning from I-1 and I-2 to B-3
Howard Gillham
Rezoning from Commercial to
Accommodate Billboards
Curtis Hoglund
Rezoning from R-3 to B-4
PREPARED FOR:
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
PREPARED BY:
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES, INC.
April 20, 1976
April 20, 1976
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT: Cedarcrest Elderly Housing Development
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Fourth Street and
Cedar Street (see sketch)
ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning of Property from R-1 to R -B
and Approval of Conditional Use Permit
for Elderly Housing Development
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. We have previously submitted a report on the elderly housing project,
and therefore have not been requested to prepare a second report.
We would like to briefly comment, however, on one significant fact:
As expressed in our previous report, the site area is minimal
producing difficulty in providing adequate future parking
area as required by the ordinance. This same inadequacy of
of site area is a major contributor to the problem of compatability
of the structures and use with the contiguous single family
area. In other words, a major solution to the problem of
parking and compatability is more adequate land area.
2. We suggest that this point be stressed with the applicant as a constructive
suggestion to offering a possible solution to this proposal.
N,
-- - -7 - - - t�
,41
Pt
W4 1,
---------------------- -------
7
PEE k�rrii I ti
4�JVL 'rt co" ,
u
Ll ,
+
DATE April 20, 1976
APPLICANT: Stewart Hoglund
ACTION: Rezoning from 1-1 and 1-2 to B-3
April 20, 1976
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT: Stewart Hoglund
LOCATION: Southwest of County Road 117 (see sketch)
ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from 1-1 and I-2 to B-3
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1: Mr. Hoglund along with other investors from Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, we
understand are proposing to construct a 42 unit motel to be situated
on eleven (11) acres of the 31 acres in question. We understand that
this proposal was discussed at the March 16th meeting of the Planning
Commission at which time they indicated the motel may be expanded to
100 units.
2. Though we have not seen the plans, we understand that the facility
includes a cocktail lounge seating 73 persons and a restaurant seating
118 people. An eleven (11) acre site would in fact accommodate
approximately 200 units should that be desirable.
3. At previous Planning Commission discussion and hearings, the Commission
has agreed with the concept of promoting the hotel or motel potential
in the vicinity of the intersection of Trunk Highway 25 and Interstate 94.
We feel that the development of such a facility will considerably
enhance the City of Monticello's position as a sub -regional center for
commerce, industry, medial facilities, and education. The addition
of a well designed motel with restaurant and cocktail lounge facilities
and meeting room facilit•.es will considerably enhance the positive list
of criteria needed to fulfill its industrial potential. We suggest
that the attraction for additional industrial base to the City of
Monticello is crucial to its success. In short, the addition of a
hotel facility will be an asset in furthering this objective.
4. We suggest that the zoning in question for the site and the contiguous
20 acre property is appropriate and in the community interest.
. � J
�' \
.'�� I „ ':
r�.-%
i J J ��
' �.,'1\\ \`. MSC': �nc1� � �nY°�\ _
� ,M1
,`�r
�� ' '�
April 20, 1976
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT: Curtis Hoglund
LOCATION: Northerly Intersection of County
Roads 39 and 75
ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from R-3 to B-4
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property in question consists of approximately 10.1 acres as
measured by planimeter in our office. This is a substantial commercial
area approximately the size of the new shopping center on High.aay 25
and Interstate 94 including a Country Kitchen site and the Kentucky
Fried Chicken site. Portions of the land have been used and are
currently occupied by a farm implement business which was located on
the site when County Road 75 was Trunk Highway 152 and served as a
major regional arterial highway.
The sketch at the left indicates the property line of the property in
question on the topo map showing the location of buildings as relates
to the terrain. We have added to this map the platted lots that are
contiguous to the property on Mississippi Drive and contiguous to the
river frontage. We had proposed the land for apartment use hoping
ultimately for a mixed development design which would he computable
with the single family lots and what we consider to be a considerable
single family residential potential in this part of tte City. Because
of the close proximity of the river we suggest that a residential
neighborhood here be riot strung out in a long strip al -.,ng the river
fighting with commercial uses contiguous to the highway. Our Comprehensive
Plan adopted by the Planning Commission and Council emphasizes the
concentration of commercial development in the downtown area and in
the shopping center area in the vicinity of the intersection of
Interstate 94 and Highway 25. We have noted in earlier hearings that
large scale commercial zoning in advance in the vicinity of County
Roads 39 and 75 would commit the City to a pattern of continuous "strip
commercial" from County Road 39 to the freeway to the east. Such "strip
commercial" has been proven toproduce a very undesirable aesthetic
gatowdy to the City. Looking at many Minnesota communities who have
allowed this to occur, demonstrates this point very cledrly.
'r ..• l i ,.•u1 1:,,i i, i, , r d, , 1-,l r.r' i I , alt.. -nd t"' • •for
desires the ontiuling of tha/-010111119 requested. One option we suggest
for consideration, is tha rezoning of a portion of the land to accomodate
the expansion with the intent of keeping the regional comzor'cial zone
away from the irmiediate single family lots to the north. We fear,
irresprctive of who own> the lots that the potential for developing
these lots for gond single family home sites will he substantially
reduced if the hind irc.lediately contiguous is zoned 0-4, Regional Colmu,reial.
In view of the large scale of the property in question (lar(ie enouqh
Curtis Hoglund
April 20, 1976 Page Two
for another shopping center), it would appear a reduced proposal for
a smaller land area could ultimately be used for a small neighborhood
commercial service center and ancillary uses.
4. The open sales lot feature of a farm implement business is frequently
not attractive to an inmediate residential area. This is particularly
true if it covers vast areas of land. We suggest therefore, that the
confining of the use to a smaller space could be in the best interests
of all including that of the applicant.
April 20, 1975
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT: Kentucky Fried Chicken
LOCATION: Next to the Country Kitchen Restaurant
on Hi ghway 25 (see sketch)
ACTION REQUESTED: Variances to Sign Regulations
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. As you all know, a permit has been issued for the Kentucky Fried Chicken
operation following review and approval of their site development plan.
At the time this action was taken, the applicants were aware of the
signing requirements and proposed no variances for their site. We
assumed (as perhaps you all did) that the sign regulations would be
adhered to considering the review of the site plan, parking, access, etc.
2. The ordinance would allow them a sign consisting of an area ten percent
(10';) of the silouette area of the front of the building or a maximum
100 square feet plus a pylon sign of 50 square feet with an 18 foot
height limitation. They propose to construct d siqn of 112 feet which 3
we understand includes a 62 square foot area around the letters themselves.
Ik It would appear that this could be adjusted to meet the 100 foot limita-
tion.
3. In addition, they propose a revolving six (6) foot bu.ket with lettering
as well as a changeable copy panel board of some kin,l. UP h-ive not ;een
the specific drawings of these proposals, which we assump. will he av,ilable
at the meeting itself.
4. :Wherein the proposed height of the sign is allowed to be 18 feet. in the
ordinance, we understand the applicant proposo�, the sign to be 30 feet
high. In addition the "bucket" rotates and include. a flashing arrow
%,hich is also prohibited by ordinance.
5. Ue suggest that the solution In this caro is a sirple one; the applicant
should sirply follow the provisions of the ordinance which are i:� affek:t
an,1 I.noim to the „r at the tire they oppiied for the ;iu- plan appi-w-11 and
building pciiait.
yam':>•,%� ;a � ,: t'c"4�"- �.�,�,.,'-'+�, � 1� ' J�/`,�
00 Co:in�rr AAs
DAF``�pyS: �acyon�,l9\a c ���,��
pC11�;1: pcca�'�
em 4
0
04
fk
April 20, 1976
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The sketch at the left indicates
Mr. Wieber. The following is a
described by Fir. Wieber:
Howard Gillham
Elm Street to County Road 39, Contiguous
to Interstate 94
Rezoning to Coamercial to Accommodate
Billboards
the property as referred to us by
description of the problem as
"Request for Rezoninq - Howard Gillham
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from White Advertising
International to Mr. Howard Gillham. In effect, the letter
indicates that unless the tract of land owned by Mr. Gi llham
bordering the freeway is rezoned from residential to corr.^.ercial
or industrial three current billboards will have to come down
plus Mr. Gillham loses a fourth potential billboard.
As a result, Mr. Gillham stands to lose $2,000 in rental,, per
year and therefore has applied for rezoning the land to commercial.
It shoald be pointed out the current City ordinance does not
allow iillboards. However, the City Council decided to
"granaiather" any current billboards, plus any sites for which
a permit had been applied for and thus "grandfathered" in all
of Mr. rillham's billboards including the one proposed for a
period of five (5) years.
Problem: The problem is the stoic will not recognize the. City's
grandfather clause unless the property is rezoned to c,u:�ereial
or industrial, and therefore under prcunL ennditions hal, ordered
the rime taken down."
Snhjrct to ',It,! review of the actual JMcrilrtion n, the laid proposed
for rrzunin7. it would appear that tho truol.ge rnvolvnd along
Ii! i. id',, ,.;.r, i,r. rlf (.) .;l.�or
toot. It the H,-nninil Cos !aission and CUnncII feel t1wL al i of the land
cu itiyuous to thr fre^.vay should he zmied co,^vreial nr industrial,
this• proponil �Jv,uld be approved. We F nhn,';L, however, that thcve
rail I r.ot be ad,'qudtV uor•i.�reial or industrial domand Lu ful fill this
ohJCCtive. We sun'1(!st that lands for crmxertrdl and industrial development
should b� rezoned only where the obvious putential exit,ts. BIdnkot
rezoning of commercial land partiCuldrly tan have a disa;tt•rnus ifivct
nn the overall developt:ent pattern o" thr ro.^:,rorty destroying sure
arras where co,:-:.rcial should he devolupod. Fury co.:mirnities do
Howard Gillham
April 20, 1976 Page Two
not zone any commercial or industrial land until actual development
is proposed. We suggest that the basic pattern should be established
where the criteria exists for successful development occurring.
Rezonings beyond that we suggest should be considered if a specific
proposal is brought forward validating the location for commercial
development.
3. The rezoning of land to commercial should be taken as a very serious
decision in as much as the courts take a very dim view of rezoning the
land for less intensive uses at a later date. in other words, the
rezoning of any lands to commercial or industr•idl should be considered
a permanent decision.
The zoning ordinance adopted by the City establishes a policy against
the construction of future billboards. If the City disagrees with this
policy then the ordinance should be changed. We suggest, however•, that
the amenities and physical appearance of a community is greatly affected
by the existance (or non-existance) of billboards.
The State of Hawaii forbids billboards entirely. Likewise the State of
Vermont has taken similar action. Communities such as Palm Springs,
California have adopted very strict sign regulations which ma4.e an
amazing difference to the appearance of the community. if then, the
Planning Commission and Council feel that the physical environment of
the co:rrrunity is important to its potential growth and orelfare, a
restrictive policy on billboards is recommended.
b. We certainly have no desire to limit ur infringe on anyone's ability to
make a profit on land. Sometimes however, that consideration my be
of les: concern than the over all welfare of the community.
23
•
-2
C -fl. I4, /97C
D-,Lt"l 'hv 11%Ac�a'L:
0AL1,M; 'L' Ghay V , I!U
urTU�-N,ct�LJVl tG ' TiL-c CLW
(0, IJI-.I i a P � o„ ik, /2
�s.tl�-eQ �.�� 0. �� .r,, :�,, (o .nLwi, 0 f[ULLLr�LULc O
ccf tG�o Ceca�Lo,. �oa—^C� " 5, ,I�CL�,o1—Z
2 enc ,� �euc 2(0^ .tI1.
` V
v . t. pit tiCh
ow
y. ,.a n ft'rLVif\
CV4 , _LI Lll tN IJ (LIPC�rDD� f�.l p,ti�l•1111 't"ale n"l1l°7�..1 '1 ll-tl'r17�
AQ.RLl(tG�L.(i•1>�,Ce�t4lA.c�Cko. c�(C
�CL�•.CtCLllt J.d �cl_,I aI.tt�.V-.1 nto71 .Ctt�u:t•'�r,`G�til,[���AULna.L.
IILL'ttik v .LI .A -lir cu c �; H 4/ 441 4t, X) tot �cm.i,�gJ
q
(•fAl!*..
J&Re Z � .irL�4 LLaa � A(b- 0(4,
l &U, Jet SLCax&w,.lrieLQ (toec�l
�r .O.�c 0.r••.a nou+�t� mtu.CL't cduc��.e�me�� .Hu�Q��.ut/�..cao�p�iuutrQ
LL A-I�� . rtr11. Cl IDtL R r� Ccs ��4 n oe1Ye_ fY� j C�ic c�'�� W0 Q� tJ�c .Qc �, t �o
'30
������"" , ""�� .t tlIilI� t�r�J .�A 1►� iexU ��//�� Q IM/g 7j -e^ �'L-
Tt; ekr� _, UUUU cQ ie � ona L�- 1n w.t •
C� Q
April 20, 1076
PLAVNING :tEPCRT
AN&ICAtTa Larry Flake and Associates
LOCATI0:7, South of I94 S Jest of LM
ACTIC,J REQL'ESTEDi Approval of Motel in area already
zoned 33
PLAwax:; cv:,,sIDERArio::St
1. Larry Flake along with other Invastors, proposes to construct an
80 to 100 unit notal, to be situated on nine acres of seventeen acres
presently zoned 33. de believe this location is ideal, as It is loc-
ated within view of I94 and would be especially noticeable for traffic
from the .:cat, which would be more likely the traveler lookina for a
notol. Cars travoling from the East, have just left the motro-
petition area, and would more than likely be looking for accomodations
further away.
2. Jo have the proliminary plons, plus site piano to show the planning com-
mission what wo have in nind. Thoao plans call for a Cocktail lounge.
with a sooting capacity of up to 208, and a separate dincra area, seating
to 110. Yhoro is a separate Banquet room with a coating capacity, for
dinner, of up to 112. The plans also call for an Inside swimming pool
arca.
You will note, there in no coffee loungo, and thin In loft out purposely,
as we will be subaittin3 a plan In the near future for a 24 hour tancako
Aoataurnnt to bo built next door.
3. :o know that tho 8lanninj Camission is wall aware of the nood for a proper
::etol in the community, and that the location we have, to the Ideal place
to attract the travoling public. '',10 have also dootanod the buildin- an
thcro will be a lower level parking area for those dociring to got their
zero out of the weather during the front, snow, and rainy ocamono. More
will also be hoo:c-up facilities for an3lno heaters, which will help at-
tract winter travolora, as not all ::otols can offor those accomodationa.
Thlo plan is also designed to phaco the capacity from the original con-
struction to a 200 plus capacity.
4. Thoco facilities do tako into consideration, the needs of local rosldonta
for a full entertainment center, with a dance floor, stago, swirming,
and handuot facilitlos.
CHURCH OF SAINT HENRY
Telephone 612 295.2402 501 West Fourth St., Monticello, Minnesota 55362
April 13, 1')76
aonticello Planning Corrionion
City Hall
Monticello, :Minn. 55362
Dcar Siro:
The St. henry Finance Cor:Attec discussed the aucntion
of n Conditional Use Per -nit for a 4 unit aparUient on Lot 5,
Block 27, which io Lhc prowrty across the otmclt fm.i our
Siotero convent. It uno a!•re-d t',nt we could '.:eve no
objection to ouch a une providrd ndrquetc n''i-:,tre t 1:on:in,
wras nonux-md.
5inrrrroly,
Ruv. Robrrt .l. Di �Pa.^.�'o•
arlj
Ilo - Vac - , Io+- , ,e J (:- 1ju. .�!m - 4m
l.(/L .ULC. �i��LLs7.ak•trj1s� G}(lntc�•✓ ` sCsyls�Lc�d7
1.t1 S/J 74/.�C. K
p�
,tip- .�uL.c. ,L,a, �. �.,.a..2'�/ /JLeL� o7s•ri �i.`/-
�� 7Jofsao.,b
,�o..7w,
�n�7 tJi.r. 1.� �.s�. y%%nsf..c�Lla•J• L✓ -L !.u-oxldOO `li[ cwtc•.soG�C
.�.,c/
Qa•Gc�a.rQ �oc,QQ•�'. /. '/- '. _ ! -c� � �L d�tsL� uc
i%is�,�.cc�!!d
9 YY. y%7aLwL/7iadE
No
IV o
O• �uo�l
�'es
9• �� �mz�t/t
1�0
y2z.- L/� i,4., �7
Cs
/
aJ
N0
/IJ.C�
/J�e,"
tj =LD1» J. -�
.2? -
tics
i, f/,�r .0 i�. 714�•� .tVJk,y�•/y.
I +t S
�7. J
1G�.
O
�S• �icclvuc. Cl�1C�cwni
Nu
No
31 ✓1 MtA-1 aa, � l a c �t4ciu , rJ
IV o
3`i U� �il<c/wGil
LfO
'I: (C' UOV.
qrs
1 /
C
lam, `IJLc%Jc_G,
,10
110
Jo
do
`r
110
S7i)) 1 4i /r',
Jb'✓SJ a7f y. v1G.�elI�van� 11 c.,
0
(ol , 11IZ�L4✓,Qdc
yrs
63612•NY72, t✓`(. (C�ld�rO�•ro�r✓
tfr%
i lC
`1YG-�. ��L�.n�ac/tt✓
�j),� . a (/n,Utcw
1� rS
7Y 772, f6&& -a
yrs
7S �d
/%i71.•� /II. , ..2uc✓ Ct,�lu..a..,
UCS
o
U II L..Y• µ�I�✓f.
Llr�
�J"Y��LG�
110
; l Zdf' � -
r )3,v
✓,
y , �,��. r
r it,
0
�/{• • L VI }�i1 LC.. GC J.I U/
�rS
NyJ2.u.
�!d'•�JL. /�Cl�s
• v 11/w. •rC J! l/�R�ur��
•uV7
(�CS
/7 /� �C(:•i KJ/�1
Po
J �
/[r) ✓/�a_/did •
do
�c• .� Gia/.. ;�(JGL!
cs
y
/
II041iSon.d)cceluc 0AcA.cAto
e vl r_� &,,,u c ,1, yeia.
PLEASE
OMIT
THE
PREVIOUS
DOCUMENT