Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 04-26 MEMORANDUM TO: The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group • George Lucht (liaison) Louis Sullivan, Chairman Everett Lindh Mrs. David Brandvold Ben Davidson June Scofield Dolores Hastings FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection' SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 79018 (Rezoning) DATE: April 26, 1979 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing held on April 12, 1979 and has referred this matter to your Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application was submitted by Mr. Arthur Kvamme, who seeks rezoning from R1 (Single Family) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) of an approximate 32 acre site located between 55th and 56th Avenues at approxi- mately Aldrich Avenue North. The property is bounded on the north by 56th Avenue; on the south by 55th Avenue; on the east by single family residential homes facing Camden Avenue; and on the west by single family residential homes facing Bryant Avenue. The land in question includes what is presently Madsen Floral property and the property owned by Mrs. Olga Madsen at 5501 Aldrich Avenue North. In addition, the rezoning proposal includes the south 168' of 803 and 809 - 56th Avenue North. The north 168' of 806 - 55th Avenue North ,ra +h„ ­4 -k i co 1 „r- onn 11+, We have received confirmation from the owners of the properties in question that they are in favor of the rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from the applicant indicating his plans to develop a townhouse condominium complex consisting of seven quadra homes totaling 28 units. The applicant has also i:l- dicated his desire to develop the complex as a owner - occupied development which he feels would be more in keeping with the single family homes in the area. The following information is enclosed for your review. 1. A copy of the April 12, 1979 Planning Commission minutes relating to Application No. 79018. 2. Planning Commission information sheet for Application No. 79018. 3. A letter from Arthur Kvamme requesting the rezoning. 4. A copy of Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances regarding Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 5. Two maps of the area. The meeting has been scheduled for Thursday evening,,May 3, 1979 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission would appreciate your comments and /or your recommendations in writing within the next 30 days. Thank you for your cooperation. 'Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79018 Applicant: Arthur Kvamme Location: 5500 Block between Camden and Bryant Avenues North . Request: Rezoning The applicant is seeking rezoning from Rl (Single Family Residential) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) of an approximate 3.5 acre tract located within the 5500 Block between Camden Avenue North and Bryant Avenue North. The property is bounded on the north by 56th Avenue; on the south by 55th Avenue; on the east by single family residential homes facing Camden Avenue; and on the west by single family residential homes facing Bryant Avenue. The land in question in- cludes what is presently the Madsen's Floral property and the property owned by Mrs. Olga Madsen at 5501 Aldrich Avenue North. In addition, the rezoning proposal includes the south 168 feet of 803 and 809 -56th Avenue North, the north 163 feet of 806 - 55th Avenue North and the north 153 feet of 800 - 55th Avenue North. We have received the confirmation from the owners of the property in question that they are in favor of the rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter (attached) from the applicant indicating his plans to develop a townhouse condominium complex consisting of seven quadra homes totaling 28 units. The applicant has also indicated the desire to develop the complex as a owner- occupied development which he feels would be more in keeping with the single family homes in the area. The applicant contends that the rezoning to R3 is feasibile and acceptable for the following reasons: 1. The area is in need of a condominium complex for the many older residents who now inhabit the area and no longer desire to individually maintain their building and yard exteriors. L. All public utilities to service the area are available ana no further expansion of public streets or utilities is necessary for the project. 3. The joint effort and combining of the properties in the rezoning proposal eliminates potentially landlocked property and makes practical use of the land. 4. Traffic to the area will be less than that of employees and customers currently associated with Madsen Floral Company. 5. The development of the property as R3 will result in a larger tax base for the City than that of the existing structures. 6. Thl- City will rid itself of a "nonconforming use" (Madsen Floral) which currently exists on a great portion of the site. A portion of the property in question was made eligible for apartment development in 1960 by a special use permit. No plans were ever approved for apartments and in 1963, with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the land reverted to the Rl classification. In 1970, the applicant proposed a rezoning to R4, but this proposal was denied by the City Council following Planning Commission review and a public hearing. The Council determined, at that time, that the proposal was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and would constitute spot zoning if approved. 4 -12 -79 -1- Application No. 79018 The Comprehensive Plan, in its recommendations for the southeast neighborhood states: "permit up to 12 story apartment buildings at no more than 12 units per acre within the older portion of the neighborhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial streets ... by restricting development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved and some of the demand for rental family living within neighborhoods will be met." Regard- ing townhouse development, the Comprehensive Plan designates a tract of land at the southeast corner of Highway 100 and Interstate 94 for future development of this type. To develop the land in question under its existing R1 zoning would be possible by dedication of land for a cul -de -sac 50 feet wide with a variance from the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Otherwise, a variance from Chapter 35 would be required to permit lots of less than 110 feet in depth if the property were developed with an extension of Aldrich Avenue North as a public street between 56th and 55th Avenues. It is possible that either type of variance might be permitted since a literal reading of the ordinance requirement would deny the owners the reasonable use of their land. The applicant in his letter, indicates that the development of this property as R1 with a public street would be economically unfeasible since the costs to remove the greenhouses and residents, compensation for the loss of property and business location, and the cost of street utilities acquired by the City would result in the end in a sizeable net loss to the owners of the property. The guidelines for evaluating rezoning proposals contained in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances are attached for review by the Commission. Careful review of the policy and review guidelines should be undertaken by the Commission in reviewinq this rezoninq proposal. it is felt that the Commission should cdrefuiiy consider the applicant's contention that there is a need in this area for addi- tional R3 zoned property and also, the viability of developing the land under its existing R1 zoning. The existing zoning should be proven to be a clearly inferior alternative to the proposed R3 zoning from a public standpoint rather than only from an economic consideration. The Commission traditionally refers rezoning applications to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. It is recommended that the Commission, after conducting a public hearing and discussing the request, table the application and refer it to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and comment. The applicant has also indicated a desire for the Commission to review and comment on the possibility of a later variance request from buffer requirements if the rezoning proposal were approved. I will be prepared to review the nature of this request at Thursday evening's meeting and comment relative to it. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 4 -12 -79 -2- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY'OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION April 12, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 8:06 p.m. ROLL CAL Chair,an�Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary noted that Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Manson had each called him and informed him that they would be unable to attend. APPROVAL OF M INUT ES - Marc 2.9, 1 979 Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Corinissioners Hawes and Lucht. Nat voting: Commissioner Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLIC ATION NO 79 018 (Ar Kvamme) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item to be considered was a request submitted by Arthur Kvamme rezoning certain property from Rl (Single Family Resi- dential) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartmants). The Secretary explained that the applicant wished to rezone an approximate 3.5 acre tract located within the 5500 bloc': between Camden Avenue North and Bryant Avenue North. He described the pro!)prty in oupstion as nPina bounced on the north by 56Lh Avenue ivur Lh, uii L;lu south by 55th Avenue North, on the east by single family residential homes tacing Camden Avenue and on the west by single - Family residential homes facing Bryant Avenue. In addition to what is presently the Madsen Floral property, the property owned by Mrs. 'Olga Madsen at 5500 Aldrich Avenue North and rear portions of lots at 803 and 809 - 56th Avenue North and 806 and 800 55th Avenue North were in- cluded in the rezoning request. The Secretary stated that the applicant intended to construct seven quadra homes of 4 units each totaling 28 units if the rezoning were approved. He also cited the arguments made by the applicant in a letter of application. These included: - the fact that the area is in need of a condominium complex for many of the older residents in the area; that public utilities to service the area are already available; that the joint effort of combining the properties in the rezoning eliminates potentially landlocked property and makes practical use of the land; that traffic to the area will be decreased; that the development will increase the City's tax base; and that the City would rid itself of a nonconforming use (Madsen Floral). The Secretary reviewed briefly the history of the parcel. A portion of the property, he explained, was made eligible for apartment development in 1960 by a special use peri;iit. However, no plans were ever approved for apartments and in 1968, with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the land reverted to the RI zoning classification. In 1970, the Secretary went on, the applicant proposed a rezoning to R4, but this proposal was denied by the City Council following Planning Commission review and public hearings. The Council determined at that time, he noted, that the proposal was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and would constitute spot zoning if approved. 4 -12 -79 -1- The Secretary pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan in its recommendation for the Southeast Neighborhood recommends permitting up to 1'2 story apartment build- ings at no more than 12 units per acre within the older portion of the neighbor- hood, but only at the intersection of collector or arterial streets. Regarding townhouse development, he said, the Comprehensive Plan designates a tract of land at the southeast corner of Highway 100 and Interstate 94 for future develop- ment of this type. The Secretary further pointed out that development of the land in question under its existing R1 zoning would be possible by dedication of land for a cul -de -sac 50 ft. wide with a variance from the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Otherwise, he said, a variance from Chapter 35 would be required to permit lots of less than 110 ft. in depth if the property were developed with an extension of Aldrich Avenue North as a public street between 56th and 55th Avenues. Either type of variance, he noted, might be permitted since a literal reading of the ordinance requirement would deny the owners the reasonable use of their land. The applicant, however, argues that such a development alternative would be economically unfeasible. The Secretary summed up his review of the application by urging the Commission to carefully consider the applicant's con- tention that there is a need in this area for additional R3 zoned property, and also, that - the existing zoning should be shown to be a clearly inferior alter- native to the proposed R3 zoning from a public, rather than merely a private, standpoint. After a brief discussion of possible variance requests, Chairman Pierce asked the applicant to speak on behalf of his proposal. Mr. Kvamme explained that he is the son -in -law of Olga Madsen whose husband established the Madsen Floral opci°ation on the site in 1918. He explained that there were four other property owners besides the Madsen family involved with the rezoning request. He stated that the rear portions of these lots were contemplated in the rezoning and that all •Fniir of +hacn nrnnn - nwnarc -favnrori thn rn7nninn Mr. Kvamiie went into the background of the site, discussing previous rezoning 0 proposals, and explaining the economics of the floral wholesale business. He stated that at this point in the company's growth, an expansion of the retail business would be profitable and that this expansion would either have to be on the site or at another site. Mr. Kvamme discussed the alternative of developing the property for single family residential purposes by placing a street through the present Madsen Floral property from 55th to 56th Avenues North. He argued that this alternative would be - Far too expensive. Instead, he maintained, an R3 development would have beneficial effects on the neighborhood: 1) it would increase property values in the area by doing away with the floral business 2) there would be less traffic and 3) it would meet the need for condominium living for the older residents in the area. As Mr. Kvamme showed a conceptual plan of the site without a through street, Commissioner Hawes inquired whether a sprinkler system would be required on the site. The Secretary responded that the Zoning Ordinance does not mandate underground irrigation systems in R3 developments. Mr. Kvamme explained to Com- missioner Hawes that there would be a boiler house on the site retained from the present operation which could utilize either oil or gas, making use of the most economical fuel during price fluctuations. Commissioner Hawes asked how many bedrooms the units would have. Mr. Kvamme responded that in most units there would be two bedrooms upstairs with it being possible to add a third on the lower level. Fie pointed out that a number of townhouse designs had been con sidered and also noted the availability of trees on the site for landscaping purposes. 4- 12-79 -2- In response to a question from Chairman Pierce the Secretary replied that 28 units, as the applicant had proposed, is the maximum number allowed on the site based on density requirements. Commissioner Hawes asked what the formula for traffic generation per household was. The Superintendent of Engineering re- sponded that a commonly used figure is six trips per unit per day. The Secret- ary, as a point of clarification, noted that none of the parcels of land proposed in the rezoning are, in fact, landlocked, and that other proposed developments could make use of these properties equally well. He also pointed out that under the City's Zoning Ordinance, Madsen Floral is a nonconforming use and would not be allowed to expand whether or not the business necessities dictated such an expansion. PUBL HEARING Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mary Simmons, of 5530 Camden Avenue North, argued that the proposed use of the property is not compatible with single family uses abutting the site and disagreed that the new development would raise property values. The Secretary commented that the R3 zoning district allows Townhouse and Garden Apartments. He stated that an apartment complex is not allowed under the R3 zoning and that a condominium de- velopment would have to be owner - occupied although a townhouse complex may or may not be owner- occupied. He added that Brooklyn Center does not have a legal vehicle for condominiumizing rental dwellings in other than the R3 zoning district. Mr. Kvamme assured - the Commission that his concept envisioned owner - occupied dwellings. Beyond that, however, he could not guarante:.> that the units would be lived in by the owners. Commissioner Hawes inquired as to who is responsible for maintaining the roadways. The Secretary answered a legally established Homeowners Association would be re- sponsible for the maintenance of common areas including private roadways if such a project were developed as indicated. fie added that if other R3 developments were realized that involved rental units, they would be subject to rental dwell - trig I David Larson, of 5537 Camden Avenue North, complained about the possible size of the buildings to be erected. He stated that the size of the buildings would be roughly the size of a basketball court in area, two to three stories high. Seven such structures in the middle of the block, he argued, would crowd the neighbor- hood. Chairman Pierce inquired whether there was any setback requirement related to height. The Secretary responded that there was no such requirement in the R3 zone, but said that he had talked with the applicant concerning roadways and setbacks. He added that the conceptual plan submitted is merely tentative, not final, and site and building.plan approval would have to be given if the rezoning were accomplished. Mr. Kvamme pointed out that none of the units would be any closer than 70 to 80 feet from single family houses, and that this is a much greater setback than exists between the homes in the area. Mrs. Saf, of 5531 Camden Avenue North asked if there were any height restrictions on townhouses. The Building Official responded that no height restrictions pertained to town- houses, but that depending on the design proposed, these could be in keeping with the variable height of houses in the Southeast Neighborhood. The Secretary explained that each unit must have a ground level entrance. Ann Jarvimaki,of 5625 Aldrich Avenue North, stated that she did not want Aldrich Avenue to become a through street and said she considered the proposal a good idea. Bruce Hendrickson, of 5612 Aldrich Avenue North, expressed concern over the possible traffic generated by the site. The Superintendent of Engineering re- sponded that most residential streets carry 700 to 800 cars per day and that the additional 80 or so trips for 55th and 56th Avenues would be offset by the re- moval of Madsen Floral from the site. 4 -12 -79 -3- i Dave Lewis, of 5600 Bryant Avenue North, questioned the Commission as to the number of units allowed in R3 as opposed to Rl zoning. The Secretary stated that 28 units would be allowed the R3 zoning, while 11 or 12 could be accommodated with R1 zoning. Ed Trombley of 56th and Aldrich stated he could not foresee any real overcrowding. Mr. Kvamme pointed out that with Madsen Floral leaving and the freeway coming in, traffic on 55th Avenue would actually diminish. Mary Simmons countered, however, that since the site would be served.by nonthrough private roads, more traffic would be forced onto Camden and Bryant Avenues North. Jim Shetler, of 809 - 56th Avenue North, disagreed with the fears of overcrowding, stating that in his opinion, the added traffic would not be overwhelming. Commissioner Hawes pointed out to the applicant the 'inconsistency of proposing three bedroom units in the townhouse development and using as a selling feature, their serviceability to older residents. Mr. Kvamme countered that bedrooms are a resale feature and that younger people may eventually move into the townhouses as they may move into the neighbrohood in general. Commissioner Erickson asked the applicant whether he had any empirical evidence for his claim that traffic would be reduced. Mr. Kvamme admitted that he did not. Commissioner Erickson went on to ask how many employees presently worked at Madsen Floral. Mr. Kvamme replied in the neighborhood of five to ten. Mrs. Jarvimaki argued in favor of the site. She stated that it would be fine for the neighborhood to have more younger couples since this would probably bring in more children and help the school district to survive which has been experiencing a period of declining enrollment. What is more, she added, new development would increase - the tax base for public services and therefore reduce taxes for other residents. Mr. Dingley, of 5621 Camden Avenue North, argued that single family •.t J ll__ ._�S --A C +r - •ll.,. M- V­—Mn cllmmad would be 1,110 Uflly culllpa1.1Ule UC 'Iii t: IIC ly.lw. ....., , .. . up his arguments for the proposal by asKing the Commission it iL wuulu IIu ba better to have the properties zoned R3 than to have what is on the site at present. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the Comprehensive Plan had anything to say on this matter. The Secretary responded that the plan encourages multiple family dwellings of no more than 12 stories in height at the corners of collector and arterial streets. As far as townhouse development, he said, the plan designates the southeast corner of the Highway 100 and Interstate 94 interchange as a suitable site for this type of development. This site, as of yet, remains undeveloped. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARI Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing on Application No. 79018. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commission- ers Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. A CTION TAB LING OF APPLICATION NO. 79018 ( Art Kvam Chairman Pierce stated that all rezoning requests are referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group before final recommendation by the Planning Commis - sion. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Erickson to table Application No. 79018 submitted by Arthur Kvamme until review by the Southeast Neighborhood Group. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. R ! The Planning Commission recessed at 9:37 p.m. and resumed at 10:02 p.m. 4 -12 -79 -4- I �. January 15 1979 n y , Mr. Ronald Warren Administrative Assistant City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Warren, This letter is to advise that six adjacent property owners have reached tenative agreement on a joint effort to request rezoning of all or part of their property to R -3. The owners are Madsen Floral Co, 5501 Aldrich Ave No., Mrs. Olga Madsen, 5501 Aldrich Ave. No., Edwin Trombley 803 -56th Ave. No., Jim Shetler 809 -56th Ave. No., Mrs. Myra Swennes, 800 -55th Ave. No., and Mrs. Darlene Walter 306 -55th Ave. No. The property being considered for re- zoning is all owned by Madsen Floral described as the West 2 of lot 40 and the West is of lot 47 Garcelon's addition except the South 110 feet of lot 47; all of the property of Olga Madsen being the South 110 feet of lot 47 described above; parts of the other four properties mentioned above described as the South 170 feet of the properties of Trombley and Shetler, and the North 170 feet of the properties of Swennes and Walter. A boundrey and topographical survev of the above properties is attached. Madsen Floral have conducted a retail and wholesale floral business at their present location since 1918. Because of increasing energy costs., they are presently considering to eliminate the growing and the wholesale portion of the business and will continue and expand the retail operation. Plans are to continue the retail operation at the present location unless the above mentioned properties are re- zoned. If that occures the retail business will be moves: to another location. The complete development of the property if re -zoned will result in the removal of all the greenhouses and retail building; and the residence of Mrs. Olga Madsen. Madsen Floral has strongly considered selling their portion of their property facing 56th Ave, (lot 40) in the form of two residential lots result- ing in lots approximately 300 feet deep similiar to the lots of the four adjacent owners mentioned above. This not only results in two more (six to tal and adjacent) lots over twice the area required for a single family lot, but also results in not only "land - locking" the extra area in these six lots, but also the area in a) l of lot 47-owned by Madsen Floral, to any public street. Mention has been made by some of the City staff members that a street (Aldrich Ave) could be constructed over the westerly side of the Madsen pro- perties. This alternative is completely unfeasible since the cost to remove the greenhouses and residence, compensation for loss of property and business location , and cost of street and utilities required by the ci tv is such that the end result is a sizeable net loss. In addition none of the other adjacent property owners ( Swennes and Trombley) have expressed a:.desi.re' fork the', street. s page 2 This is understandable since the street would run only a few feet from the side of their residence and far from the side lot set back- required by-the city. The Madsen properties were at one time re -zoned to R -5 (2 1 - 2 story) with a special use provision. A few years later Madsen's found out the permit was no longer valid. Madsen's never were given a written notice that the re- zoning would or had expired. When this fact was discussed with the city staff to re- apply for the re- zoning again to R -5, they recommended that the request be for R -4 (12 story). This went through the re- zoning process but was surprisingly denied - why we have never understood. Plans are to develope a town -house condominium complex consisting of quads rather than a linear arrangement although either can be arranged on the property being considered. Since the results will be individually owned single family units, the quads are more in keeping with .the,.i.ndividual homes in - area. Reasons that make the R -3 feasible and acceptable to all concerened parties are as follows: 1. The area is in need of a condominium complex to the many older residents who now inhabit the area and no longer individually desire to maintain their building and yard exteriors. 2. All public utilities are not only available but no further expansion of public streets or utilities is necessary for the project. 3. The joint effort and combining of properties eliminates the "land- jocked" property and makes practical use of the land. 4. Traffic to the area will be less then that of employees and customers of Madsen Floral Co. 5. The value of the development will be several times that of the existing structures providing a much larger tax base to the city. 6. The City will rid itself, at that location, of one of its oldebt businesses they have unfairly classisfi:ed as "non- conforming" in spite of the fact Madsen Floral located long before the City began development. It is the desire of the above mentioned property owners to now proceed with the re- zoning process as quickly and efficiently as possible. Sincerely, Arthur E. Kvamme Madsen Floral Co. Inc. Section 35 -208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resoiution No. 77 -167, the City Council has establi-shed a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Poli It is - the policy of 'the City that: a) zoning classifications must he consistent with 'the comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning propcsals shill not constitute "spDt zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Co�. °��sive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City 4. Guidelines. - (a) Is there a clear and public need,or benefit? _ (b) Is - the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? '(c) Can all permitted uses in - the proposed zoning district be I ontemplated for development of - the subject property? (d) Have - there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in - the area since - the subject - property was zoned? (e) In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a • hroad public purpose evident? • (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is - the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? • (h) Will - the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) - the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? 1) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners o f an individual parcel? ` :1;4 o AV F c) ( ; (43,,,o) ol - --- -- r - � 'f ._ v , . ; • s • ' - - -- :}-•. _.. _._ . , l r•. .f?. •t ,. I (3580;, : �.( ^7P) (34°6) )' v --� -- (���„) • �: �azzs) .� i2o,) � � � Lray«TOC Z -- V-:7 -� . Shy .1 1 r Fr` ! ♦♦��. (a' 2 3500 "" f': J (3.7epf t- 2`'3}° !'` �� `` C i � C) ! I .' :. - 3S ", -_ ,� j4 40, . ( 60) (3530) -/! 020) • 'Z a7 ^1 `- -- (4220) ~t42av' 0 t i :y�c_. - - _ - (34-dq - r ° ^ o O w d 50 -- Y `).. ?i, 2 Z f3 Q 4 (35 (.15/0) X925) _ 44 Z0) - �_..._.. -_.. -,� )i. _ ii. ll) (3445) io (1130) I,:o�o�= I- _. — `; - 35 °� fJ7'.•rt • +:_ , �S /o5�' , v) — J + • I r (4 710) d _U L14 • �, 3 r l p• . r i7 • - - = �'' fY_ (J,J .�- -- Q ` (s /0.� j k44 (tib'S) �,,, ;0 ., 7 w .1 Q� t �(:sa., (46 t!!r `! - '�• - = 1 } Or -- 91 ( 5 ie 9' • t c S : a 5 th AVE. (710 i6400� � (5720) - - -- -- - (6600) v Y >.. ` I _ ) 'j,S 96) x(7108) �• �6G0) :(6700) �, - - >° (58 00}• 'j2`5- `12 r, C: - - -- ` sna✓ g ` "+ - r '2 0 4 ; cIC: L - 7 I C .200) (s9oa 4 0) (71z .7G 10 3 _ .rsv ',' e z • °p . (6100) (6 oz o) :355 0) (7220) _ ..; 12 9 ! SiS' _.r • (7701) . E a (b Boo) i #83,1 o) r. a: 5 (8720) tn (46IN 10 . 7 , �c,' cr. is LLJ (7350} '. p - -- G I (8710) j�l 1 M 7 6 i 9 7J1 4r �?SO,r I_. �: .�_I.. J ... H - 3). /1 I (8600) �_ - I �. r'oS•"T 9'35 - �' - T - T -- J• �YZY 4 ;�;daf ,q69, 0• j� (855C) ej 20 .o( /d00) ,1:3Z)r74,: 2 _1Gti? c i ' JP t / t- , ac I a9r� / / 1 (3/50) v 't(r75o} F (.64vo) , (S 71) '5360 2 I 1 36 7 J -_ (82 o0) 6; .35 r ,' •` " Lrlcc•; )f ~( ,yC,l -. - ) _-- 5401' 1 I I i`t ?��•�;a /. /` /' (33f0) (200, ) (_�, G� --,' - I - - i(w J _ 2Z s i 0, 1 4 10 i t - ;A I ► i 9 ) '"r: BE ✓UL/ ��`33s, j (zn5oj !(2o7oj -- - -- (8122; _ ' �= C ' P y ✓' 19 � 12 � - 1': � - - � -. '4 (=' 1 (s4 6o: I �- - I / T �� /: /s) �! -f7 _.w _.4 • a 6 4000 / (.3 1 - - i+�GOj- i• 9) F _ , I,J roi (35 C.. f ' t � (2990) >,. IV � S7 -, r�. :. -- d I l� t ^, 1 ' .4e 75' v /,/ �(3625) 2 .s� ooEO / .t. (� ) t , ry \ �G I �5c5 1 -- , a:{ 5 \, ? + ^� J •'" I sc I I -� Z / / / "•�'e.%t. -� °' t < 97o) 7 a { • , : E1RaND: I ! i 36; o) 1 j 2 3101 (2 2 BOi 4'�: •� ?,dogo) (290/) 1. ( 2 - 7 7 (o ROC Ya?,r oo) lty�.Cr ( I N % -4�: f9 g ',. I - - - 5 --- •��. ' �(•:bt.aj •' /// / i (3.':1) t285s) - 27;51 (18!_`.) I W I �.� f[!; FS. .yi (' - - .e- .•SC') I ( .. !.. V I /. __ ._�� �' , -__._ / �._.. ._ _ I � (_�. •, ',' - 12 , t i I I 1 f � �Jv.'S) -;;' � /, [ „�t +ic` 1 � - _. -- � �2920)�i. (� 7C•) •. a -'tip i r i' I 1 . ,•' � ,t+ •, t I" ' � I 9 `- , I� �, � I _ - �', `r •; i � -!, ; r'f a.f �: ..'DJ SC:c ��,, c ` r 1^^ j F AV (660r' �:.•;i t t-,V; f — u ;.... o � to c� .. :i (seoo; .3 4 � ,- ( I 87 Q i t v tE4y ILq k . - -- — - - • - I /r 3oo) , `t '� ` f � 7 . (1 7 •� 1� i I 20 11 /. / Ai C - - � � i � i I• ' ' i � -l. lar ant i •SCI \• ... / � \ \ � , f ° ` \ l ( i ! t9 (3220) 1 (3310) I (�ObS� il. ~� IL =yam/ , � � � { '34 /Of � 'ui i ?{jr0 �Z �GD (, ` - •- --- --- .:.L.. __._ s• , r 98 75;' ^�� j /' / (3520 (2 -38c;) 3 ( 1 25) / �. �r. ( ?6 5> I (2X70) ;9 ; 4 9 (2 900 K o) / /n / / /� - - -- - -•+ �— - j ~� ... -�. 1ti —� ice- - -- �' (3 76-5) (2660) r ti� I _ ii p t �� ,•A, �•! ., i • ?. , �/ G'- � - j ^� � _ I I I �.' �\.� �' V I ..� 'i f , ���r ��.t .`�:� ,,Cf� /f T�: ,15 . r