Planning Commission Agenda 02-06-2001
.
Members:
AGI!:NDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - February 6, 200t
7:00 P.M.
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy PopiJek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Staff:
1.
2.
..,
., .
4.
. 5.
6.
.
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch. Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 2. 2001.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Ilearing _ Consideration of a Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat to
permit the expansion ofa bus service and sales facility. Applicant: Hoglund Bus
Company.
Public Hearing _ Consideration of a Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat to
accommodate a 63 unit townhouse project in Klein Farms Estates 2"d Addition.
Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest.
7. Discuss Planning Commission involvement in upcoming MCP meeting.
x. Adjourn.
- 1-
.
.
.
='
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - .Janul1ry 2, 200t
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick hie. Robbie Smith. Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Absent:
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie calkd the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. noting the absence of Council Liaison
Herbst for the second consecutive meeting.
2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 5. 2000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH
TO APPROVE TI[E M[NUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF DECEMBER 5. 2000. WITH THE CORRECTION TO THE MOTION ON
ITEM SIX. Motion carried unanimously.
...
,).
Consideration of addin!! items to the u!!enda.
Rod Dragsten \vished to add discussion regarding MCP. This was placed as item 9. along
with an update by Jeff CYNeill from the Design Advisory Team.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Consideration of a Concept StaQe PUD for a 77 unit townhouse proiect in Klein Farms
Estates 2nd Addition. Applicant: Ea!!k Crest North\vest.
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report regarding this proposed townhouse
project v,hich contains 3 I units of sid\>by-side to\vnhouse units in 8 building clusters - 7
clusters of 4 units each and one three unit building. A central private street serves all of the
units. The \vestern portion of the project would contain 36 units in nine "quadraminium"
buildings. Bt?cause of tht? restricted area. one of these western-most buildings will not fit as
designed.
The \vest side also has a contlict with the buffer yard requirements for residential areas
adjacent to e;.\isting industrial development. Steve discussed some options which were
similar to tht? east side. Grittman also statt?d an additional consideration for the project
should be tht? inclusion of small clusters of visitor parking throughout the development.
- 1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/0 I
.
With narrow private streets, there "vould be severely limited opportunity for non-residents to
park when visiting the neighborhood.
The project would require landscaping and amenities consistent with the intent of the PUD
ordinance. Grittman advised of the substantial amount of front~yard landscaping required
for the townhouse project adjacent to the east. including both foundation plantings and in
common areas.
For a project which is designed with straight private streets and linear building locations. site
amenities should be greatly increased to mitigate the relatively monotonous sight lines.
Front yard landscaping should be intensified significantly. Other clements could also be
considered. including fencing or other structural items, and consideration for pedestrian
access. such as a sidewalk along the private street. The garage front design of the rambler
units makes the streetscape views an issue. Also. the public' s view of this project will be of
the backs of most of the units from Farmstead Drive. Special attention should be given to
the design of this area. such as perimder shrub planting and other elements. Because this
will be rear yard space t(lr the residents. a design \vhich provides a feeling of private open
space. but avoids a continuous six-foot fence along the street should be considered.
.
Grittman also noted that none of the units were shown with porch additions or patio spaces.
however. these clements are olkn sought by residents either in the initial construction phase
or later. The project designt:rs should show how these spaces "",ill be addressed. with
attention to the puhl i<.: vk\vs of the site. the pri vate use of the space. and the purpose of PU D
design.
Chair Frie opent:d the Public I karing. Bill Gleason and John Gleason. 3031 Fernbrook
Lane. Plymouth. of Eaglt: Crest Nortl1\\'Cst. addressed the memhers advising that all houses
do have patios on tht: hack and a similar project they are in the process of building which is
across the street from this project in Klein Farms Estates 3rJ Addition. Patios are a standard
fi)r them and arc typically II x 10. slab on grades. no step. making them handicapped
accessible. Gleasons also advised that there \vould have to be some type of privacy fence
where units arc adjacent to eaeh l)ther. They also clarified that there are front porches on the
to\vnhomes and front porches continuing down the sides on the quads.
Bill Gleason noted the biggest issue \\"nuld be to eliminate a portion of the buildings. which
they are recepti\'e to but running il1w a problem with the road being too tight. They pointed
out that there was only a prnhkm \v-ith one unit where they could not maintain the 40' green
space. They adv-ised that they initially just put in the minimums for landscaping according
to the requirements gi\'en tht:m. G kasons stated they install 16' driv-es to give more green
space. They also noted that the quads arc designed more for seniors. the other area is a little
larger t\H)-story \\hich is ml)re l)t' a starter family home. All homes are for-sale property.
.
Sharlayne Brinkman of 4672 FarmSh..'ad Drive. which is directly across the street from this
project. addressed the memhL'rs and the (ikasons regarding some concerns she has in terms
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/01
.
of aesthetics and the possibility of increased traffic. Bill Gleason stated that it has been their
impression that traffic would actually be less than with single family homes. Brinkman also
asked the price range of these units which they stated to be approximately $145,000 for the
two bedrooms and $149.900 for the three bedroom. It was also advised that screened patios
would be facing Farmstead Drive, and advised that there are 30' setbacks which actually
places them approximately 45' from the road. Gleason also stated that if fencing were
installed it would be decorative versus privacy fencing. These units would be part of an
association which would maintain them. Brinkman's concern was that these units would
turn into rentals and then not be taken care of which in turn would decrease the value of her
home. Gleason stated that although they do not restrict buyers from purchasing and then
renting out the price is significant enough to deter them from that and they have not had
any problems previously.
.
Fred Patch, Building Official. advised that he had a call from a resident on Eagle Court with
concerns such as width of the streets tlJr emergency vehicles. house numbers that are visible
to the road, sufticient street lighting on the main boulevard. suflicient off-street parking and
landscaping that had not yet bl.:en completed which Patch assured him that there is a bond in
place for landscaping. This development is also one of Eagle Crest Northwest's. John
Gleason addressed these concerns and Fred Patch stated they are all in compliance. It was
also noted that housl.: numbers wen.: not n:qul.:sted by the City but they \vould like to put
them in anyv,;ay. Eagle Crest also stated that mailboxes would be installed in accordance
with the City postmaster's n:quirements.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
There was further discussion among the mcmbers regarding play/park areas (\vhich O'Neill
stated this area was included with Pionccr Park), sufficient parking. more extensive
landscaping, streetscapes. snow removal. bul'ter between the industrial park area such as
burms and plantings \vhich Grittman stated burms are acceptable but density ofplantings
would be more desirable. O'Neill also stated a desire for possibly a path\vay/sidewalk
along the north side of Farmsh:ad Drive to get people off the street and onto the path to the
parks and schools.
Eagle Crest Northwcst stated a desired timc framc for this project \vmild be by this spring
and that this would all depend on ho\\ mllch time it \vill take to re-do their plans and meet
with staff.
.
A iVIOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPII.IX AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN
TO RECOt\IMEND APPROVAL OF TilE CONCEPT PUD PLAN. \\TI'II DIRECTION
TO TilE DEVELOPER TO I\lCORPOR.\TE TIlE COMMENTS OF STAFF AND Tl-IE
Pl.:\NNIN(J COiVliVIISSIOl\ INTO TIlL DI:VEI.OPt\IFNT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DI:VLLOPr-,Ir-:NT PLi\!\:S. \IOTIO\; B.\SI':D ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROJECT
IS CONSISTENT WITII TilE COi\IPR\-:J IFNSIVE PLAN. t\lotion carried unanimously.
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 01102/0 I
building permits were required.
Regarding zoning, this is a non-conforming use with bituminous curbs, and it was stated
that any use I<.l\vfully existing may not be enlarged but may be continued. Patch stated that
the parking lot was not expanded but only maintained in accordance with the ordinance.
Grittman also advised that non-conformities can be maintained.
8. Discussion reuardinl.! Planninu Commission member terms.
lcffO'Neill advised the members that the action taken at last month's meeting \vas not
necessary as the City Council had actually taken action the previous year which resulted in
there being no terms up this year.
9.
Update rel.!ardin!,!: MCP and the Desil.!n Advisorv Team.
Rod Dragsten suggested that with MCP closing their office and holding their annual meeting
next month, perhaps the Planning Commission would like to bring recommendations to this
meeting. (YNeill stated that MCP initially helped develop the plan as an arm of the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission really should be included in taking the
lead at this point. He also noted that it is crucial that Planning Commission and City
Council members be present at this annual meeting. Some of the members also felt that
with the current City Council's lack of support. perhaps the MCP gets sidetracked. Also
stated was the situation \\ith the community center and MCPs involvement there seems to be
contlicts regarding some of the City Council members. They also felt it was more burnout
and with no support li'om the Council it became difficult. O'Neill advised that the intention
of the City Council at the \'Cry beginning \vas not to continue funding the MCP at 50%. It
was always the goal to limit City participation to 20% or so. He said that he thought the
City Council docs continue to support MCP. just not at the earlier funding levels.
[t was stated there may be a time \vhen the Planning Commission needs to give a
recommendation to the City Council regarding keeping Mep up and going. They stated it
would be good to have as many members present as possible at their annual meeting.
10. Adiourn.
A tvlOTION \V1\S tvlADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO ADJOUR'N THE MEETING AT 8:-1-5 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Recorder
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Cornlllission Agenda -2/06/0 I
5.
Consideration of a Develooment Stae:e PUD to permit the expansion of a bus service
and sl:tles facilitv. Applicant: HIH!lund Bus Company. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Iloglund Bus has applied for a Development Stage PUD approval continuing their proposal
f(n an expansion of their facilities between Oakwood Drive and Interstate 94. The site plan
which has been submitted proposes a 10,680 square foot building addition, with a significant
amount of paving added to the site in the areas of traffic circulation and parking. Green areas
are designated on the site plan. and a number of trees are proposed along the west and
southwest boundaries. ^ gravel hus staging area is located to the west of the huilding
addition. and the bulk of the bus sales display area on the east portion of the site would
remain grass and unchanged. although the submitted plan is not specific as to that area.
Thc layout generally complies with discussions which staff has had with the property
owners. ^ few details should be added to the plan to conform to those discussions. as well
as common PUD standards:
1.
Additional tree planting would be advised throughout the property. There are a
nUlnher of spaces marked "Green" which would benefit by planting in addition to
lawn. and would discourage driving or other misuse.
7 The applicant is seeking a waiver of the City's general requirement for concrete curb
surrounding al1 parking and driveway areas. In lieu of this requirement. staffwould
recommend that the parking areas be supplied with movable concrete curb stops to
help delineate parking spaces and avoid contact between vehicles and buildings.
These eurb stops can also be helpful in identifying driveway "intersection" locations
and protecting buildings from other vehicle Inovements. A sketch has been provided
by staff on the site plan illustrating proposed locations.
3. A drainage plan is provided to the City Engineer for review and comment. The
applicant has identified a major drainage-way through the property from the motel
to the freeway which wil1 need to be accommodated with the improvements.
4. The applicant shows a large area of bus parking which is currently covered with
grass. Application of Class 5 gravel is proposed. Application of Class 5 will require
payment of trunk storm sewer fees since Class 5 material resuIts in a water
impervious surf~lce.
Planning Commission ^gcncla -2/06/0 I
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Development Stage Plan, subject to
compliance with the requirernents in this report.
7 Motion to reconunend denial ofthe PUD Development Stage, hased on a finding that
the PUD zoning requires more extensive improvements than those proposed in this
plan.
3. Motion to table action on the PUD Development Stage, subject to additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approval of the Development Stage plan, with the comments made in this
report. As noted in the previous Concept Stage approval hy the Planning Commission and
City Council. the City helieves that the level of improvements on this site are appropriate for
the use. The amendments suggested in this report would enhance the utility of the current
use with minimal additional cost, and would also improve the aesthetics of the property.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan with Stafr Recommendations
.
2
/ ;
. / .('.... ;
// ~<Z.~~ ' r
/ t~ i ~"- !',
1/ /y. ~\ .--;."~ ~ 0,
/ E I ~~~/L/' :~.
/ -..:....-' ...u <-"'-:~. ~-.. i. ~~"'''''''
/ ~ ":' ..... ,... . ~"
/ / .. ::~-' ~ ~ .... I ..' ~
/ ,j'~n ..4 ~ J/'- \ I ~ ; p, ~"...~ ~}-...
/ . ~ ~ ~/;', cf .. P, _ ~" '"
/ ... ~~ .. I W . ,;......: J , \, ~ '\
. .....~ ~ ,. ~., ...,;........ / [) ... ~ \
/ ~~:.\.\.~ .,,' .....~\
/ t . ..... _ (',.......... j "" \
/ ../...., i I G" ~.. l / ,.- -;...; f'--'-' .
./...., :~ e, ~ ........'-../ ,,~
/ / , ) I III ''''-'','' '~ . '" ~--.. f S : ..
/'. / P'" ,,,,.~. , - . t~
/ .. I \\ f
,/ I / :,' , \ 'I '/ {~ ..
" / ~ i I~ i
'...../ I~' / , ~....;. ! i
"-/ .~. ___t . ! i
· - J. /.... .. ~ ~ 1 5 ~ I
./ · 'lL Ii ~
:I H:1" tl lJ'" -------____.1 ! j
; If! i. L - ---~-~--.!!..........~~..~~~~-~~-~.~"Jo '._ t
. ................... ~ ." . :;;.-- ;'-- I, I ., _ ~
" ----...,.. " Ii _ \'
----------------------------------------,---- ~ \
/ / ;:
/ ~\ ~ g
ill, Gr I J
""-'
.
-1
u~fU~/Ul FR! 09:52 FAX 7632954992
J \
HOGLllND BUS CO.
.
I
~
1
I t
I ~&-
, rt> +-
~-
(/I (\
)
...
r---:
[ I'I!
I I
...----1
I
1 I
~I~
.
I
I
I
I
--------..
/'
...-
.
.
~~
~;! i -
a.;o.
~
. I
(j'
. .......
9 I
(~
. r r
~J
. I ""-' !
.
\ --
." . .
--.;
./
..J
.;1'
. ,Y'
o ...!.-~!___.\-
~\
~
13".
~
\"
J
\
"
..".
~
or
...,..
...-
cJ
J
"'"
,-<0,
V'
ldJ,
J
~
I
I
i
i
pA
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -2/06/0 I
6.
Consideration ofa Development Stal!c pun and preliminary plat to accommodate a 63
unit townhouse project in Klein Farms i<:states 2"'1 Addition. Applicant: Eal!le Crest.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Eagle Crest received a Concept pun approval at the recent Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. They have submitted a Development Stage flU [) plan based on that
approval. Staff has had the opportunity to review the plan and makes the following
comments:
I. The easterly access road should be moved to the cast boundary and loop around the
end units. In this way, the entire eastern half of the project could be served by a
continuous loop road without the dead end section. This is an issue for City trash
removal service. as well as f()r general circulation. This change should not result in
a loss of units. since units 45-47 could be shifted west slightly.
2.
The western-most driveway should be continued around to loop back and connect
with the westerly access road. This will avoid a long dead-end driveway and permit
the narrower pavement widths proposed. The driveway should be moved slightly to
the west to allow for adequate backing movements out of the garage and driveway
areas. ^ distance of 42 feet from face of garage to cdge of pavement is suggested.
This driveway may be 18 feet in width if this change is made.
3. The two dead-end interior driveways in the quad-unit area should be continued to
intersect with Farmstead Drive. The spacing of buildings in this area should be a
minimum of 60 feet from t~lCe of garage to face of garage. The driveway widths of
18 feet would be adequate in this arrangement to permit backing and restricted access
to the residents and service vehicles.
4. All driveways and roads in the project must be paved and curbed. The only
exception to curbing is for the 20 to 22 foot long driveways which lead directly into
the garages from the access driveways. Except for the 18 foot wide driveways
specifically mentioned in points 2 and 3 above, all other private streets and drives
must be a minimum of 24 feet in width. face of curb to face of curb.
5. Provide additional visitor parking spaced throughout the development at a minirnum
ratio of one space per three units, a total extra parking supply of at least 21 spaces.
Because narrower private streets do not accommodate em-street parking, these spaces
are necessary to acc0l11lnodate overl10w from the unit driveways which provide the
only other visitor parking supply.
.
6.
Planning Commission Agenda -2/06/01
Provide a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along Farmstead as shown on the plan from
the trail connection on the east to the west boundary of the property at Edmonson
A venue. Although the primary pedestrian access currently leads to the south through
Klein Farms Estates 3'd Addition. future connection to other land uses to the cast is
a probability. If that area develops with commercial services. it is likely that
residents of this project will want to walk in that direction. The applicants had
previously discussed with Stall the possibility of tenninating the sidewalk at their
western-most driveway instead of extending it all the way to Edmonson Avenue.
7. Significantly enhance landscaping within the foundation planting areas around the
buildings. The current plan shows a per-unit planting of only four shrubs around the
entry sidewalk. Much more planting around the building is suggested where none
is now proposed.
.
.
8. Enhance planting along the Farmstead Drive exposure with a buffer planting similar
to that provided by Stall as an exhibit to this report. This buffer is designed to
provide an "open" screen for the rear yard spaces which face the public roadway.
9.
J':nhance planting in the bufferyard area along the north boundary. One of the
considerations for the private street encroaching into the required buffer area is
additional buller and screen plantings in that area. The proposal relics entirely on
existing plantings and should be strengthened. For the portion of the bufferyard
where the road encroaches. an additional eight deciduous trees and 50 large shrubs
would help to increase the butler density.
10.
Provide increased plant sizes over the cast portion of the bulTeryard. The grading
plan shows a swale in this area which is about 3 feet in depth. The plants should be
increased in size to accommodate the require buffering effect. The zoning ordinance
currently requires 2 12 inch caliper deciduous trees; 6 foot high evergreen species:
and at least I Y!l> of all deciduous trees to be at least 3 Y2 inch caliper in size. Staff
would recommend that all deciduous species in the bufferyard be at least 3 Y2 caliper
inches and all evergreen species to be 8 feet in height to make up for the swale.
11.
Finally. cluster mail box locations and identify trash receptacle locations consistent
with postal and trash-removal requirements.
R.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I.
Motion to recommend approval of the Developrnent Stage PUD and preliminary plat
based on the recommendations listed in this report.
2
.
I
Planning ('ommission Agenda -2/06/0J
Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PlID based on a 1inding that
proposed density and circulation plan cannot be supported.
3. Motion to table action on the PUD, subject to additional infi.mllation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Stall recommends approval of the PU D only with the conditions outlined above. While the
concept in consistent with the expectations it)r this PU D district, there are a number of design
details and enhancements necessary to make this project acceptable under the PUD
requirements of the zoning ordinance li)r residential areas. As designed, the City would be
approving a project which varies signilicantly from typical zoning standards, including
private streets, narrower than standard two-way drives. encroachment in to the butTeryarcL
and reduced setbacks from the street surl~lee. The enhancements proposed in this report are
intended to ensure that the pun process is utilized f()r a project which results in a higher
quality living environment than the basic zoning standards. Without such enhancements,
staff docs not recommend the PU D process.
.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
1.
2.
Site Plan
Staff Sketch
.
..,
_,
.
z
~
;
:....'~^\. ,..------:,
X'.'
'; , '\'':\
(, \,
1_.
f .
,,---,
~ \
-
--p,/
~
/"
'\
~
\
\
\
I
I
1J
{>
1t
v
1\\
r
\;:
I
I
1/
!
,
wf
~
!z~
l~
1:".t.
':\
1: ~ \J\
ill
~ "">
1~.:I
~"1Q ,
50 ~ '
~I~/
~~'*(
"'i\f\ I
j= Ih
h~ " I L~, t.;
II. .~i""'.--' , /d Ii Ii'!"
il ~. ~i~ ~ :~,i'" //",. i/l~, 1\,
Iff',-..... J / ~ /~i\.,
!I .'" ,:-.,:, ': "-, ..,! ".,., '1 ,.", /..' '! 'R
iJII . "".. \0.- .., ~ ...... ,"'...... .,...~ /.;0 ,.." fIr
~lll . .... I' '~/f' <.- " 0 --- ,.,' , I ,~.
:d . '.: '-,:, .. :-..; ;''>, ;lIt\.\ ~ {" .a .-/_., ,I If. I ">,:,
! ~;l! I ":. \"'\'\.1). \ /.. /! ~ \ '\\.lJl'" __,-/ , 1\ " II /'<r. :.'
: l~' ~, , . I ~ .' ~ .,.' ~ 1_ . ,.
I r. /'f.'//.. -, ,/." ! ~)'.-\ tm I ':l .J~
! \<-i\';~/ q, ". ......... - "fj l ::. '."
'..j~~)~~~!~~_:~~?~~j,,~.;fl;~'a::\
,/ ~7f 1? l.,:--J ~ ~/. . "\,'"l r;,,~;'
I ' .~ /=1J -r r/ ,/ ~r
,,-I" ' .I;;r' ;l-- .-' '1' ",/' a ~\' ~'.-
/ ,I 'hl/ { I J' {~__.---- ("'....:.~. /
~.,"" -.. / / I~ /R~'" .-- -'I' >~,.-.? 'CI~!'- ~ !." ..,
..t~ . r~, 'u \ ~)-"-l! I J .i-l11.I~ /f'l'1 I ~""
~:~ ~>.. )"" ,1 ! III (-~t"'1 [~.~I i'YtI,~. 1~~1 /jK ". '
r. ',' - J i ./ r L . - r:
;~:\V!J 1] ',-; [r]l~ ~'e--
\ 'n_,.~", -'. \~ I (' '1 "f-, ~ I I ~ _ A : .... ~' :.:
. \1 . ,fS - JI I DC l ~ I, L Q Cl
" :;' ,\, "-f~v/ r i - - - ~
-~\ ,;~'~. \\ i/ (II l \~ l r i .;;
,})/i/(/I', \ lll) I ~ ,/.~.. II L___CI
f/' \/ '. V\ l ~ . f _ I .~
" , . \ , ;;;t,-- I 0 rl. & I
~ .,' I--j 1 \ '19'1 : I' I _I I ...
--I :1' f ~\ ~) __ j ~ ,\" '~ ~
\ f;J \ \/ 1--) \ / r .. _ I
\~ r------- f \ It .,--~ I \ 11/ L t I I- - - - I-=:-
,., ~'I 'rg "- (OJ r:: ~:: I .::
\ ~--~ \ lit) I f" . - -- I .n
__1~ '\, I ~-J ~i\\ l J ~. IJ ~ ~,I'. ;1 ~: .~ ('j
<'. \ I ~ ~~ I' ", ~ 7 ~ -1 r - - - -
a: <:'\ "I, ... r-- , ( , \ I ., "\~..!~ '~.' ~_I : N
f-\S:~~~\ . -. , t~ L . I I n.
V~ -:iI. "I \ \1\1 '\ ,!')~ I .~ t-I ~ - - - ;i
::~ ,,,,I: ..' ' "J' f-1' (~ ,/ r ' I ~. n:
C}'~~U1 I" ~.~../ --u Ai I I .~:
· ~ lIIl: ---'" :1l,(1 I I . I It_
;2" F", ~ tL I ~ St Toi -'"L L ,> L _ _ _
I ,~, II M r::~.I~ .,-to -, "l, ~I I u__.__ 3"1""1
m , , .....:.. o-,-iiij' 'J _ v
(' I f--'- - ~_ _', "1= ::- ----a '.H1NnOJ
f \1 IIW, III I ~ ~ ~
--". I ~p II I- r
.--
_n
~ '.1J
I'.;j', ~/ "~"~ ' \ ~. I
I~ ~ , I l~~ ""h,;_ ~- I ,,_ I ~ nO
I~ ~.;' t..a ~ur a.~ ~I: :.:
'1':,' :1=- ,~_~ .~ ~I
__ _ :'_ lif II ~ I. I I . ., -; ,.
t\..
\u!
..,
'i3
.Q ';;)
~
i~
~~
.-.: ::z _
a I
~ ~
~. . ."
~ 1-
~
~ R
l-ll-i
I - - I
liSig!. II I :
IhBIH!~q!: i
11111111111~li ~
-,'1111111111111 I
-II J J \ A B.~d ~ I I~ i 00 ~
T II ) I, "
/..
~jl
HI: d J
lilt ~
1t11.J '
~ II
;j,,:ali 7-
:.~ ~ t !
~ ~- ~ j
iU Ii 1
f~!~] III
..Uj~ ~!
h~H .
:~itl.vt 8
E
q
I ~B
~r;>
~.
!fJ' .:1 ZMlla ~
3.lfJRlJ'
...
~a
~r;>
1'.;.
" ~