Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 6, 2002CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 6, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. E~ @ E~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 552 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, John LeGros, Paul Lunte, Rick Perry and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of July 2, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. Public meeting to review a request by residents within the Parkwood Village Planned Unit Development to vary from the maximum fence height requirements that are identified in the Municipal Code. The subject property is located near the intersection of Meadowbrook Drive and Packwood Village Drive inthe R-1-8, Residential Single- Familyzoning district on Map 37 2W OlBD. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission July 2, 2002 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Fosterand Wayne Riggswere present. John LeGros, Rick Perry and Paul Lunte were absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey Planning Director; Matt Samitore Community Planner, and Dave Arkens Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence for item A. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2002 meeting as presented. CommissionerRiggssecnnded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes and Riggs, yes. Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review an application fora 10 lot subdivision known as Birchwood Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is located near the the intersection of Circiewood Drive and Beall Lane in the R-2, Residential Two-Familyzoning district on Map 37 2W 12CC, Tax Lot6300. Tom Humphrey Planning Director, gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and the different zone classifications, along with the tables for maximum residential density in each zone. He also stated that there are a number of single family dwellings built within R-2 and R-3 districts which encourages sprawl. The State will begin to ask how the City has used all zones, which could effect future requests for UGB expansion. The City was approached several months ago regarding the development of the mentioned property. The PUD alternative, increases the number of units per acre, which would allow better use of land, satisfy the density issues with single family lots,and be a more appealing design style without detracting from the existing homes in the surrounding area. The common area (Lot 10), will be the responsibility of individual home owners through CC & R's, and a homeowners association. Public Works, BCVSA, and Fire District# 3 have all been involved from the onsetto make their recommendations. An application for Administrative variance (Exhibit "C")was approved, to allow forthe lot size being .90 acres, instead ofthe minimum one acre, for PUD's. Additional PUD criteria is outlined in the Staff Report. This proposed PUD will reduce the cost of utilities and services. It will also reduce the number of flag lots. Paul Grout, agent for the Owner/Applicant, stated that his intention is to build charming, upscale, open singlefamilydwellingswith a courtyard area. Hedoes not wanttoputinduplexes. He believesthatonascaleof1-10,thisdevelopmentwould bean 8. Some homes will be attached, some will be detached. Lots 6 & 7 will be attached and share a driveway. The lean-to on the existing house will be eliminated to keep with design. The new design also incorporates the reccommendations of Fire District # 3. Don Bilberry, of 151 Woodridge Drive, expressed concerns with parking, whetheror notthe garages were single car, and whethertherewould be anadequate play area for the children. It was explained that the homes will have single vehicle car ports, in addition to single car garages. Tom Humphrey explained that conditions can be made to provide some play area in the open space. Mr. Bilberry also wondered if this project will intertere with the widening of Beall Lane. There will be a total of 72 feet, with 2 travel lanes, curb, gutter and a turn lane. It was mentioned that the existing paved area of Beall Lane is currently only 24 feet. ErvTipping, of 157 Woodridge Drive, objected thatit had even become a PUD. He stated that looking at it realistically, with the width and height of the proposed homes, there would not be room to plant trees as a buffer. He feels that the designs distributed by Paul Grout were deceiving, because there appears to be approximately 3 feet to plant the trees, unlike the drawing. He also shared the concerns aboutvehicles having the room to maneuver. Mr. Tipping does not like the design at all, and doesn't believe the development is compatible with surrounding homes. Don Malloy, of 1355 Circlewood, is an adjoining property owner. He wanted to know the price range of these homes. Though Mr. Grout has not conducted a fair market analysis, he estimates these home will be in the $139,000 - $145,000 price range. Mr. Malloy is concerned about 60 feet of building being 5 feet from his home. He also wanted to know about on street parking. Mr. Malloy said thatthis is already a very busy, dangerous corner and it is very difficult to turn from Circlewood onto Beall Lane towards Medford. Melvin Coffin,is the owner of a 1 acre parcel at 520 Beall Lane, and a % acre parcel at 508 Beall Lane. His property borders the West side of proposed development. Mr. Coffin , is concerned abouttraffic issues, does not like the parking idea. He also believes that when Beall Lane is widened, it will bring traffic even closer to homes. He feels that the design is too confining, and does not go well with their area. However, Mr. Coffin doesnotobjecttoduplexes.Thepossiblityofchildrengetting into his pond is also of concern to him. He disagrees with cramming people in, and feels that morethoughtcouldgointothis. ChuckPiland, asked Mr. Coffin ifhewas aware that his property is also zoned R-2. Mr. Coffin stated that he would never build like this, and that he wants to see something fit better into their area. Daren McKendree, of 158 Woodridge Drive, expressed a concern for a different income level moving into the area, he will be surprised ifthese proposed homes sell for over $115,000, or if the homeowners will take care of their yards. Mandi Hopkins, of 1380 Circlewood, stated how concerned she is with the additional trafficandwhatshewillbeseeingforaviewfromherhouse. Mrs. Hopkins does not want to look at covered parking, a flashing light or stop sign. She wanted to know why they have to abide by their CC & R's only to have more people move in with their own CC & R's to follow. Mrs. Hopkins said thatthe fees paid to build herhouse paid for Forest Glen Park down the street, and it's for their use. She sees nothing buta trailer park or row houses when she looks atthis project. Tom Humphrey, explained the SDC fee's, and how they contribute to community parks, also that home values city-wide have increased in 2 years. Mrs. Hopkins responded thatthe value oftheir homes has increased due to the homeowners in her area and their efforts. Kathy Bilbery, of 151 Woodridge, is also concerned aboutthe kids walking to Howard School, and how dangerous it is. Mrs. Bilbery stated that a sidewalk should be part of the builders proposal. Jessica Prins, of 1106 Circlewood Ct, stated that her main concern is maintenance. She would like the proposal to include a maintenance agreement to match their own. Paul Grout responded to the concerns that had not already been addressed. He feels that these homes offer a lot of diversity, and are not entry level homes. The average price for existing homes in this area is $150,000-$160,000. The house for sale bythe park is listed at $240,000-$250,000. Matt Samitore Community Planner, added that Cedar Shadows is a similar subdivision and those homes range from $141,000 - $169,000, he feels that Mr. Grout is right on with his estimated market value. Mr. Grout also believes that single family homes will help with surrounding homes value as opposed to building duplexes. Mr. Groutwas asked aboutthe existing home. He stated that it is a 1920's home that was remodeled in the 1960's and is listed with the County Assessors office as a 1960's home. It has a concrete foundation, a heat pump and new roof. The lean- to on the right side of house will be removed. Mr. Groutthen addressed the possibility of a tot lotand is open to looking further into it. He admitted not giving a lot of thought to this before, because he had expected the children to go to larger open spaces Tike Forest Glen Park. Everything in the PUD will be landscaped. Commissioner Fish would like to see a play area for the 3 - 6 year olds These will all be 3 bedroom homes and will target families, since seniors probably will not be interested in stairs. Duplexeswould notwork well with the existing home on property or those along Circlewood. Commissioner Piland closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Fish stated that homes built to R-1 densities in R-2 zones do not promote smart growth. She wants a tot lot located on lot 10. The driveway for lots 6 & 7 should be moved North, be at least 24 feet wide. The Home owners Association should have enough money set up in reserve for the up keep, until a house is sold. Commissioner Fish is also in favor of single family homes over duplexes. Commissioner Piland said the sidewalk on Beall would be a part of the Beall Lane expansion and improvements. He would like to look into a yellow flashing pedestrian lightorcaution sign. CC & R's are no guaranteewhetherthe home is old or new, but home ownership does make a difference in up keep. Commissioner Foster is uncomfortable with this PUD, and asked if there will be an Association to control issues like paint, etc. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 551, approving the 10 Lot subdivision known as Birchwood Village PUD, subject to staff's recommended conditions of approval, and 1). Common fencing be used throughout the PUD; 2). Special concrete "grass-pave" be used on lots 1,2,3 and 8; 3). a tot lot be added and fenced; 4). Lots 6 & 7 share a common drive; 5). The driveway on lot 10 to be 24' wide; and 6). The applicant will build units at or better than the elevations he has shown. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adoptthe resolution. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, no; Riggs, yes; motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey Planning Director, addressed the Planning Commission, and asked them if there is any thing they would like to see Planning research and bring back to them. He explained that the Planning Department is trying to take a proactive approach. There will be a fence variance coming up forAugust, but will try to resolve administratively. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:33 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 6, 2002 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Variance from fence height requirements for nine lots within the Parkwood Village Planned Unit Development (372WO1BD). Applicants: James and Bazbaza Kontur 2606 Parkwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Judy Howe 2794 Parkwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Greg Altenhofen and Carol Caster 2786 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Christie Cox 2778 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Gloria Wolter 2770 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Bob and Mary Alvazez 2762 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Carol and Don Fox 2603 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 James and Barbaza Burcham 2646 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 ~2 Robert and Marla Ipsen 2569 Parkwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Summary: The applicants wish to vary from fence requirements in order to exceed the maximum 6 foot fence height required by code. The subject parcels are zoned R-2, Residential Two-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and decide, without a public hearing, any application for a fence variance. Review is being performed in accordance with CPMC 1.24.050 (Attachment "B"). Applicable Law: CPMC 15.20.040 et seq. -Fence Height on Lots CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Two-Family District Discussion• The Applicants decided to request this fence variance and have provided their rationale as part of the attached application including findings of fact for consideration by the Commission (Attachment "C"). CPMC Sections 15.20.040 states that no fence shall be higher than 6 feet on or along the portions of side and back property lines. Requests for fence variances shall be made by application ...and shall be reviewed in accordauce with Chapter 1.24 (which involves Planning Commission consideration without a public hearing. The above listed applicants aze requesting that the Planning Commission grant a variance from the 6 foot height requirement by allowing an additional two foot lattice section to be constructed on top of the existing fences(Attachment "D"). Their justification is based upon the difference in ground elevation between their properties and adjoining subdivisions. The disparity was created when the Parkwood Village P.U.D was constructed with a large volume of fill dirt brought in to elevate the houses. Engineering plans included extensive fill to ensure that storm water would drain away from surrounding parcels towards the street as required by building codes. Some of the homes within Parkwood Village are as much as two feet higher than those located in the adjacent Central Point East subdivision. Most of the reaz yazd are deck-equipped with a clear view of the neighboring properties. While most of the applicant's reside along the Southerly boundary of Parkwood Village near Oakview Avenue and the Layton property, two are located at the intersection of Village Lane and Parkview Village Lane. Mr. Kontur, a resident at 2606 Parkwood Village Lane has explained the effect of the fill on the neighborhood (Attachment ,.F..) The North boundary of Pazkwood Village has an elevation disparity which can be resolved without the need for a variance since the fence height will be measured from the higher ground on the affected parcels. Q2 Parkwood Village Homeowners Association has provided a letter of support for the variance provided that the Commission approves it and that property owners are aware of additional conditions pertaining to architecture, structural integrity and maintenance of the lattice. The Planning Department recommends that the Commission give staff the ability to work with other property owners in this development if they approach the City for a similar variance request. Each request would require the same application procedure and applicable fees as required by code except they would be reviewed by staff. If staff identifies that the findings of fact need additional scrutiny by the Commission, the application would be scheduled for hearing. Packwood Village Homeowners Association would need to provide documentation similar to the material submitted on behalf of this application. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The strict application of the Ordinance for this application would not appear to create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant, however the Planning Department recognizes that the privacy of the applicants has been compromised by the difference in grade between the properties. 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The variance if approved would allow a reduced likelihood of future privacy related conflicts between neighbors as this area develops. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The location of the fence may not necessarily provide any additional beautification to this neighborhood or city, however the lattice work being proposed is an attractive solution for this variance. c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, While the increased fence height would not necessarily provide additional safety to this neighborhood, it would allow the applicants a greater sense of security and privacy. a d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, An increased fence height will likely to provide additional protection and privacy to this neighborhood since an 8 foot high fence as opposed to a 6 foot fence provides a better barrier given the difference in ground elevation. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. Notices have been sent to surrounding property owners explaining the variance request and the Planning Department has yet to receive comments concerning the application. f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Lattice-topped fences like the ones proposed by the applicants are commonly constructed in residential neighborhoods in other cities. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: Approve the fence variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance application; or 3. Continue the review for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Application for Fence Variance B. Notice of Meeting C. Applicant's Findings of Fact D. Applicant's Site Plan showing fence height E. Letter from Parkwood Village Homeowners Association F. Correspondence from Mz Kontur H:\Planning\02036.wpd O } ~- F v CS~tp of Gent tit E~~~~~~ 'Are Planning DeparWtcsYt CZZ~Y' OF CF:7~7TRAL POZNT Appli.ca-tiors. for ~'ara:c~. or S~..gri Var i anc e Proposed Site Location // f Address__1~1.f~OCYa J~(C[ 1. /~L'G~.- J~-G~ ~. ~ /c~ ~. ~vt._ G~ / ~~e~tdJ~ iticd' fled /YI V [irt~-+~1 Fle--- Assessor's Map Page Location ax Lots Briefly descr//}ibAe A~the fence or sign imp//r~~ovement you intend/to build on/this property= 17d~~Y .~ ~~' 'TlJ ~ Ol"~ b ~ ~ /'~L(~. Rectuired Information Accurate scale drawing of the site and fence or sign improvements proposed. The drawing of the site must be adequate to enable the Planning Commission to determine the compliance of the proposal with the requirements of the applicable section of the Central Point Municipal Code which is attached to this application. APPL-FENCEJSIGN.ADMIN 0 ~ ~~9~ a Provide a statement which explains how strict application of the provisions of the City's fence or sign regulation would result in unnecessary hardship. (Be specific identify the exact regulation for which you are requesting an exception) Cz ty of Cen tz~al Po.in t PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey,- AICP Planning Director Notice of Public Meeting Date of Notice: July 16, 2002 Ken Gerschler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician _ _ ... ~Y o f G'enti5;ai t ~X~~~~" tt~,tt Planning Deputmmt Meeting Date: _. August 6, 2002 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a request to vary from the fence requirements. ofthe Central Point Municipal Code within the Packwood Village Planned Unit Development..The development is located in a R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W OIBD. The Central Point Planning: Commission is being asked if fences within this development can. exceed 6 feet in height with the installation of a 2 foot high cedar lattice on top of the existing fence along certain lots where the ground surface is uneven and privacy is an issue with adjoining properties. At the meeting, the Commission will review the documentation submitted by the applicant and will decide whether or not to grant the variance. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may request review of such action by the City Council. Such a request must be filed in writing to the City Administrator no more than seven (7) days after a notification of the decision is given to those parties whom provided comments to the Planning Commission. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to fence variances. ~~ PUBLIC COMMI?N'I'S 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August. 6, 2002. 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly fo the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 292. _~ ~~ 155 South Second Street f Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 /''e.~vlal~'a-r 1S ~c~-o. UYv _._.. CSty of Centre ~~iI~II~I`T'' «C» ~ Planning D~att~tt C'u.! ~-X e-utPli ~ 1-~-0~-.~ %~-~~. G,~ ~.- o~ Io ts. ~S~-/-~s Gjccr~C lof /rh~ c~~ia,!! ~ovLc~ `i~c- fo cz~c/ /"jDrYt e-UWK'~CS m !/~'Ja-~1 r7icu~ Or et~o~sy ~~ ~-~~- ~-- ism o~ ~. a /`e~~<-- .. cyi 7`~~ load. rJvi- ~ Tl~-- Gl fit- o~ ~w~~ !Zi Ovc_ ~~ccclC` f ~S ~ Ltl~-- C.~(~/~ O(~~-- ,ccs~ of Pr.J'v4c~ . C~ ~bX ~~o,-,/d- ~Jo/f~~- a7~~ ~~~~ x-7'70 `~ v<,1~.~ ,, C~-~., `'. ~u.wl:~ ~..: ~~~' a 603- .: ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~/-~ rr Q~ ~a~'-~ f}' • ~, e, Uc~arrs~. Gt1 iJ~ ~t-nu id ~ Q~ucwh~~ ~ ~• ~`~- U4''i°+yGe.. (,Jdl~ ~YOUId~-. ~ptaul~i'!=r"ce~j 11~ / ~ ate.. ~u~y~s. ~.... ~~;~.~~~-s /~,~ ~s c~ sue. ~G;,-.~~-ly ;~~ o~ n (Ue~l.~c~-S C.I.uG~' ~j~c.nr c--bar-t S_ i y Gam.- i S N a / vj Ot.~t. [ i~ cllYc c f S~u ~-e_. ~ i J~ aJ f-' L.1 DSO vt cy / ~_ !olihclS. ~ ~~%uc~c y U-- ~~ calms !~S L(~/or,-.g-Q--.. ~~S ~a~; ~w (.c>~ (,tvi/t cep/ l~G-v;- a- l~Ltc~.~-c.~;~~. CYO~C ! OffiG`~.-- / (~ ce.~- till !/( % (ivt~ rcYl~-' OU(G ~G~~ibrn-l~loocY ClvlC~' r~L..l~-«t^¢.. ~L-~- -"-Cuui~ /~U'21/ ~Q J ~irrti, IIS, ~` ~oX ~7~ D/77f I!liln„__ ~~~l~... r...o r~ul_ c/~./l./'~ClV~ •~ .. , R City of Cetttt~ ~'A~tt EXHI~~` rf~ tf ;. Planning'Deriarhnent . 9 v •• a J S '~ d V ~- s~ r ~~ ~~ PARKWOOD VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. BOX 3447 - .: _. _... -- CENTRAL POINT', OREGON 97502 ~'~~- _._._.. City Af Ceut~;a1 Fait July 23,.2002 td ~t EXHIBIT' E Re: Lattice Work Extension on Rear Fence Line Planning Deparknen't Mr. & Mrs. Robert Ipsen 2569 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 l~Mr. & Mrs. James Kontur 2606 Packwood Village Lane Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Rob, Marla, Jim, and Barbera, Thank you for your submittal to the Architectural Committee. I have reviewed your request and subject to the following conditions find the request acceptable. This approval is subject to the wnditions listed below; 1) Approval and permits issued by the City of Central Point 2) Lattice work to be finished in the same color as the existing fence 3) Latticework remains in good physical condition. Repaired when needed 4) No objections being raised by adjoining property owners both within Packwood Village and outside of Packwood Village. 5) This approval is limited to the properties addressed above. 6) This approval is being made with the assumption that the added Lattice Work will not put any addition stress on the existing fence. Any damage that results from the installation and long-term presence of the Lattice Work on the existing fence shall be the obligation of the installing property owner. Again, thank you for your submittai and compliance with the community CC&R's. If you have any questions please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sine ly, Georg .Gardner, Chairman tectural Committee Packwood Village Homeowners Association, Inc. ce: John Shepherd, Boazd Member Lisa Vetti, Board Member ~. ~r acy or cen~ai Point ~~~ °~ T ~ a o ~ . ~XIIIE~r~r *tF tt 1, Planning Department _ a~i ~.. a ~ ,, D r . _ ....~c~-e.~ • _ _ .. _ ~. _ _ _ .. _ _ .-- ~ tu-~-~ - .. _ .. _.. _ _ _`_ _ . _ a ~ ___. 7 ~ _ ._ ~"~ __ _~ _ . _ ._.. t.ct~t~.y_t~ .~ , .... .. _ c~. .` C -~ _ "~ ` ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ -~? ~ ~- ~ ~~ -_` `~ {-r---.~--~-- a ~ ~. ~. ~ ~~ ~~-~. ~' ~ A 1^yt !"'~ --- ~y ~~ tiV//ttt~~(,,, ~~ aZr n _ ~?~ ` aG, aaa ~ Q~ ~ ~~ ,~~ ~! ~;~ ? 0~ t o,~~ ~ „~~rf~°- ~,~/' ~v ~ ~~~ ~~-~ C' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~?,~~ ~, c~-e. ~,~~'~- ;7 l~ (v ~' `~9 ~~ ~~ ~,~.~ x ~~'~ 1 a'~ ~~~~ f~~ ~~~ n ~~r ~~i i ~ ~.~~ 1_ -~~ ~j x ~+ ~~~~ 1~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~--~ , ~°° ~~ ~,1 ~~~~ i~ i ~~ __---, ~~~ ~~°I -~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~r ~$ . I~ ~~~ ~ `a ~~ ~~~ 5~ ~~ ~~? ~~ ~' a 'i~ 4~ p 1 ~H ~,8~ ~ ~ ~^°~$ ~ y _..---- ,~~a ~ ~~ ~' ~` ~.,~.'~---__ " ~~d tiffs ~~~ ` t tdl ~,~~~~rz ~ M~ bN°~~ ~~t ~~ ~ Sral ~' f 7 ~~