Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2637 A� . �pS� • a1 -. C�:t� of ORONO ��� • . . � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � ;. . •` � ,_ � NO. 2637 • - � • A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MONICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SDBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #990 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Iaws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Ward Ferrell (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property Iocated at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and Iegally described as follows: • PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing ' at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 263 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to a point directly North of the point of beginning; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0009 ) ; and That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereaf; thence North 6 rods to the center of the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to the South line of said Section 32; thence West to the point of beginning; excluding the public road. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0010) ; and Page 1 of 13 � Cit� o� ORONO • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � I NO. 2637 � � ,. _ • . . � PARCEL 2 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, : Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South Iine of said Southeast quarter, 1088 _ feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to � said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North , through the point of beginning at right angles to the South , . Iine of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0008); and � PARCEL 3 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, . Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning z at a point on the South Iine of said Southeast quarter, 1228 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to � said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly . along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North ' • through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of � beginning. (A1so known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0007); and WHSREAS, for discussion purposes, the property has been � defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit �: A attached; and . � WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for ,: variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 • (B) to permit the construction of a principal residence structure , on a Iot containing approximately 1.04 acres or 52$ of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70$ of the required � 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 3 ) ; and to further permit the . construction of a principal residence structure on a Iot containing approximately 0.85 acres or 42.5� of the required 2.0 � acres in area and 140 feet or 70$ of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 2); and requesting Council approval per Zoning Code . Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) to separate non-conforming, . undeveloped, substandard, contiguous, unsewered Iots of record . under common ownership, which separation would result in � individual building sites not satisfying the lot area and Iot f width standards of the Zoning Chapter of the Orono Municipal ' Code; and ; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the app Iication; , • the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments of the neighboring property owners; and materials and comments made by the app licant and applicant's attorney. Page 2 of 13 c�t� o� oR,oNO � • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � �; � NO. 2637 • • • • NOW, THEREFOR$ BE IT RESOLVED that the City Counci I of Orono, Minnesota hereby makes the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS l. At the time the applicant purchased the property in . August 1948, the property contained approximately 4.19 acres, undivided, and contained only the residence Iocated at 3425 Watertown Road. At the time agplicant purchased the property, no Township of Orono zoning district nor lot size . standards are known to have been in effect. 2. On September 12, 1955, the Council adopted Ordinance No. ! 7, the platting code, requiring that aI1 Iats to be created ' � shall have a minimum lot width of 100' at the building Iine, 30' at the street line, and 15,000 square feet minimum area. • 3. On March 11, 1957, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 10 establishing the "Residual Zoning District" in which the applicant's property was located, allowing only private residential uses. 4. On February 10, 1958,, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 15, to amend the platting code, requiring that building Iots created by new subdivisions must be at Ieast 25,000 square feet in area, and at least 120 feet in width at the building line. 5. On September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on the undivided property. The request was granted subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Subsequently, Mr. . Ferrell was issued a building permit to construct a new residence on October 13, 1958, which residence is now known as 3405 Watertown Road. 6. Some time during 1958-1959, Mr. Ferrell subdivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 acre parcel, the new house at 3405 Watertown Road was Iocated on a 1.01 acre parcel (Parcel 1 per attached Exhibit A), and two additional parcels (Parcels 2 & • 3 per Exhibit A) were created between 3405 and 3425 Watertown Road. � Page 3 of 13 - Cit� of ORONO • , RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L � , � NO. 2637 • � • • 7. On October 12, 1959, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 22 establishing a minimum building lot size of 1 acre and minimum 140' width at the building line for aII building lots. Ordinance No. 22 also allowed the Council, at their option, to grant variances for existing lots in single separate ownership that do not meet these standards. 8. On September 14, 1967, the Council adopted the Orono Zoning Ordinance designating the R-1C zoning district in which the property is located, requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140 ' minimum width. 9. On January l, 1975, the current zoning ordinance came � into effect, rezoning this property to RR-1B, Rural Residential zoning district, requiring a minimum lat size of � 2.0 acres in area and 200' minimum width. 10. Mr. Ferrel.l has retained ownership of Parcels 1, 2, and • 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-1959 subdivision. 11. On March 18, 1985, Mr. Ferrell requested City staff to accept a variance application for approval to construct a new home on Parcel 3. At staff recommendation, Ferrell submitted the application as a zoning appeal in order to be granted a timely review and recommendation by the Planning Commissian without submitting the complete survey and soil testing information required. 12. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on that matter, Application #903, on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many variances were necessary to build on either Parcel 2 or 3. The Planning Commission noted that the property consists of 4 separate tax parcels which are contiguous and which are owned in common by the app Iicant. The property in total contains approximately 2.90 acres and has a defined width in excess of 600' in both respects meeting the area and width requirements for the single existing residence on the property. The Planning Commission determined that the following variances were required in order to allow new residences to be constructed on either of Parcels 2 or 3: Parcel 1 (with existing house) � a) Lot Area Required = 2.0 acres � Existing = 1.01 acres or 50.5$ Variance = 0.99 acres or 49.5� � Page 4 of 13 Cit� o� ORONO � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � `:. � � NO. 2637 • - • • Parcel 2 (vacant) � a) Lot Area Required = 2.0 acres Existing = 0.85 acres or 42.5� Variance = 1.15 acres or 57.5� b) Lot Width Required = 200 feet . Existing = 159 feet or 79.5� Variance = 41 feet or 20.5� Parcel 3 (vacant) a) Lot Area Required = 2.0 acres Existing = 1.04 acres or 52$ Variance = 0.96 acres or 48� b) Lot Width Required = 200 feet Existing = 149 feet or 74.5� • ' Variance = 51 feet or 25.5� 13. At the April 15, 1985 public hearing, the Planning Commission gave the applicant the general direction that the variances proposed were excessive and the Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were Iegally combined to create a 1.89 acre building lot. 14. The zoning appeal was reviewed by the City Council on May 28 , 1985 , and the Council affirmed staff ' s interpretation of the zoning code that many variances would be necessary in order to build on both vacant lots, and at that meeting certain individual Council members stated they might consider one additional building site but not two. - 15. On October 9, 1985, Mr. Ferrell submitted a formal application for variances to build new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the ' matter on November l8 , 1985, and tabled the application pending submittal of additional required survey and soil testing information for the existing house on Parcel 1. 16. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission again reviewed the now completed application. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of two new � building sites but recommended approval of one new building site usin,g the combined Parcels 2 and 3, if the applicant wished to revise his app lication accordingly. Page 5 of 13 Cit� of ORONO � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � � N0. 2637 • - • • 17. The City Council reviewed the original application on March 10, 1986, tabling it until April 14, 1986 for final action. On April 14, 1986, the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial of variances to al Iow houses on each of Lots 2 and 3 based on the following findings: A) The extent of the variances requested is excessive for the RR-1B zoning district. B) Given the history of septic system problems in the City of Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of three septic systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for three septic systems, is excessive. C) Because the property is currently used as a conforming residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of a reasonable use of the • property. D) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to justify granting of the requested variances. At the April 14, 1986 Cauncil meeting, the applicant noted his attorney could not. be present at the meeting. The applicant was asked if he wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney was present. Applicant stated that was not necessary. 18. After tabling actions with no discussion at the Council meetings of May 12 and May 27, 1986, due to applicant's inability to be present, the Council again reviewed this matter at the June 9, 1986 meeting, with applicant and his attorney present. The applicant's attorney requested tabling, and�the matter was tabled. � 19. In May 1987, the app Iicant again requested the Council to review this matter. At the regular Orono Council meeting of May 26, 1987, the applicant was present. The Council reviewed the original request and was tabled to the June 8, 1987 meeting. . 20. At the regular Orono Council meeting of June 8, 1987, the applicant did not appear and the matter was tabled. � ' Page 6 of 13 clt� o� oR,oNO � • I � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � - NO. 2G37 ,� � • • 21. On August 4 , 1988 , applicant submitted a Ietter requesting a revision of his original application to a11ow constructian of a new residence on only one of the parcels, and denying variances for the other parcel. This request was reviewed by the City Council at their regular meeting of September 12, 1988 and referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. 22. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of October 3, 1988, recommended approval of one additianal residence, conditioned on that residence being constructed on a legal combination of the two westerly parcels (Parcels 2 & 3 ) for a total of 1.89 acres in area for the new building site. � 23. , Due to health problems, applicant requested that this matter not be further reviewed by Council until he could be present. On Apri1. 10, 1989, applicant requested that the • item be placed on the Council agenda as soon as possible. The applicant was notified that the matter would be placed on the April 24, 1989 Council agenda. At that meeting, the applicant did not appear. The City Council voted 5-0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of variances to build a new residence on either of Parcels 2 and 3. 24. The applicant maintains that he divided the property in 1958-59 at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. The zoning code in effect at that time did not necessarily limit development to only one residence per building Iat. Mayor Ross would not apparently have been legally bound to request that a division be completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. 25. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner such that new homes could be built on each of Parcels 2 and 3 according to City codes at the time af division. The exact date of filing of the division has not been established. If it was priar to October 12, 1959, both Parcels 2 and 3 would have been conforming lots under the code in effect at the time. • Page 7 of 13 � � , c�t� o� oR,oNo � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � � NO. 2637 • � • • 26. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed septic system designs, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 and 3 which indicate that technically, septic systems can be provided to serve a residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the only criteria considered by the City in reviewing variance applications, and in this case and other similar cases, the City has also � considered, as a matter of policy, the potential adverse ' effect of higher density housing on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse effect on the general health, safety, and welfare. 27. The app Iicant maintains that when the zoning was proposed to be changed from R-1C (1 acre) to RR-1B (2 acre) in 1974, he attended the public hearings and was told that his Iots would stil I be buildable under the new zoning. This occurrence has not been documented by the applicant nor can � it be verified by the City. Whether or not it occurred, the zoning code adopted by the City Council would be binding. Mr. Ferrell was notified in writing by the City in 1981, upon inquiry, that under the current code, no building permits for a new house would be issued, and that no basis existed for the granting of variances. 28. The 1967 zoning code, which designated the property as R-1C, 1 acre, 140 foot width, stated as follaws regarding existing lots of record: 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the zoning code ) under single separate ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the require- ments of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be uti3.ized for a single family detached dwel ling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use • does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint ownership by not more than twp persons. Page 8 of 13 • clt� o� oR,oNo � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � � NO. 2637 r� _ � � The 1967 cade did not discuss common ownership properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. However, by using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it imp lied that other types of ownership would not be granted similar consideration. Under this 1967 Code, the applicant would have been allowed to build on Parcel 3 without a variance because the lot met the standards of the , R-1C zoning district. Parcel 2 would have required a Iot area variance in order to be legally buildable. 29. The zoning code adopted January 1, 1975, which declared the property to be zoned RR-1B, 2 acre single family residential, stated as follaws regarding existing lots of record: 31.201. $xisting Lots. A Iot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the zoning code) under single separate ownership in an "R" district, � which daes not meet the requirements af the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwel Iing purpose provided that in the judge- ment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the fol lowing requirements are ° met: 31.203. In "R' Districts of Greater Than One Acre. A 1ot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this zoning code as ta area ar width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwel ling purposes if the Council finds: i) it is at Ieast one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at Ieast 100 feet; and ii ) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and • iii) it otherwise meets the requirements of this pr other applicable ordinances. � Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have granted a, Iot area variance for a lot of single separate " ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss any standards fpr the separation of commonly owned lots. Page 9 of 13 . clty o� oR,oNo • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � : � NO. 2637 � • • • • 30. City policy regarding the separation of unsewerd, undeveloped, substandard, contiguous Iots in common awner- ship was clearly defined by an action of the City Council in 1981, in which the separation of a developed 1.4 acre Iot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot wide vacant lot in the LR-lA, 2-acre, 200 foot width, unsewered zone was denied. (Application #635, Council action to conceptually . deny on October 26, 1981, based on a) lack af demonstrated hardship; b) no sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insuf f icient width.) 31. The 1984 Zoning Code amendments included the addition of Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) , which prahibited the "transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped Iots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or cammon ewnership" unless specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the • resulting Iots satisfy the area and width requirements af the Zoning Code. No performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. 32. At least 13 groperties or groups af properties in a situation similar to Ferrell's with a high potential for request of similar variances have been identified within the City of Orpno. 33. Since January 1, 1975, when the 2 acre RR-1B zvning district became effective, no permits have been issued for new residences on commonly owned substandard lats in the RR- 1B district. Of 153 new residence permits issued in the RR- 1B district from 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 145 permits were issued for confprming Iots, 7 permits were issued for substandard lpts of record in single separate ownership due to the inability of applicants to combine or acquire additional land to create conforming lots, and 1 permit was issued to demolish and rebui ld an a substandard single separate ownership lot where a house was already existing. The City of Orono has consistently denied permits for substandard lots owned in c4mmpn with adjacent developed lats in the RR- 1B district. 3 4. The City Counci I has a lways required that when two or more unsewered lots are owned in comman, each lot must • individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zpning Code before any of the Iots can be built upon and that two ar more substandard Iots owned in cammmon must be combined so that the resulting combined Iat meets the requirements of the Zaning Code before the lots can be built upon. Page 10 of 13 � Y c�t� o� o�,oNO � • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � � � NO. 2637 • • - • • : i : � 35. The granting of the proposed variances would require amending the many sectipns of the Comprehensive Plan that : govern the rural develapment of the City. The City of Orona has been consistent in requiring a minimum of 2 acres for creation of a buildable Iot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. - 36. In review of the factual findings noted above, the � Council finds that to establish a precedent that would a11ow severely substandard lats to be developed to be in complete , conf lict with the established enviranmental standards for rural development within the City and to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks ; to the broader environmental principals and goals set farth . in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related ' to the public heath, safety and welfare. Issues involving : the public health, safety and welfare are not only resalved • in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns af : surrounding praperty owners but the City also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of Iife. 37. The granting of the proposed variances would require � the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the extension of City services to the ; property to maintain a suitable 1eve1 of fire protection. 38. The granting of the proposed variances would require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards set forth in the Orona Zoning Cpde and � Camprehensive Plan for an urban sized 1ot. 39. In granting the proposed variances, Council would ' abandon a longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability of substandard lots under common owner- ship and thereby establish an adverse precedent. 40. Denial af the subject variances would not constitute a , taking of property or Ioss of substantial value because � Parcels 2 and 3 have always had value and have been used as ' required area far the residence an Parcel l. . , 41. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter � and intent of the Orono Camprehensive Plan. 42. Granting of the variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare af the cammunity for the reasons outlined herein. Page 11 af 13 � .�::` Ci.t� o� ORONO • �:' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL '�'���,..'K/ `�± NO. 2637 y�, /�y 4::'f':';. W .' :..51:.. r . • . • . 43. T e amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be diminished by adding structures on each of the substandard lots. 44. The values of surrounding properties would be adversely affected by adding structures on each of the substandard Iots. 45. There are no special conditions applying to the land in , question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. 46. The granting of the variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 47. The granting of the variances Wi1i serve mainly as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrab�.e hardship or difficulty. • NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FIIRTHl3R RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width variances for construction of a single family residence on Parcel 2; and similarly denies the requested lot area and width variances f or construction of a singl.e family residence on Parcel 3, based upon one or more of the above noted findings of fact concerning this property. , i BE IT FIIRTHSR R$SOLVED, that the City Counci I of the City of Orono W�ii waive the normally required six month delay for resubmittal of variances, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5, if the applicant wishes to make one of the following new variance application requests less than six months after the adoption of this resolution: 1. Variance request to approve one new building site of 1.89 acres to be created by combining the two westerly lots (Parcels 2 and 3 ) . - 2. Variance request to approve one new building site of 1.45 acres, subject to a lot line rearrangement and legal combination, to leave 1.45 acres with the existing house. , If either of the above requests are forthcoming, they shall be made in a new application, and the proper application . fees shal I accompany such application. , � BE IT FIIRTHER R$SOLVED, that the City Counci I of the , City of Orono directs City staff to file this resolution in the , chain of title of Parcels 2 and 3, in order to place a11 parties on notice that the above referenced parcels have been den-ied ' variances for construction of a single family residence on each . individual parcel�. Page 12 of 13 � • , r" . Cit� o� ORONO � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � Q� � � NO. 2637 � � • - • • , . ' Adapted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held May 8th, 1989. ATTEST: � � . , ' o othy . ' Hallin, City Clef-k Jam R. Grabek, a�esr STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th �day af May, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Darothy M. Hal lin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota • municipal corparatian and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. No ary Public „ ,�a � � � L c K. SCNEFFLER "'` ���i�;='� N TA Y PUBL�C—MIN�ESOTA r �"�' HC•NNCFIN COUNTY .��1r'�3<:i ��;;�.�>:i`,•' My cor„mission expiros6•8-93 My Commission xpires , Page 13 of 13 • . � . . . . - rti � a � r n� �+ � x � Q�j�+O i1 7�., y~ 9�•�� Q �' Z ' � `i� EXHIBIT A °ex d T � ' �' � � �� �� � z �, 4� � � � _� � RESOLUTION NO. 2637 ��o;a ;1 1�1 � � 2 � �x �"�b. � i ���� � � � �. . � � � • 0 � e..� �S o ,n � ' ' . ��� ' �` v a ' ,: .� �.� ._ . . .. � , . . ���g. � •.,. - •� ' •o ��� ,�y �� � ,\ �R: �� � ' � � a �� ��"�. � tl .,��v�� • , . � �� �5. I . :��. , a � , . - ,:, . z� � � � � - � �-- �.~+ � � � ; � . �`. .v . � �;?, 0 . . • � . ,%;i � • • � �i�,k. �° • ' _ ' �/ ;�� M , �� • , • �. �� • h• • � 't N / ,C� . . � `w: `��� � �° . . , � v,,�: . .�. � . .• . . �t•' , , •? � . o .�,b _ i J 4, . . y 3 . 1 h 6 \ , �°• '�L` . .. x�, • � •. • • . % �� . • ` " . . �K , . .i- . , << .... ..t V . . o :\ • ` • . • / . . � � .- .. , ., 2 . . /. . � . - / .. :. x , }.'r'�W3M� . . �\,•_� �90� � 1 \. ,/�, \' �lp r� �\I , . / ��1. �\ }\� �. F���� }1 1" `l��`♦ 1� '. I � • ( �-�9m . [�\��.``� ����'J'j �xtll . � o9t°d� � � . � �� �� . :�-• c�u�o�s� L Q �c��. ,`• ( o � Y• -- -�.� �j.�,��`,��1_.! i N �- ..�. .-r........�.......,... / I.0 x \ � 9Sl+oH - � � y ��,�J11WVM� �HSOC�4�� � i 1� 4� � O�gO�� I � ' • 4i ti -�1�1++�y�d __1 �-—L'� � � /'� � Q �! Y - �i... 1_- - _„_�� / .I� £r �J � / / � � —�`—�as � . _v _ _ � �� .� .� �.. � .__ —— � bC- I' .a4 --IY � r u �' i .� —— _ _. — _ ` tJ4�V .7� / . _ y��9�.. C�A°.od�?d • . : : . � : • . .. � . N ---- �� \�`�ti . tl � • . ,� • C j '. .� j\� . \ \ £s �. ' i • - ���'3�— - I �' � � •,� ' .5 � � • . I IzmYS� ' I_�`.� � \t � X • �SV.H '.�. � �' '`.� �� . • �. � ��I i"• '4x' � s . � . ' � ., . T- , 1 I: 'h...'. . h z� � � '` : '+oM J ••'�. �. . I � .. � .. � •' p , �� • '. � /�� . . �a� . ' , ' ' �---J ' � ��� y-s� � � i • 3 7 ' . • . . ' � - }~ y i��t � v � • • ' • s�a J�•� •;4 " L__.���_J � . � •���bM7 ' • � ���6F3��a3n��'tY��bti+t+� G%3�obo'M , • ' � ' -, - .