10-25-10 PC AgendaAGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, October 25, 2010
7 pm
1. Approval of Minutes
a. October 11, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision - 941 and 2021 Angelo Drive -
SU07-10
a. Applicant: Paula Pentel and Warren & Kim Rottman
b. Address: 941 Angelo Drive and 1021 Angelo Drive
c. Purpose: The applicants are requesting that the property line between their
two properties be redrawn to correct a gazebo encroachment
3. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2011-2015 -Sue Virnig, City
Finance Director
4. Short Recess
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
.This docume+it is avai(ahle in aiteri7ate formatsupo~ a 72-hour request. Please call
s~ 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968} to make a request.. Examples of alternate formats
;~ may incfu~le large prir7t, ele~aronic, Brailf. u,~'ww~s5@tt~, etc.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
October 11, 2010. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum
and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes,
City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner
Schmidgall was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
August 9, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the first paragraph on page 6 and noted that the words "found in" were
used twice erroneously in the first sentence.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
August 9, 2010 minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment -
Preliminary Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75,
Amendment #3
Applicant: Menard, Inc.
Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd.
Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards
store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center.
Grimes explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD in order to tear
down the existing building and construct a new 2-level store on the same site. He gave a
brief history of the property and stated that Menards has been at this location since
1981.
Grimes referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the existing store is
approximately 128,000 square feet in area on one level and the proposed new store
would be approximately 250,000 square feet on two levels. The applicant is also
proposing a 42,000 square foot warehouse area along the north property line and a
garden center with both indoor and outdoor display areas on the east side of the store.
The garden center will eliminate the need to sell Ghristmas trees and landscape material
in the front parking lot as allowed in their current PUD Permit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 2
Grimes noted that this property is currently zoned I-394 Mixed Use however it is the City
Attorney's opinion that because Menards is already an existing PUD they can go through
the PUD amendment process with this proposal.
Grimes explained that one concern regarding this proposal is the issue of parking. He
noted that the size of the parking lot will increase by only 23 parking stalls for a total 376
spaces which is significantly fewer than what is required in the Zoning Code. Menards
has stated that they feel 376 parking spaces will be adequate but staff is proposing that if
they need more spaces some of the yard space behind the building will have to be used
for additional parking.
Grimes referred to the proposed landscaping and discussed storm water quality for the
site. He noted that staff has met with the applicant regarding Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission standards and they've agreed to meet the Level 1 standards
for water quality. He explained that Menards doesn't have their storm water plans
finished yet, but they will be available by the time the Final PUD Plan is approved. He
added that Menards has proposed the creation of bio-filtration ponds and an
underground storage system to help meet the Level 1 standards. The installation of the
bio-filtration ponds will require some trees to be removed along Market Street, Wayzata
Blvd and Hampshire Ave. He added that Menards will also have to do a tree preservation
plan and probably mitigation.
Grimes referred to the signage on the site and explained that the current pylon sign is an
existing non-conforming use so it can stay. However, the signage on the building will be
reduced by several hundred square feet.
Grimes referred to the elevation drawings and said that staff would prefer if all of the
sides of the building were done in the same finish material as is being proposed for the
front since all four sides of the property are visible. He added that staff is recommending
approval of this proposal with the conditions listed in his memo.
Waldhauser stated that in the 1-394 Corridor Study one of the long-term goals was to
have another east/west street between I-394 and Laurel rather than having a "zigzag"
access to the business. She asked who would bear the cost if the City wanted to split
this property in half with a new east/west road. She suggested removing the frontage
road and having thy,. warehouse and lumber yard on one side of a parkway/road and the
retail on the other side. She questioned the feasibility and the cost of such a
configuration. Grimes agreed that the I-394 Corridor Study does suggest an additional
east/west connection and ideally that is what the City would like, but at this time the City
could not pay the acquisition and utility costs. Waldhauser questioned the re-use of this
property as something other than a big box store if it is not split.
Cera stated that ideally one might want to match the plans in the I-394 Corridor study but
the Commission also has to look at what is realistic. He asked if variances can be
approved within a PUD or if they are subject to the same requirements as other variance
requests. Grimes stated that PUDs are a zoning issue and because this property is
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 3
already a PUD it can continue to be a PUD and they have the right to ask for an
amendment. He added that a PUD also allows the City to require certain things it may
not otherwise be able to such as water quality improvements. He explained that there is
currently minimal water quality on the current Menards site so this proposal will be a
significant improvement in that regard.
Cera asked why the number of curb cuts on the east side of the parking lot has been
reduced. Grimes stated that reducing the curb cuts created more space for parking stalls
and also having fewer openings creates less confusion in parking lots. He added that the
City Engineer feels the proposed number of curb cuts will function well.
Segelbaum expressed concern regarding the driveways on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that
he agrees they may not need additional parking stalls, but they may need additional
access. Eck agreed.
Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menard, Inc., Applicant, referred to the
condition in Mark Grimes' report regarding the front facade material being mimicked on
all sides of the building. He stated that he thinks he'll have a hard time getting Menards
to go along with that, especially on the north side along Laurel, because it would be a
substantial cost and that side of the property won't be highly visible. Cera asked about
changing the east and west facades. Morrissey said he thought that might be feasible.
He referred to the site plans and noted that there will also be 14-foot high pallet stacking
fencing around the yard area to serve as screening and security. Grimes added that the
Zoning Code requires outdoor storage to be screened. Segelbaum questioned if the
fencing has to be 14 feet in height and asked if it could be 8 feet in height on the east
side along Hampshire Ave. Morrissey said the 14-foot fence height is consistent with
what they currently have and it allows for storage as well.
McCarty noted that size of the store is doubling. He asked Morrissey if they are planning
on doubling the types of products they carry or if they are going to double the amount of
the products they already sell. Morrissey said they are definitely going to increase the
variety of products .they sell along with having a grocery segment, a showcase area for
kitchens and bathrooms and a garden center which is one of the main reasons for
redeveloping this property.
Eck asked Morrissey if the objective is to do more business with the same customers or
of they are hoping fo attract new customers. Morrissey said they are hoping to keep their
existing customers and attract new ones.
Eck questioned how adding only 23 new parking spaces would be acceptable. Morrissey
said he finds most zoning codes require too much parking and that they typically ask
cities for parking variances. He stated that Menards doesn't have as many customers as
a retailer like Target or Walmart. They have a more steady flow of customers but not a
large number of customers at certain times of the year. He added that they have done
parking studies in the past and typically their stores require approximately 250 parking
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 4
spaces. Eck asked Morrissey if the current store has more parking spaces than they
really need. Morrissey said yes.
Segelbaum asked about Menards plans in the event they don't have sufficient parking.
Morrissey said they would probably allocate employee parking spaces in the back
yard/warehouse area. Grimes noted that Menards could also have an off-site parking
arrangement with nearby businesses if needed.
Waldhauser asked if the footprint of the building is staying the same. Morrissey said the
new building's footprint will be similar to the existing building's footprint.
Waldhauser said she would like to see more trees on this site and that she doesn't
understand why there can't be trees located in the bio-retention ponds. Morrissey
explained that the bio-retention ponds have drain the buried underneath engineered
soils. He added that the ponds can't support a tree's root structure and only specific
plants will be used to help filter the water. McCarty questioned why the parking lot in
front of the store isn't using the same underground storage tank design that is being
proposed in the back lumberyard area. Morrissey stated that the bio-retention ponds are
preferred by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and there isn't
enough room in the lumberyard area to install bio-retention ponds. Grimes added that
the soil types in the lumberyard area are more suitable for the proposed underground
tank system and the soil types in the front of the store are more suitable for the bio-
retention ponds. He said it is his understanding that the way the project is proposed is
the best way to get to the Level 1 standards for water quality.
Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could suggest that the parking areas be
reduced by 10 to 15 percent in order to allow for additional landscaping and to get the
space required to allow for another driveway access to be installed along Hampshire
Ave.
Waldhauser referred to the building materials proposed and asked if Menards has given
any thought to splitting or combining the types of materials used in order to break up the
facade. She asked if the wooden posts with the flags in the front of the store are
necessary. Morrissey stated that the building proposed is Menards' prototype and has
the identifiable Menards entryway. Waldhauser said the store is out of place in the city
and will look like Fort Apache. She said she would like to use any leverage the Planning
Commission has in order to get an attractive asset to the community. Morrissey stated
that this is a financially fragile project and discussed the high costs involved due to the
soil conditions. He said Menards is proud of the look of their stores and he would
appreciate some leniency regarding the aesthetics. He added he is willing to use the
brick stamped concrete on the south, east and west sides of the building which is an
upgrade. McCarty said he would be happy if the sides of the building were at least the
same color as the front and not necessarily brick stamped concrete. Cera agreed that
he'd like to see the buff color on the entire building and more trees.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 5
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Grimes noted that the Commissioners concerns seem to be additional landscaping, and
an additional driveway on Hampshire Ave. and the aesthetics on the east and west sides
of the building. Waldhauser agreed and reiterated that the Commissioners concerns
could probably be addressed if Menards is able to reduce the number of proposed
parking spaces. She added that she would like to see center island plantings with large
trees as well.
McCarty stated that he is overwhelmed by the size of the lumberyard/storage/garden
center area and the 14-foot high fence. He suggested that area be reduced in size.
Morrissey referred to the site plan and explained that there needs to be adequate space
for cars to maneuver in the garden center area. Segelbaum agreed that the proposed
fencing will make the site look very enclosed. Waldhauser suggested installing a different
type of fencing along the east side of the building which would allow people to see
through to the garden center. She added that the Laurel side of the property is a parkway
and she doesn't want it to look industrial.
Cera said he feels the Commission has given Menards some good general guidance but
they don't need to micro-manage where the fences are located. Grimes reminded the
Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council and that
Menards can make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission or not.
Kluchka said he thinks the I-394 Corridor study has been set aside for this proposal and
he won't vote in favor of it without addressing how it aligns with the study.
Segelbaum expressed concern about the safety hazards of having two curb cuts along
Wayzata Blvd. and suggested having one driveway access on Wayzata Blvd. and one
driveway access on Hampshire Ave.
Waldhauser reiterated that she would like some trade-off regarding toning down the color
and updating the store to an urban setting.
Kluchka stated that Golden Valley is competing in this area with the West End
Development in St.__Louis Park which is a very high end development. He asked how the
store in Eden Prairie was able to have its facade changed. Morrissey stated that the
Eden Prairie store is anon-prototypical store. He explained that they didn't have to deal
with the sail conditions in Eden Prairie that they are dealing with in Golden Valley which
is taking away a lot of dollars that could be used elsewhere. He added that the store in
Eden Prairie was also started in a better economic climate and reiterated that the Golden
Valley project is an economically fragile project.
Waldhauser reviewed the Zoning Code criteria used when considering a PUD. She said
she feels that the access to the site and the storm water treatment methods being
proposed are improvements and this proposal will be keeping a viable business in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 6
Golden Valley. She stated that there is nothing inconsistent with this proposal
considering what is currently in the I-394 Corridor but it does not meet her criteria for the
planned land uses in the Corridor. She stated there is not much the City can do to
preserve trees on this site and there is no positive enhancement, but the adjoining
wetlands are being preserved. She stated that this development precludes the
construction of any type of housing development or mixed use development in the future
which is something they can't control because it is an existing use, but it doesn't add to
the objectives for the area. She stated the proposal works and is functional, but she
doesn't see anything creative about it and it doesn't do anything to move the City toward
its mixed use vision rather it is a big box with a stockade around it. She stated that the
proposal uses the existing infrastructure but it doesn't provide any open space or
enhance the street alignment. Kluchka added that any developer of property around
Menards could potentially say they don't have to use quality materials because of the
precedent Menards would set. Waldhauser said this development is helpful in that they
are proposing to build up with two stories rather than rebuilding a new one-story building
that wouldn't fit in with the community. She stated that the development isn't consistent
with the City's redevelopment plans and goals but it does create a building that is energy
efficient and encourages sustainability with the water retention and filtering.
Grimes reminded the Commission that this is an existing PUD so the criteria for meeting
the objectives to become a PUD don't really apply because this is an amendment and
they met the objectives when it originally became a PUD. He added that what Menards is
proposing is a legal use that is essentially the same use that has been there for a long
time. Kluchka said he feels the same criteria should be considered for an amended PUD.
Grimes noted that part of the I-394 Corridor study states that the City does not want
businesses to leave, rather it wants to help businesses enhance their property. He added
that the proposal on this site will improve the storm water management issues in the
Corridor. Kluchka stated that this is a large development in the Corridor and it bears a lot
of thought.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of
the request by Menards -PUD 75, Amendment #3 to replace the existing Menards store
with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center with the following conditions.
Commissioners Kluchka and McCarty voted no.
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These
plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front,
rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey,
grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan.
2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October
5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be
reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 7
4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The
existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded.
5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson,
Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and
dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color
as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Ave.
shall be enhanced.
7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager,
Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the
north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate
parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the
parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot.
8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be
another access added along Hampshire Ave. or have only one access on Hampshire
Ave. and one access on Wayzata Blvd.
9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls
can be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or
laws with authority over this development.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that there will be a presentation by
Hennepin County at the October 12, 2010 Council/Manager meeting regarding the
Bottineau Transitway Study.
Segelbaum discussed the September 28 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting
and informed the Planning Commission that the BZA would like them to review the
language in the Zoning Code regarding the setback requirements for structures built
prior to 1982 (Section 11.21, Subdivisions 13 and 14). He stated that the BZA
would also like the Planning Commission to help clarify the definitions for porches,
stoops, landings and decks and the setbacks associated with them.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 8
Grimes stated that staff is working on some language revisions which will be
reviewed at a future Council/Manager meeting and will then come to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation.
5. Other Business
Election of Officers
Eck nominated Waldhauser for Chair and Kluchka for Vice Chair.
Kluchka nominated himself for Chair.
Cera nominated himself for Vice Chair.
Upon a vote by the Commission the position of Chair will be held by Waldhauser
and the position of Vice Chair will be held by Kluchka.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Golden Valley
Date: October 18, 2010
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Property at 941 and 1021
Angelo Drive -Paula Pentel and Warren &Kim Rottman, Applicants
Summary of Request
Paula Pentel, owner of 941 Angelo Drive, and Warren and Kim Rottman, owners of 1021
Angelo Drive, are proposing to redraw the property line between the two properties. The
purpose of the request is to correct the encroachment of a gazebo.
A similar minor subdivision request was granted to the applicants in July, 2002. However, the
filing of the final plat did not occur. Minor subdivision approvals must be formally extended
every six months with the City or else they expire. Consequently, the original 2002 approval
has expired.
Qualification as a Minor Subdivision
The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are
part of a recorded plat. In addition, this proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots
and will not create need for public improvements (such as street construction.) The applicants
have submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be
evaluated as a minor subdivision.
Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision
In addition to the Planning Department, the City Engineer and the Fire Chief have reviewed
this request. The City Engineer has submitted an email dated October 4, 2010 regarding
recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. The City
Engineer's email will become part of the recommended approval for this request.
The Zoning Code requires that accessory structures, including gazebos, be located at least
five feet from side yard property lines. With the newly proposed property line, Ms. Pentel's
gazebo will exceed this requirement, extending to within approximately 5.15 feet from the new
property line.
Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision
According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the
regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comment related to this
request:
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the
requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both proposed lots will meet the
requirements set forth by the R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are
not buildable. There are already existing homes on the proposed lots.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections
available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be
placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. Sewer and water lines
currently serve both homes.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to
the City. The final plat must show all necessary easements as required by the City
Engineer.
5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the
minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. In this
case, no other agency has authority over this request.
6. The City may ask for review of title if requires by the City Attorney die to dedication
of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary
prior to approval of the final plat.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. No park
dedication fee is recommended to be assessed to either property, as this request does not
create any new lots for development.
Recommended Action
The Planning Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the conditions
listed below:
The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. The City Engineer's email, dated October 4, 2010, shall become part of this approval.
3. The Preliminary Plat submitted by the applicants, dated September 9, 2010, shall
become part of this approval.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Email from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated October 4, 2010 (1 page)
Photos of the property (2 pages)
Preliminary Plat (1 oversized page)
1141 3140 3141 1348 11A3 3140 3143
1131 ' 11311 1131 11.30 1131
1i~i 3131
c.
31m 113E V~ 3328 1323 ~
1121 33211 1121 p
+4
5380 1100 5208 1180 11111 1100 5384.
_ _ TF#D'1'LAD RD _ _. _.
r `--
5221 14143 ~
5381 i 18441 5131 5111 5051
~ ~ 1041
~ 3030 14131 ,.~
1820 ~~ F, .ii` r~ /.' "`~
3025 ! lf~'' 'f ~,,i
^^i i` ~r
1828 14F01 ~ F
to 940 err{ ~~ /f
i ~ ~'
~~ Sub'ect Pro
1
31a0
1130
i~
_+
liza
1+i OQ
l ))
1
1~
1840
~~ Sweeney L.3ke
i030
~rties
1;
931 9311
031 ~" ~~ m 32J
$~?
to
Chicago Pend 9Sb 921 920 ~~
~ ~ .~.- ,
s 921 f ~ r
/ 9211
I
910
901 4„_ .- !~#~L'~~f`lE` 1~~~41t£ ~~`t?at
.. ..... ..... ~... %' 9~
J
$~/
LILAC'bR AI
^~
~~~
V _.._._._.. ,, r ~.
/1 ~{
~~ S.hapef Pond ~ ~
Si.hape r f;~k
iJ
Wittman, Lisa
From: Oliver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:23 AM
To: Grimes, Mark
Cc: Clancy, Jeannine; Wittman, Lisa
Subject: Pentel Addition
Mark:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the Pentel Addition. Our only comment is that the final plat must have
easements on the property lines consistent with the subdivision ordinance. The front and back easements should be 10
feet wide, but the side lot lines should be five feet each side of the lines. This will keep the gazebo out of the easements.
These are the same comments we had on the preliminary plat in 2002.
Jeff Oliver, PE
Golden Valley City Engineer
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
763.593.8034
763.593.3988 (fax)
joliver(a~ci.golden-val ley. mn. us
~.
~ '~~`
~ ~
g:, ~ ~. w
~ . ~ ~ ~,
~ ~
~~~
..k
M ~ ri
i y,~ ~.~ ~
yt.
~A
\ y ~
t
~ y? ~ ,. ta~
~~
~
~~
~
} ` ~t ~i
~~
~~if
1 _ ~
~~
• .- t~
-c
bR' -
`~ K
r ~~~.
h ° ~~
a ~ ~ .
~a. ~~
~ ~ ~
t~
f '
~ ~~
_
_
~"
`~
r
T~
4,e
i
k
t s ~
~
6 F
C.4
~
:y~ ,, [ Y ~:, R B~e~ 6
~ ,9 ~^f
~'~
a ~` ~
jt
A
Q.,~r ,
~
TtY~
~ .
~-
'~'
''~
`
': ~ ~. ,.r
y;~
~ ~
~
~~.
3 ~
r ~ v=
°
~. *~ 4 k 4
~ i
~ y
, ~
" ,
~
~
~ ~ A
~
~
~
~~~ ~ 1
~~
''~
. ~, ~ ~ ,.
a{ ~ E
y ~K~' .
~.
,~- ,,_k~
',, fig.
~. ~"'..:
~: :~
''';~
~"
~``'~
~_
t ,
~:~
^
a' ~ ~~
__._ r
~ ~
~ ~~/ ~
I ~ ~
~~~~~
.~~ Y,~ Z
'.w~~~~.
~ ~ r
~'~ ~"
,~ ~
f; :y ~ ~"h
~.
• ;~
1 a
,~ {{
~~. ~ ~+
a
~'. ,,
•L.
.. y` '~ ~,
~.
..
~ ~ ~~ ~ :.
~. ~.~,1
. > • X .T!
r .
Z~' ~, f.
~ 1:r ~ *.
~~