The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 09/14/1967 - 30996� n ^ PLANNING CON�NIISSTON MEETING - SEPTEMBER 14, 1967 Pa�e 1 ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairinan Hughes at 7:33 P.M. Members Present: riyhra, Jensen, Hughes, Ylinen, Erickson Others Present: Engineering Assistant Glark APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: AUGUST 24, 1967: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Coitunission Minutes of August 24, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE MINUT.ES OF PLANNING COMMTSSION MEETING: SEPTEMBER 7, 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1967 be approved. Upon.a voice vote, all voting aye, the motior_ Carried unanimously. RECEIVE r1TNUTES OF PLATS & SUBDTVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITTES SUBCO�IITTEE MEETING: AUGUST 31, 1967: n MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the minutes of the Plats & _ Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee of August 31, 1967 be received. Upon a voice voi:e, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE MINU�ES OF BUILnING STANDARDS-DES3GN CONTROL MEETTNGr SEPTEMBER 6 z 1967: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen,that the Planning Commission receive the minutes.of .the Building Standards-D�sign Control meeting of September 6, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried ur.animously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING• REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-08) DALBERG REALTY FOR THOMA.S BRICK�i1ER: Part of Lot 6, Revised Auditor's Subdivision ��10 - rezoning from R-2 (limited multiple family dwelli.ngs) to R-3A (limited multiple dwellings). Member Jensen read the official Notice of Public Hearin�. Mr. Folstad of Dalberg Realty said he is the broker between the seller and buyer and that he believed the apartment building would put the land to the highest capacity. Mr. Brickner presented the plan of the building which would be a fourteen unit two beclroom apartments. Mr. Folstad explained his statement of"the best and highest use of the land"by saying that he was an appraiser and w'nenever a piece of property was n in a spot zoning area; it would be pretty hard to build a$25,000 on it, so that multiple or some type of-multiple would be p�tting the land to the bes�t and highest use for the developer. �lanning Gommission �Seeting - September 14, 1967 Pa�e 2 The Engineering Assistant_was asked to show the audience the present ^ zoning of the area on the caall map.- Chairman Hughes referred to Petition ��32-67 given to the Planning Com- mission that evening against the rezoning of paxt of Lot 6, Auditor's Sub- division ��10. MOTION by Myhr.a, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive Petition ��32-67 opposing the rezoning of part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision ��10. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The audience were then asked to express their opinions. Bill Whiting, 1316 66th Avenue: "My tax statement does not refer to a spotted neighboxhood. My property abuts and adjoins the property under con- sideration for rezoning, and after I saw the sign go up on the property, I went around and looked at apaxtment buildings. I looked for the good points. I ran into places that have flood lights lighting the parking area. I don't know the size of the proposed building. I am wondering if there is any space left for parking. I also found several apartment buildi.ngs that had indivi- dual garbage and rubbish cans assigned�by number. Several were lef.t uncovered which attracted flies. I think I overheard that these would be two bedroom units. In the units I have checked, there could be anywhere from one to four children. This is quite disturbing. I would ask the Planning Commission to deny the petition for rezoning." n Mrs. David Mech, 1315 66th Avenue: "We have a very nice street. It is all one family dwelling, and the children are well behaved. Right now Central Avenue has plenty of one family dwellings and tlze apartment will be right in between one of them. The children in the proposed apartment will not have enough room to play, as there will have to be parking for twenty-one cars. It will change our whole neighborhood." ' Thomas Moore, 6580 Central Avenue: "I live across the street from the proposed apartment house. The children in the apartment behind us do n�t have any play facilities. Also, during the winter, I have to back up an incline going up the driveway and more traffic will create an additional hazard." Richard Wilson, 6550 Central Avenue: "This would be a traffi.c hazard. Thexe has to be an entrance and exit for the apartment. Our driveway goes up an incline and it is a traffic hazard coming out our driveway." Mrs. Wilbur Larson, 1340 66th Avenue: "In this particu�.ar area at the time the Rice Creek Schooi was built, the City and School went into paxtner- ship for a combined school and City playground area. It is already too small for fihe number of children in that area now, and if you increase the possibi- lity of more children, some consideration will have to be given �o that fact." Mrs. Ralph Sauer, 1320 66th Avenue: "According to the drawing of the ' parking facilities, I am sure there would have to be more cars than shown and they will use our dead end street. Parking on both. sides of the street � would be hazardous." Mrs. Ronald Ennis, 6601 Central Avenue: "I`d like to point out it is already a business corner, post office mail box, school bus stop, children crossir_g the street. There is a traffic hazard problem now. The children Planning Commission MeetinQ - September 14, 1967 Pa�e 3 _ C would have to use the playground in summer and winter." ^ Mxs. Darwin Bosell, 6617 Central Avenue: "There will be more traffic from the Onan plant. Cars park on Central Avenue or on 66th, it will be hard in winter time to see the childxen." John Neil, 6616 Central Avenue: "What is the size of the building? The caxs would have to be parked there which would fill up most of the area. People coming off 66th would find their view would be obstructed substantia115-. It is a saiety hazard." Charles E. Carlson, 1399 66th Avenue: "In view of all the things brought up so far, what came to my mind was, if you were to vote in favor of this proposal, that this would set a precedence. I would not wish to see one apartment building and then more. I was very much disturbed when I first noticed the sign that read "Site for 14 Units Apartment". I urge you not to vote for it." Loren Palmer, 6596 Channel Road: "It is no fun living across from an apartment and trying to keep a decent yard. It would be a hazard. Ztaice this summer a child has been hurt on Channel Road and that street is not even used as much as Central Aver�ue. ' I don't see how you can put 14 families in an apartment of this size." Mr. Whiting: "There are no sewer or water facilities in front of this property. We were told, at the time the sewer was put in, that it was a limited sewer facility. There would have to be sewer and �vater put in on ^ Central Avenue which creates a problem for the home owners across Central." A citizen said that we did live in an area of one bedroom apartments and the maintenance was not what it should have been. It does depreciate a neighborhood. Mrs. John Neil, 6616 Central Avenue: "On 66th Avenue, North of this proposed site, lots which are zoned R-2 are built.R-Z; on the other side of Central Avenue, two of these R-2 lots are built R-1. Directly South is R-1. South of.Mississippi on R-2 lots, there are four houses built R-1. I feel this would be rather bad zoning, and to rezone one little strip for an indi- vidual's financial gain. If you are going to have an apartment, it should be a number of planned units. Apartments can be nice as I�ave seen some in other parts of the country with planned p�aygrounds, recreation centers, etc. I am against this rezoning." David Mech, 1315 66th Avenues "I certainly think our neighborhood has been somewhat misrepresented in being called"spotty". The conunercial devel- opment is all South. There is a motel, but it is not a regular motel. Really the commercial aspects of the neighborhood are South. Most of the area, even though rezoned R-2, is built R-1. We have some photos (they were given to the Planning Commission and then passed through th� audience). We-try to keep the neighborhood clean, peaceful and �uiet. All of us are opposed to the rezoning. We axe disturbed because of spot rezoning. Because of one individual proposiiig to come into an area to rezone for his own financial ^ gain, we do not believe this is a reason to disturb the peace of the neighbor- hood." . Member Myhra said he would l2ke to make one coaunent in defense of the petitioner. Anyone has the xight to come and make a rezoning request. It is perfectly all right, and there is nothing wrong legally with this applica- tion. � Plannin� Commission Meeting - September 14, I967 page [ � Myron E. Ostland, 1400 66th Avenue: "If you rezone this piece of property, which is in the center of our particular area, you wouTd set a precedence for a lot of areas around that have the same situation." Karl Klopper, 6588 Central Avenue: "I live directly across from the proposed building site. Can you give me the size of the Iot?" Member Jensen said they did not have that information, but the follow- ing figures he had just compiled have not been checked: Area of the lot is 35,524 square feet, area of building 5,603 square feet, footage on Central Avenue is 214 feet, and on 66th Avenue is 166 feet. Mr. Klopper said there is a 30 mile speed zone, but who lives up to it? He would like a speed trap set because of the traffic and excessive speed. Mrs. Jack Hoppe, 1351 66th Avenue: "My mother lives in an apartment and I came hexe now from visiting her. I definitely would not want some- thing like that around here. I feel our neighborhood is pretty special and we would like to keep it that way.'' Mr. Moore: "When I moved in ten months ago, I made a point to check on vacant proper�y. I called City Hall and was assured it was limited multiple. I hope that you gentlemen will not see fit to rezone at �his time." � Another cit�zen said in regarcl to the traffic situation that they are trying to say this is a very hazardous location. ltao more driveways coming � onto Central Avenue with 14 or 20 cars c�ming out, will make i� all the more hazardous. With the situation as it is, glus a new apartment, they believe it is just going to ma.ke.it so bad they are going to have more accidents than now. n Ralph Sauer, 1368 66th Avenue: "I agree with most of the statements made and I oppose the rezoning." Edward Simko, 1327 66th Avenue: "I, too, am opposed to the apartment building. I agree with the statements of my neighbors. I would say that, before the Co�nission would even consider granting the request for rezon- ing, more should:be found out about the apartment building's utilities, sewer and water." Jack Hoppe, 1351 66th Avenue: "I go along and say, with the rest of neighbors, I would like to see a denial of this petition." Mr. Brickner: "In regard to parking, there is adequate parking and adequate play area. The proposed play area is on the South side of the building and is 64'x166'. We have allowed for a 35 foot setback in front and on the North, and 12 parking stalls. The City required only one drive- way." Mr. Whiting: "Regarding a'setback of 35 feet, all of the homes have fram 50 feet to 65 feet setbacks. T'his building will stick out like a sore thumb on the corner. The parking area would be adjacent to my front yard." Mr. Holm said that witn Onan coming in the area, live? It will create an increase in the traffic flow, mile speed limit now, and an arterial stap sign could where will the people but there is a 30 be erected. � Planning Commission Meetin� - Septembex 14, 1967 pag� A citizen said, regarding a ratio of 12 cars per unit, almost every family is a two car family.. Mr. Holm answered that young fami.lies can- not affoxd to buy a home early in married life. That does not degrade their earning power or social status. Speaking of two cars, you wi11 also note a young married cougle can barely afford two. Chairman Hughes said to the audience that we are to consider a request; which is a proper one, on its merits. It is not a cause for high emotion. The decision will be reached by a quick and more satisfac- tory way for all concerned if we can avoid the emotion. A citizen stated that the back part of the building is going to be the front v iew of everybody on 66th Avenue. This is one of the xeasons for opposing the rezoning. Mrs. Edward Simco, 1327 66th Avenue: "I feel it is too crowded to build in the area. We will have no guarantee that the children wi11 be in the play area. We have thirty or forty children now, and we are fine as we are." MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission close the Publi.c Hearing for the rezoning request (ZOA ��67-08) by Dal- berg Realty for Thomas Brickner for part of Lot 6, Revised Auditox's Subdivision ��10 from R-2 (limited multiple family dwellings) to R-3A (limited multiple dwellings). Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that in the matter of the re- zoning request, ZOA ��67-08, by Dalberg Realty for Thomas Brickner, of part of Lot 6, Revised Auditor's Subdivision ��10, to rezone from R-2, (limited multiple family dwellings) to R-3A (limited multiple dwellings), I move that the Planna.ng Commissi.on recommend to the City Council the denial of the rezoning request. Member Myhra said that he thought he should repeat the fact that for anyone who has property, it is pexfectly legitimate for the property owner to make the best use of the land as they see it. Here is a case where, to permit the request, would change the neight�orhood. In situa- tions like this, the major concern, if this were a road, it would be considered at government levei, but if it is a majo� concern to that paxticulax area, we do pay a lot of attention to the people living in that area. Member Ylinen said that he found himself agreeing with same of the people who have been heard. The most striking and significant matter is that, even though the present area on both North and South, in fact, in in all directions, tfie areas are zoned R-2, but really are used as private residential homes. I think if the petition were approved, that it would change the character of the neighborhood quite drastically. For that reason, I approve the denial of the petition. Chairman Aughes asked for a vote on the motion that Z0A ��67-08 be � denied, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried � unanimously. Planning Coirnnissioii Mee�in� - September 14, 1967 Page b Chairman Hughes informed the audience that this matter will be before ^ the City Council on Monday, September 18, Z967 and acted upon on October 2, 1967. 2. PUBLIC HEA.P.ING: PLAI�'NED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, HA.ROLD SCHROEDER (ZOA ��66-16); Springbrook Park property development. Chairman Hughes explained that this was the first public hearing for a Planned Development District and the Planning Commission had no prece- dent to go by, but would do their best. He said, that in the past, the Commission first listens to the petitioner, then will provide a time for the Commission and open the meeting to the public, Mr. Schroeder said, in preface, they started out with the property all zoned R-1 and part commercial. The ocaner wanted to see if something could be done to benefit the property and general area of the neighborhood. To start out, the Plax�_in.ing Commission was amendable to P,D. Development which gives the landowner the pcssibility of developing the property other than what it is zoned for, but a plan has to be followed. They did get the property rezoned to P.Do District and since then have had a couple of ineet- ings wi.th the Planning Commission. They plan to develop the commercial zoned property as it exists and try to develop multiple residents, Single family residents did not work in the past. Mr. Schroeder gave out a booklet on the preliminary devel�pment plan, and used it for an outline of his presentation. Hc also had an overall watercolor of the area showing the shopping center, bridges over the creek, multiple dwellings, landscaping, n lighting, proposed exits and garages, Mr. Schroeder said the purpose of the preliminary plan presentation is to show the kind of plan they are proposing. If this is agreeable,.we will go into more detailed studies and work with the City on the final performances of building guides and com- pliance with ordinances. Member Jensen referred to the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities minutes of August 31, 1967 which the Planning Commission received at this meeting and said for some reason, there has been a decrease in traffic on East River Road. The previous count was 5,000 and in April af this year, 4,000. The pxojected count in 1985 from the Minnesota Highway Department is 10,000 vehicles a day. Prior to knowing this information, Mr. Schroeder brought E. Bather, a consulting engineer in the traff.ic field to one of the Subcommittee meetin�s and discussed the proposal for a single entrance coming into the co�nercial area. One of tihe most important points by Mr. Bather was what can be anticipated in a shopping center of this size. He indicated a certain volume, but in view of his projected figure fox traffic to and from commercial area, we questioned him on what he thought the East River Road could reach before we had a serious traffic hazard and he said, at that time, he would not like to see it reach above 10,000 a day. However, since that time we have had to change the plan and introduce a second entrance on East River Road. The result of the Subconunittee meeting was reco�nending approval based on traffic considerations. Member Myhra asked if provisions were made for a semaphore in the study of the traffic in the area. Member Jensen answered that the fact that we have a State Aid road approximately '� mile North and South a State Aid road planned, that � the alternate results of a major State Aid road East and West connecting Highway ��47 with East River Road would be signalization of one or both intersections which would have the efiect�af bunching traffic and allowing ^ � � Plannin� Commission Meetin� - September 14, 1967 Page 7 . openings wit'h proper aesign of this intersection. One of the points made by the tr.a.ffic engineer was the necessity for right and left turn lanes in con�unction with ma�or entrance to commercial areas. At this point, Chaixman Hughes stated one formality had been overlooked that of reading the Notice of Public Hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing for the Planned Development District (ZOA ��66-16) was read by the Chairman. The Commission quickly went over the P.D. Ordinance (Oril. ��349) check- ing the subsec�ions with Mr. Schroeder and they agreed that a lot more work had to be done on the preliminary plans by the Commission and the Engineer- ing Department. Member Jensen wished to express his opinion stating, inasmuch as the Engi.neering Department and Assistant has not had a chance to review this plan in some detail, he didn't think the Commission taas in a position toni.ght to make a decision. He thought that a number of relatively impor- tant details which they were unable to ascertain should be studied. Fur- thexmore, he did not think they have time this evening, as a group, to determine many of these details such as park, fire, space and other areas in the ordinance. He made a recommendation that the Co�nission�table the matter for the purpose of allowing the Engineexs to thoroughly examine the plans and make a determination as to the accuracies of some of the features, and also to compute variaus areas and regions so that we can have a double check on Mr. Schroeder's work. This is a very important development in the process of building, and certainly one that we are all very interested in--members of the Planning Co�rnnission, owners and architects-- and he felt the plan deserves every bit of study and�.attention we can give to it. Chairman Hughes said that he agxeed because already they have come across a number of things that Mx. Schroeder is going to be adding to the plans. In the norma.l course of events, we would automatically refer this to the Building Standards-Design Control. It was decided to set up a meeting with Mr. Bather, the Engineering Assistant and Mr. Schroeder to work closely with Darrel Clark making any modification to conform with any non-conformance that might exist. The Building Standards-Design Control caill meet on Tuesday, September 19th, and will consider the preliminary plans of the Springbrook Park Develop- ment. Mr. Schroeder stated he would leave all the material he had presented this evening. Mrs. Kenn�th Sporre, 301 Ironton Avenue: "I am just wondering if the Railroad Company really are going to put in 83rd Avenue. Where will 83rd Avenue ga in? In the back of our lot there is a 25 foot drop. Will this affect this development?" Mrs. Spoore's lot abuts Goon Rapids and the Railroad Gompany had excavated theix property in the rear of Mrs. Spoore's lot leaving a"lake". Member Jensen said he could not comment, but did not think they need to assume 83rd would never happen because the district is industrial and truck traffic generated by industrial would require a road. Tn regard to the shopping center building, Mr.. Schroeder said that certain tenants have their own restrictive requirements as far as their tenants are concerned, and when'we do get ta that paint, we will have to r, Plannin� Commission r�eetin� - September 14, 1967 Page 8 resubmit the shopping center. This is why I did not feel I should give yot a general concept at this time.. Chairman Hughes suggested the following Iist of cxiteria to follow in the study of the ordinance: Review by Building Standards-Design Control Subco�nittee on Tuesday, September 19th. Mention fixed standards for advertisiiig signs and lighting Plans for location vehicle access and design See Engineering Department for reviewing plans for helging to determine vehicle access. Possibility of ineeting with Mr. Bather Review parking Engineering xeview figuxes and dxawings for accuracy , Engineer to check oxdinance as it calls out requirements for preliminary plan and go down the line and check Engineering to give and indicate to us any problems they can see from Engineering point of view Engineer to look at plan in order to minimize any delay of petitioner and notify him of any discrepancy. Leave.public hearing open to give opportunity to the public for participation if desired. Plan to detennine location, extent of screen for truck loading Mr. Schroeder said they understand that, if they did deviate, they would come back with anothex heaxing. � � MOTTON by Erickson, seconded by Myhxa, that the Planning Commission table the Publi.c Heaxing, P.D. Develog:nent District, Harold Schxoecler (ZOA ��66-16) unti.l SeptembFr 28, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motioiz carried unanimously. AbJ0U12IVMENT : MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission meeting adjourn at 10;45 P.M. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, , �, . �-�'C�;�L��.-� Haze� 0'Brian Recording Secretary 0 � • ., �`�� •l ! v ` � � _ L � r� J � J � �� 1 a-n -n � �n �o -r�� -z � � sl d � 9//�/�% � � s � � � -� /� �h � �-� am� -- _ _ _ . __ _ _��n�-r�s�___ _ __ _ ___---. _._ _ �c�_� ' _ ___ � � _ __ _ _ �¢a o - c c � �l �L�_._�� _ _ / r -- - -- - __---_ _- - ��_�1 _ . ___ __ %�_�',------ ---� _ � �� -� _� � �� -� �?i� � -- -�_ _ _ _ � ___ _ _ _ ' � � I 3 � � ` G�-� C�-� , � _�.-- � _ `� � �� _ _ _ _ _ (, 5 8g �eµ� _ 4�: -�!U �., � _ _ _ _ r � � i-� 3q—�� '� ��' _ � ____ , _ _ . � ��; � ' _ ,/3�: _� � �� _ % _ f ��,� _ . � o��.�J _ _ �3�� ,�c _�, � , _ l _ _ �� , � �� -- /.3i� -�6�� .r��_ _ _ 1 . i��z�.�-� . �; �,cz'".t�� 6�!� �%�� _ � F' . _ r�1._ _ �� _ _ _ / _ _ _ �� _ _ _ _ "_ _ /3z 7 — �� '�'� �j�., _ _ _ l _ _ � r _ Q�a;�� y�o _ �3 a 7 ( 6�C-��-�-�-�-_�'� _ _ . _ _ j _ _. _ ��-�_�.��,� %� . _ . ___ _ -- _ - � - _ �°_ __ _ _ _ � � /�j _ �� . �._ __ ! i' �% �'��/o _f �� __�- h- � ! ; -_ , , � ,,.�� 3 �D- � �.�� t% %° . ;,y,,�.�, "� , � � - _._ _ _. . __ _ _ __. c . i ; �j� K.-o- ' �' ' '� l _ n� �� _ : %��-� � � G �' �'-_�,-�:�.�. .��1,�.c' �l . -__ � . j�� .�a��r./ �?�?�'?-�-- _ _ ��8� �r��_ ��. i1_i� • _ _ __�. ___ _ ��-_ -�- -�,-;�� /� � � �� =��!�--•- _ _ -- � , , ,�---.,`� �� , � i �.. �.�: � _ /�-:� � � , � �,,�',�. �. _ : / y_, - _ _ _, _ _ _ " ��1� __ _ -�� _ _ _�__-�_ �_�� _-- f _ _ 1 __ __ _ . � _ _ 1� � ? - 6 6 ��.,�� _ _ __- — _ ��-3 _> _ _ ____ _ _._ �,- - _� _ . ., _ . - . � d ��o - �_r�- __ i��-��..�.e_ -1- _ _ ._ __ _ __ � ��/ __ � _ �- _._ _____ _/ _ �,�� _ __ ; ` lJ(�-_ ��-ze. 6��_ _ _ ___�, �,� - / _ _ � ;. i _�/,��.-�►�/ � �" �-h _ _ _ __ _---�-r- �1. -�.�-�, __ 1 � _ __. � �, _ ___ : ( v�`9� _ __ . � � _ _ _�� _ _ ____ . __ _ , �� r _ � 3 ��i C_�� ? ��_ _ _ � -- �--- _---- - _ l 39� � �6 � ��- 1 ; ��, ` �� `f t3.� 1 � � �"� �' �'o � Iz (�.�._��' � II� � : � , � _ aa� ��. t � ,,, _ — - _ __ --- ; � � ,'r r �� '-�� a-,�,��.�' � � ,� �� , _ _ __ _ _. __ _--- _ ' g'sy E " � - ---- � - ---- � . -- � � ._ . .: '�/s' ____-- - . _ . -- � �'��'��"'�; � . ,. , _—. o� ,� :..�. s -,� �/ � �/�7 � _--- _ . _._ - - . _. _ , _.__. .__---- _ r/" r � _ _ _ .._ - - � / _ _ _. _ . _ _ - �71i�-� _. . - , ,.e� � � `� / o��.�� <��'� - v2--_ . --. _ __ _-_ _ __ _ _ �� _ _� -- - ___ _ ._ _ �o/,�.,�-�,� _ � � ___ _ _ �-- � �� _ �o-��_- �?�� - - __ . . � � : _ _ -- - _ ��_ �� L,��. �, _ _ -- - __ _-- _ � � __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ _. _ __ _ ___.__ _ _ ___ _ __ - _ _ _ _ . _ � __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ :� _. _ .. _... . . . . . _... . . . ... . . .. ... . . . .. . . -4 . . ... . . .. . . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ .. .._. �.. . _ .. . . . .. .. _. . . . . . . . . _ .._ . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . _ . _.s_.. _ __" "_ __._..._.__ _ ._.�_ _ . . .. _.. .. _... ___. . _ . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . _ . . ��L �: