The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/06/1974 - 31166� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: FEBRUARY 6, 1974 PAGE 1 Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Fitzpatrick, Drigans, Lindblad, Harris Blair � Darrel Clark, Communi.ty Development Adm. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 9, 1974 MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindb.Zad, that the PZanning • ��Commission approve the minutes of the meeting of January 9, 1974 as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �, '-� , RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: JANUARY 15, 1974 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the Board of Appeals minutes of January 15, 1974. Upon a voice vofe, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #74-01, HENNING NELSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: To rezone Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, Block 2, Riverwood Manor, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple family dwelling areas) to allow con- struction of a 24 unit apartment complex to be located South of 71st Way and West of East River Raad. Mr. Mark Reinertson, Vice President of Henning Nelson Construction Company was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Cammission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice, ZOA #74-01, by Henninq Nelson Construction Company to rezone from R-I to R-3. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Reinertson presented preliminary plans for a to�nrnhouse type of development which could be a cluster of three buildings or a cluster of two. These would be 12 to Z storys and contain from 16 to 24 rental units consisting of mainly one bedroom apartments with a few 2 bedroom units. He said they were requesting this zoning change because they thought this was a neat and spiffy concept of how this property could be developed for urban living and was some- thing they could do a good job on. They have tried to sell this property as R-1 for six or seven years, and it was property that was heavily taxed. Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 2 � • � Mr. Reinertson said he had talked to various people from City Hall trying to get ideas for this property and from these talks his company had come up with this concept. He said the�e are problems in this area in that East River Road is.heavily traveled and, especially the corner lot, was not conducive to R-1 development. He said with this concept the � story would be below grade so the townhouse type units would blend into the neighborhood and would make a nice entrance into the area. The . entrances and exits to this development would be on 71st Way. Mr. Reinertson said the drawings being presented were just guidelines on how this townhouse �ype complex could be developed and he was open to suggeStions from the neighbors or the Planning Commission, and would welcome �chese suggestions. He said there would be a buffer on the West side of the development of about 46 feet from the adjacent home. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Reinertson. if any member of the City staff had recommended tha�t this property be rezoned. Mr. Reinertson said. he had just talked over some of the�possibilities of developing this property, and after these discussions, his company had come up with this concept. Mr. Clark asked if they intended these units to be owner ^, occupied or if they would be rental units. Mr. Reinertson said they could be both. Mr. Clark said the ordinance on townhouses • requires 5 acres for owner occupied units. As this property is only 1.4 acres, they would have to be rental units. Mr. Harris asked if they owned other property in this area. Mr. Reinertson said they had owned 3 other lots but they had sold 1 lot and built homes on the other two lots. The last house they built they had to rent for two years before it was sold. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if this area was in the comprehensive plan. Mr•. Clark said this part of East River Road was not a specific study �.rea of the plan. Mr. Leo Bender, 146 71st Way N.E., said he had a petition signed by the residents of the area, stating that they supported the current R-1 zoning on Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, Block 2, Riverwood Manor, and were opposed to any rezoning for five reasons: (1) hazardous to school children, (2) additional noise of multiple dwelling units, (3) change in the continuity of the neighborhoad, (4) destruction of the environment, and most important, (5) invasion of the individuals right to zoning protection. MOTION b� Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the P.Ianning Commission receive Petition #.Z-I974, as presented. Upon a voice �, vote, alI votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. NIr. Harris asked Mr. Bender what was meant by the invasion of the individuals right to zoning protection? '"� , Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 3 Mr. Bender said the people in this area had bought their homes with the understanding that the area would continue to be zoned R-l. He said our forefathers thought this was proper zoning for this area and the present residents didn't want any other zoning. Mr. Roger Claesgens, 7130 Riverview Terrace N.E., asked what the land space to building ratio would be in the proposed development. Mr. Reinertson said the land area was 60,000 square feet and each individual unit would be 800 to 1,000 square feet. It would • be below the density allowed. Mr. Gordon Sangster, 7169 Riverview Terrace N.E., said he was here as a representative of the Fridley School Board, to state that the School Board would be opposed to any rezoning that would increase dens�.ty in this area within the proximity og the entrance to the grade school. If such rezoning was finalized, School District #14 would take formal action. Mr.,Reinertson said th� proposed townhouse concept�would be further back from the entrance to the school than residential homes would be. Mr. Claesgens said he was the oldest resident of this area and ,..� had moved in in 1950. His father-in-law had owned the property � from where the school is located, approximately 32 acres, and the area from Riverview Terrace to East River Road, just North of this proposed developm�nt. Behind this.development is the Girl Sco�at property, which is open area, and the North side of the school property has been left open also. While it is true that most of the students are bussed to the grade school, there are sixty or seven�y residences across East River Road and these children walk to school. Although there is a semaphore at this crossing, it still requires a lot of care on East River Road not to interfere with the ' children crossing this street. Having up to 24 rental units on this proposed development would generate increased traffi.c at this intersection where the children cross. He also didn't feel that 12 to 2 story buildings would fit into a single family housing area and it wouldn't be compatible with what is already there. Mr. Reinertson said these units would be mostly one bedroom units and there would only be five 2 bedroom units, so we are only talking about 30 to 35 additional people, very little more than what would�be in four�single family homes. He said there wouldn't be large families in these units and a lot of th� one � bedroom units would only have one person with one car. He said it was not unusual for single family homes to have two and three cars, so he didn't think this development was generating that much more traffic. � Mr. W. J. Engelhardt, 7120 Riverview Terrace, said this property was sold on the premise that there would be no multiple complex in this area. These lots were sold with the understanding that they would be single family housing. ,� � � Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 4 Mr. Steven Paaverud, 7045 East River Road, said that Mr. Reinertson made the statement that this development would enhance the community and benefit the City. He said we feel like we are a community in this area and our contention is that this would be changing our neighborhood to a transient society. This is not in line with what we feel for this area. We are a neighborhood and we appreciate the area as it is. There are more things to consider t�an what can be done with this particular corner. This may involve less profit for the land owner, but we feel that Fridley abounds with apartments and we don't want any in our area. Mr. Engelhardt said.that when this property was purchased, the buyer knew it was zoned for single family homes only. Chairman Fitzpatrick said any property owner ha�. the right to request a zoning change. Mr. Reinertson said it was Thomas Jefferson who said that each generation should rewrite their own constitution because what was � right in the pasL is not always applicable to us at the present time. We want to keep this area a residential area. We don't want it to be commercial property. He didn't think people should look down on transient people just because they live in a house and have more space. The complex they are proposing would be very nice and fit into the n�ighborhood. It would not be lot rent housing. Mr. Paaverud said he didn't mean to say that he looked down on transient people. He just felt that because they were transient, they wouldn't have the interest or take the care that a property owner would have in this same area. Mr. Reinertsan said this proposed complex would pay more taxes than four residential homes, and could relieve some of the tax burden in this area. Mr. Paaverud said there should be other alternatives other than an apartment complex. Mr. Reinertson said they have been looking for alternatives for six or seven years. Mr. Tim O'Neill, 158 71st Way N.E., said these were good size lots and he thought they could be sold for homesites in the $40,000 or more class, if the owners would be satisfied to make a good profit and not excessive profit. Mr. Adas, 168 71st Way N.E., said he couldi�'� offer any suggestions on the development of this property but on the p�int of rezoning, he felt we want our community well laid out and for it to have continuity. He said that Henning Nelson had built his home and he was sure they would do a fine job with this proposed development, but it would cause problems in the neighborhood. Everyone worked together and he felt this would be lost with rental property. He said we have a good plan going and he would like it to stay that way. �1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 5 Mr. Reinertson said he lived at Twin Lakes and a few years ago they had a proposal for an apartment complex in this area. Many people in the area were opposed to this proposal but after the apartment complex Was there,.it did fit into the area, and the people who lived in this complex contributed a lot to the community, and did not detract from the residential area.., He con�inued that some people are afraid of the unknown. He said this development would be done well and the neighborhood standards would be maintained. They were concerned about this being compatible with the neighborhood and what they were presenting should enhance • this area. Mr. Drigans said one aspect of this development has not been discussed, and that was the financial aspect af it. He said there is one development in Fridley that has �een going on for about two years because as the different proposals were approved, they ran into trouble financing their project, and he wanted to know if there was financing available for this project, if it was approved. He said he didn't know if lending institutions would lend money for a $40,000 to $50,000 home on the corner of East River Road either. He asked what the value of the four lots were also. Mr. Clark. checked the files for the valuation of these lots by the Assessing Department, and Lots 13, 14 and 15 were valued at �'"'� $6500 and Lot 16 at $5400. Mr. Reinertson said they have owned this property for ma�y years and paid a lot of special assessments on them . and were asked $8,000 to $12,000 for these lots. He said they had a good working arrangement with their bank and didn't think they would have any problem financing this development. Mr. Drigans said he wanted to compliment Mr. Reintertson on his preliminary plans. They were the best that had been presented in a long time. Mrs. Tim O'Neill said she thought it was feasible for some one to p�rchase these lots and build a$40,000 to $60,000 home on these lots. She felt this company had inflated the price of these lots because she didn't think they have any intention of selling them as single family home sites. Mr. Leo Bender said that Mr. Clark stated that because of the acreage of this property, it could not be owner occupied and would have to be rental property. He asked Mr. Reinertson if he had seen the article in the Fridley"Sun about the occupancy rating of apartments by City, and�hat Fridley has a high percentage of vaca�cies. Mr. Reinertson said he had not, and would be interested in seeing it, but they have made their own investigation and felt these units would rent. Mr. Paaverud said that at the present time owners of apartments � were having something of a bonanza because it waa difficult to purchase homes, but he thought most people desire to own their property and that's one of the reasons there is such a turnover in apartment rentals. Mr. Engelhardt said he had sold this property with the promise ,� � Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 6 to the buyers, that this area would remain R-1. If it was rezoned, it would make a liar out of him. Mr. Reinertson said he had studied the reasons given on the petition �hy the property owners �r�_ap��s��to �h�s:re�oning request. He thought that because this proposal was very much above standard, their points of objection, would not happen. Judith May, 184 71st Way N.E., said this property was purchased from her father, Howard Crabtree, and it was sold as a single family area. She thought is would be a breach of faith to build rental units in this area. Mr. Reinertson said he didn't want to fight with anyone over this proposal, but he asked M s. May to�check with her father on the purchase agreement. Mrs. O'Neill said that when they purchased their lot from Henning Nelson, they had to give them assurance that they would build at least�a $35,000 home to maintain the property values in the area, and they gave us their assurance that the area would have the same value homes on the area that was still vacant. Mr. Reinertson said this showed that�they were very concerned � about maintaining the property values in this area and why this development would have such high standards and be an asset to the • community. � Mr. Claesgeris said he didn't think it showed much business acumen to hold property for ten years and pay all the assessments and taxes that long, until they had so much invested in the property that it would take a praposal like this to pull them out economically. Mr. Reinertson said they didn't need this development to pull them out of anything. They have tried to sell this property without success so on an economical.� basis, they felt this development would be a good use for this property. Mrs.Corrine. Bender said that when apartments are new, everything is very nice, but after five years they start going down hill, and over a period of time, they detract from the area. Mr. Harris�asked Mr. Clark if a notice had been sent to Anoka County. There'�s a'j-og in East River Road, South of this property, and wonderecl if the County had any plans for widening the road'by 17 feet, in this area. Mr. Clark said no notice was sent to them. Mr. Harris said there might also be consideratiori of a wider radius for 71st Way from East River Road. Mr. Reinertson said he didn't think they would need additional right of way for the radius of 71st Way from this property, but he was concerned about the jog in East River Road and would like to check on this himself, also. ,� Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 7 Chairman Fitzpatrick said it should be checked out with the County on what part of East Rive� Road is in their study area. Mr. Claesgens asked if the Commission was aware of any State statutes about the location of multiple dwellings in relation to a school area. No one was aware of any such statute. MoTION by Harris, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Construction Company to rezone from R-1 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . MOTION by Drigans seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission continue the rezoning reguest, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Constructio Company, to rezone Lots Z3, 14, Z5 and Z6, BZo.ck 2, Riverwood Manor, from R-1 (single famiZy dwlling areas)�to R-3 (general multiple famiZy dwelling areas) to aZlow construction of a 24 unit apartment complex to be located South of 71st Way and West of East River Road, until February 20, 1974. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #74-02, BERKELEY PUMP ,COMPANY: To rezone Lots 1& 2, Block 13, Spring Brook Park Addition, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas) to make zoning cansistant with property lines � ,�•1 at 181 Ely Street N.E. ' Mr. Leland Snead, 3ranch Manager of Berkeley Pump Company was present. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the PubZic Hearing notice for rezoning request, ZOA #74-02, by Berkeley Pump Company. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. Mr. Clark said the petitioner 5 were rezoned in 1961 and why the in this request, he couldn't say. owns five lots and Lots 3, 4 and other two lots were not included Mr. Snead said his company occupies these five lots which are 30 feet by approximately 200 feet which gives them 150 feet of frontage. He said they should all be zoned the same as long as they are under one ownership. He said they had no intention of adding on to our present building and because of the setback requirements for buildings across from R-1 zoning, the setback requirement is 100 feet, so that according to the Code, they couldn't expand onto these two lots anyway. They want to clean up these lots and put in a hard surfaced parking lot, do some landscaping and put up a new fence. � Mr. Fitzpatrick asked when this building was constructed. Mr. Snead said he didn't know but the building was there when his company purchased this property in 1968. Mr. Snead said he thought it would make the property more saleable if it was all zoned the same. Mr. Darrel Nystrom, 248 Ely Street, asked if Berkeley Pump was � Planning Commission Meeting - February�6, 1974 � Page 8 occupying as much of this property as possible, or if they could expand. Mr. Clark said that because of the zoning requirements there has to be a 100 foot setback on M-1 property that abuts R-1 p�operty and this building is 101 feet back, so they couldn't expand without a variance which would also require a Public Hearing. Mr. Snead said the only plans they have for this property is to clean it up and make it look good. He didn't think his company would want to spend any money expanding this building, even if they�coulc If they outgrow this site, they would look for a larger site. , Mr. Nystrom asked how many people were employed by the company. Mr. Snead said there were five full time employees and two part time. Mr. Nystrom said it was his understanding that the trucks were supposed to take 79th to Ash�on and stay off Ely, Liberty and Ruth. Mr. Snead said they do instruct the truck drivers on the route they are to take, but drivers who aren't familiar with the area, come in the easiest way. He said he thought there should be signs designating the truck route. Mr. Frank Niznick, 191 Liberty Street, said his house was located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, and his neighbor, Mr. George Emerick, who was also present and lives at 181 Liberty Street, on Lots 3 and 4, and they were concerned about the zoning lines being moved in '^� any of these blocks to bring the industrial area closer to their homes. Mr. Emerick asked how man� parking stalls they would have in the designated area. Mr. Snead said 12 would be the maximum. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark why the M-1 zoning line meandered in this area. Mr. Clark said that when the M-1 zoning was done in this area, it followed the railroad tracts, so he assumed this was the reason. Mr. Clark said this could also be handled with a Special Use Permit on these two lots because there was a provision that you can use adjacent R-1 property for parking lots with such a Special Use Permit. Mr. Snead said he wasn't aware that there was such a provision. He said he only learned two months ago that the five lots did not have the same zoning, so that's why he applied for re:zoning of the two R-1 lots. Mr. Fi�zpatrick said he would be able to use the lots for the same purpose under a Special Use as he could with rezoning and a Special Use Permit was a little easier to get. Mr. Clarence Godlewski, 228 Ely Street, and Mr. Nystrom said they would have no objection to a Special Use Permit being granted �`1 on these lots as long as it let Mr. Snead do the same thing he wanted to do with rezoning. There objection was to any more rezoning to industrial being done in t.his area. � Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 9 ^ � . Mr. Snead asked what the procedure was for obtaining a Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark said he would check with the City Attorney to see if the Planning Commission could deny the rezoning request and recommend that this be handled as a Special U:se. He said it wouldn't really hold Mr. Snead �p, because if the Special Use was approved, it wouldn't involve any ordinances being published. Mr. Snead said he wasn't in any hurry because they couldn't put in any parking lots until Spring. Mr. Drigans wondered if the tax base would be different if this property was all zoned M-1 or if it eontinued as it is. Mr. Snead said he had checked with'th�ity Assessor and he said it would be taxed on the present land use regardless of zoning. Mr. Drigans said as long as they were go'ing to continue this item, he thought Mr. Snead should present his plans for the parking lot, landscaping and fence to the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee before it comes back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Snead to have one of the nurseries.draw up the landscape plan, rather than have someone from the City do it, because they got more variety that way. Mr. Nystrom said he had attended a lot of ineetings at City Hall and he didn't think they should ask people to go to a nursery for �''� landscape plans. There was no reason the property owner couldn't plan their own landscaping. Mr. Lindblad said there ususally is no charge for this plan, if they buy their shrubs from that nursery. He said the only point he was trying to make was that the City staff should not draw up landscape plans for everyone because it would make the landscaping too similar, .and that a nursery would give more variety to the planning. Mr. Godlewski said he had a plan drawn up by Bob's Produce, and if he couldn't afford to have the landscaping done at that time, he could had had the plan at no charge. � Mr. �nead said he had only been Branch Manager for Berkeley Pump� in this area for about a year, and he has been making every effort to clean up this property. They have torn down an old shed, and with the proposed improvement, it will clean up the property, and he hoped it would be an incentive to other businesses in the area because they all need� cleaning up. The neighbors in the audience said they appreciated the efforts Mr. Snead was making. Mr. Clark said that if the zoning lines weren't changed, it would be building in a buffer between this building and the R-1 area. �� Mr. Snead said the parent company would like to have this property all zoned the same, but he would check with them, and if the� were agreeable to this being handled as a Special Use Permit, he would be agreeable also. � -'"�1 ,� Planning Commissi�n Meeting - February 6, 1974 Page 10 MOTIDN by Harris, seconded by, LindbZad, that the Planning Commission continue the Public Nearing on rezoning request, ZOA #74-02, Berkeley Pump Company, to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Block 13, Spring Brook Park Addition, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to M-Z (Zight industrial areas) to make zoning consistant:with property lines at 18Z EIy Street N.E., to defermine if this can be handled as a Special Use Request and the petitioner's plan is seen by the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee on February ZZ, 1974, until March 6, 1974. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. RESPONSE FROM LETTER CONCERNING ARMORY REQUEST MOTION by Harris, seconded b� Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from the Rotary C1ub of Fridley dated January 2I, 1974. Upon a voice vote, aIl votzng aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr.�Clark said they didn't seem to �e getting much response from this letter, and he thought the Planning Commission should be thinking of when they want to make their recommendation on the armory. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this could be put on the March 6th agenda and at that time the Commission could set a Public Hearing date. 4. �A11TDI;ING OF BILLBOARD SIGNS Mr. Clark said that our sign ordinance states that by next September, billboards that are non-conforming will have to have a Special Use Permit. As we only have 4 billboards in Fridley that meet the requirement;s, we will be flQOded with requests. Does the Planning Commission want to handle these r.equests as they come in, or do you want to accumulate tliem and review them together. Mr. Harris said he would want an opinion, in writing, from the City Attorney before they start any hearings on these requests. He said if we deny Special Use Permits on signs that have been in existance before the ordinance was written, we could all be in Court. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it would be difficult to deny a request when the billboard was going to stay the same. Mr. Clark said they have been given 5 years'to amortize them or else apply for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Lindblad said he couldn't see that this ordinance can change what is already there anymore than a new building code can. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that at the time this ordinance was written, it was assumed that they would comply in five years. Mr. Clark said we don't know if they will comply or not. �"'� 'Planning Commission Meeting - February 6, 1974 , Page 11 Mr. Clark said that in addition to the Special Use Permit a lot of them will need variances because they are in a residential area, they are too close to the highway or an intersection. He said that the sign for Sandees breaks all the codes and yet this is one of the older businesses in Fridley and it might be diff icult to deny this sign. Mr. Harris said this sign is on leased property, and if we denied the request and his lease had not run out, we could find ourselves being asked to pay for the unused portion of the lease. Mr. Clark said that if we allowed this billboard, which doesn't meet the code at all, it would be difficult to deny any other requests. ' Mr. Drigans said the sign ordinance is very difficult to interpret. ' Mr. Harris said there is no doubt that some of the requests will have to be denied, and we may have to defend our position in court,� so I think we should be sur� we are defending the right position before we start . � Mr.�Clark said that when we get some�of these requests, he thought the Planning Commission, the Board of Appeals, and maybe the Council, along with the City Attorney, should have an informal meeting to review these requests in relation to the sign ordinance, before ,,.,1 we ever set Public Hearings on these requests. 5. CONFERENCE INVITATION � Chairman Fitzpatrick said.he thought as many members as could go, should try to make the conference they had been invited to on April 20, 1974. He thought it would be very worthwhile. � Mr. Clark said that if there was any charge for this conference, he was sure they would be reimbursed by the City. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 10:45'P.M. Respectfully submitted, G�'i� + �.-��n-�J Dorothy enson, 5ecretary �, � � � � �-- � , � �� ;� �� i e - -�/��,�✓ : -------------� 7/! �'��-s-.� r� � D�.Q.� o _ f �/ ? � , ��; � � � ---- �/��'_ ��- ��;�:� ' � �- � — _ - l � � �� '..�...�...�_ �� `� 1' �`�.�"`�`.�� /, �' . _ r --*.�-t�-��'�-�l��-�'� .- ! �� / � :-�G� ��S � . -- 7 / s� �A �r � _ �— � , ✓y� . � � -�� `' � � �� i�� ` II il - � Z - � a ,� � ��lt�:ws�'c ��R�L� C, �J,�.s��a � e � r . .- �iir� e 7-Lr.�`i �, C , �- ��-r-�oN �? �� .: T � � �� \ a .A � •` -. 9 �� _. � i�WJ�W�_"— —_ . _.""._ iG/� ' V/ / / � / � � � I�'�r° r � �. � 7L � $' r �/y -�' ` /L/ l,,,,..� � � �� - /�/ � � e �-�� i`..�' � :iC� l,}`�/� L,� � J �'iS � �' % ;�^�'°-`_ � p]t� �� -y�;i �i �a �.. �., , s.�, � � ��.." �..j ti.�. 4 1� /{ i�.. L..l4- / �'/ � /�. So� �(/. � � � � �. . �� 1 �G �-=-- - ; � � .��`. t � � ¢ . ��U / / �� I � Gt � i