Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.042-10RESOLUTION N0. 42 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE DESIGN DIRECTION FOR PHASE TWO OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Project eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public ( COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three -phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal', dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Final approval with conditions for Phase One as proposed by the applicants according to the final development plan application entitled, `Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing ", dated February 14, 2005. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, approval Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, did not complete the review process, but constituted another step of the COWOP review process; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is currently contemplating Phase Two of the development and is holding public hearings as well as other public feedback sessions to gain community input regarding various design elements that may be incorporated into Phase Two; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process and focused public input process has enabled the planning and design of Phase Two to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points -of -view from neighbors, residents of Phase One, potential financial partners, citizens, referral agencies, design professionals, and city staff; and, WHEREAS, future steps may include applications for subdivision and Final PUD Plans for Phase Two and land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed and considered the physical planning for Phase Two, as more fully described in Exhibit A of this Resolution, and has recommended City Council endorse this described direction; and, Reso No. 42, Series 2010 Page I WHEREAS, providing input on the planning for these lands, through adoption of this Resolution, shall only be considered advisory in nature and shall not constitute entitlement of the property or approval of a site specific development plan. Approval of a final development plan shall require adoption of an Ordinance after a public hearing and upon consideration of a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the progress of the planning for Phase Two, as described herein, has taken and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, has taken and considered public comments at a public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: The design direction for Phase Two of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, as described in Exhibit A, is hereby endorsed by the City Council. Section 1• This Resolution is advisory in nature only and does not constitute entitlement of the property or approval of a site specific development plan. The physical planning concepts and direction provided herein be reconsidered, changed, or otherwise altered upon further review and public hearings on an application for subdivision and final PUD approval for Phase Two. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the City Council at a regular meeting on oL*J� _[ -)-- , 2010. Attest: 1 Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk Approved as to form: 1 24�y� 1 4 Attorney — IL4 '!!� / Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Exhibit A – Summary of Design Direction for Phase Two Burlingame Ranch Reso No. 42, Series 2010 Page 2 Attachment June 28, 2010 0 THE CITY of Mpi Resolution #42, 2010: Attachment A Burlingame Ranch Phase II: Request for Conceptual Master Plan Approval The Burlingame Phase II IPD design team has gathered extensive input from the public and is applying feedback from outreach efforts to the designs of Burlingame Phase II. Based on the community input to date, the team has developed the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan, and the team's goal is to provide a detailed design for what Burlingame Phase II should look like, as well as a guaranteed maximum price, by September, 2010. The design team would like to formalize the Council's conceptual approval of the newly conceived 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan on June 28, 2010. The purpose of the June 28, 2010 hearing is to consider adoption of a resolution describing direction for the project design regarding six points. This will enable the project to proceed to the next level of design. This resolution will not grant final entitlement or otherwise be a final decision about the entire project. The six points being considered are described in detail below: 1) Number and types of residential units Density: In 2008, the Construction Experts Group estimated that it would save the housing development fund approximately $150,000 per unit to place additional units at Burlingame Ranch rather than placing equivalent additional units on other City parcels. As was recommended by both the Citizens' Budget Task Force and Construction Experts Group in 2008, staff engaged the Burlingame Phase I homeowners association in 2009 in a request to increase the total number of units allowed at Burlingame from 236 to include up to perhaps 293 total units. Staff spent all of 2009 working extensively with the Burlingame Phase I HOA board and HOA members, and was able to negotiate an increase of 22 units for a maximum of 258 total units. During the negotiation, staff worked extensively with City Council to develop reasonable trade- offs. In return for the increased density, the City agreed to increase the parking ratio at Burlingame Phase I and II to two spaces for every multifamily unit (2.0 parking ratio) as well as the elimination of the $60 per month mobility fee and a number of other concessions. The 91 homeowners at Burlingame approved the agreement at a 94% approval rate. The table below provides a comparison of the proposed Burlingame Ranch density which includes 91 units in Phase I and 167 Units in Phase II for a total of 258 units at Burlingame Ranch: Page 1 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 .k H ousing De velopments: D evelopment Twin Ridge Units per Acre 5.5 Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 6.7 Mountain Oaks 7.2 Snyder 7.5 Burlingame Ranch Phases I + II 8.6 Maroon Creek 9.6 Castle Ridge 9.6 Burlingame Ranch Phase II 10.2 Common Ground 10.4 Centennial 14.1 Annie Mitchell 16.9 Hunter Longhouse 18.9 Hunter Creek 20.7 Burlingame Seasonal 25.6 Truscott 33.1 Unit Mix: C� TnE CRY or ASPEN Burlingame Phase I was built with 46.4% three bedroom units, 35.7% two bedroom units and 17.9% one bedroom units. The original plans for Burlingame Phase II contemplated over 50% three bedroom units. Although Burlingame was conceived as family- oriented housing, there have been some concerns about demand for three bedroom units so the 2010 IPD design team proposed to Council in a work session on May 4, 2010 to keep the unit mix ratios similar to the levels that were built in Phase I rather than proposing over 50% three bedroom units. City Council provided additional direction indicating that a unit mix closer to 40% three bedrooms, 30% two bedrooms and 30% one bedrooms would be acceptable. Community feedback has suggested that there is more demand for studio and one bedroom units, but the City is planning many additional studio and one bedroom units at other properties to meet the excess demand for studio and one bedroom units not addressed at Burlingame. The table below summarizes the unit mix proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Ranch Phase II Concept Master Plan: Page 2 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 irk III[( in , IA . Unit Type MULTIFAMILY Style UNIT Livable Area MIX Total Qty % of Total 3 BR Unit Flat 1280 sq ft 65 40,4 Townhome 1402 sq ft 2 BR Unit Flat 1030 sq ft 49 30.4% Townhome 1088 sq ft 1 BR Unit Flat 722 sq ft 47 29,2% TOTAL 161 100.0% * Plus six single family units for a total of 167 Phase II units. 2) Building Configurations During the density negotiation with the homeowners at Burlingame in 2009, the City created a 3D model of the site and buildings which was based on the City's conceptual plans from the 2008 Construction Experts Group effort. The mass and scale of the buildings proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan are similar in footprint, mass and scale to the City's density plan conceptual model and are similar in footprint, mass and scale to the buildings that were built in Phase I. The majority of buildings proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan are generally composed of two building `pods'. In each case, the two pods act like separate buildings joined by a covered stairway between the two pods. The covered stairway between pods allows for pedestrian connection from the uphill side through the building to the downhill side without having to go around the building. The buildings are design to maximize both construction efficiency and livability with one, two and three bedroom flats as well as two and three bedroom townhome units — all of generous, standardized sizes, but with varying interior layouts. The table below summarizes a comparison of the discussed building footprint sizes: Page 3 of 9 Attachment June 28, 2010 0 THE Cm or ASPEN SMALL BUILDINGS MEDIUM BUILDINGS LARGE BUILDINGS PHASE I rli: r+ plrM. .:.t1:' rl,plpsiGf IYMI If.111i rUtO�MGM rU ++, r,n PHA'E I � TY DENSE AGREEMENT suu_ •wrm t.'.fT MtrrM 9sfxs V.vr s�rcr u", Ir.w PHASE 2 PROPOSED 9r�t. .l.. tl...�i .'rY.V rlllD t 1, 1 hM {: Jr. nr:I., t. Construction Methodology: Because the future is uncertain, the IPD design team is recommending that the designs proceed with the intention of using a stick -framed construction methodology, but the design team proposes to work within a set of constraints that would potentially allow for the conversion back to modular construction if the modular market in the future can demonstrate a considerably greater cost savings in the future as opposed to today's market. The intent of this recommendation is to remain as flexible as possible while still incorporating the principles of the Construction Experts Group recommendations. At the May 4, 2010 Aspen City Council work session, Council was in general agreement with this approach. Environmental Sustainability: At the May 4, 2010 Aspen City Council work session, the design team recommended that the City continue with the success of the Building America program and seek to procure grants that will fund participation in that program which will allow us to focus on energy savings and durability through the creation of highly - efficient building enclosures and the careful selection of durable materials. Community feedback has been overwhelmingly in favor of simplifying the mechanical systems as compared to Phase I, and the design team is currently researching a number of mechanical systems options that will provide high- efficiency performance. ADA Visitabitity: In a work session with City Council on May 4, 2010, the Council generally agreed that a 68% level of ADA Visitability would be acceptable if a contingency plan would allow for the potential future retrofitting of buildings with elevators to allow ADA Visitability to upper -level units if needed in the future. The challenging grades on the site have provided the design team with the Page 4 of 9 Attachment June 28, 2010 0 THE CnY of AsnN opportunity to increase this level of ADA Visitability to 71 %. As the design and engineering progresses, this may continue to move slightly, but the team will not go below the 68% level without requesting further approval from Aspen City Council. Livability Features: • Covered parking available to every unit • Outdoor lockable storage integrated with carports • More in -unit storage & usable utility closets • Floor plans "live big" since flats have no stairs inside • Outdoor living patios and decks adjacent to central open space • Sod near living areas; native landscape further out • Hose bib at each building • Finish level quality like Phase I • Aggressive mitigation of sound and vibration transmission • Potential basketball court / skate park / winter skating • Consolidated sodded areas for easy maintenance • Mail, trash, transit facilities conveniently located with carports • Energy - saving sustainability initiatives like Phase I 3) Site planninz and land utilization The process for designing the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan began with the City's 2009 conceptual plan that was the basis for the density agreement with the Burlingame HOA. The design team considered some concepts that could improve on the City's 2009 conceptual plan, presented those ideas to the community and received feedback on those improvement concepts. Where appropriate, feedback on those improvement concepts was carefully incorporated into the creation of the new 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan which is attached separately. The road alignment was placed adjacent to Deer Hill which helps to open up the interior of the site and creates usable open space, new parking opportunities and separates cars from people and living areas. The building locations and orientations generally follow the site contours which creates excavation and construction efficiencies. Public parks have been integrated with the community and help to provide a gentle knitting of the Phase II site adjacent to the existing Phase I area with the use of two and three story buildings and pedestrian connections where appropriate. Site retainage along Deer Hill creates an opportunity to support carports with integrated lockable storage which help to provide convenience and more covered parking to more families than was available in Phase I. The integration of parks and open space into the plan provide an opportunity for outdoor living areas, patios and decks to directly interact with the common green space. These improvements also help to improve the project budget by removing parking and storage from under buildings thus decreasing the intensity of the overall gross building area. The standardization of buildings creates construction and operational efficiencies that will improve the budget as well. The design team has worked diligently to make sure that these improvements are simultaneously consistent with the principles of the Construction Experts Group recommendations while also creating a highly desirable level of livability and character. Page 5 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 C� IHE Cm or ASPEN The table below provides a summary of some of the land utilization characteristics proposed: Multifamily Comparison (only multifamily buildings /units included) r Phase112009 De nsity Concept Master Plan # of Units 161 161 84 # of Buildings 14 20 15 Avg Units per Building 11.5 8.1 5.6 Gross Building Area (sq ft)) 202,351 288,960 141,388 Avg Gross Building Area per Unit (sq ft) 1,257 1,795 1,683 Total Building Footprint (s( ft) 70,376 96,320 73,697 Avg Footprint per Building (s(l ft) 5,027 4,816 4,913 Avg Footprint per Unit (sq ft) 437 598 877 Site Area (acres) 16.2 16.2 13.8 Multifamily Units per Acre 9.9 9.9 6.1 On -site Open Space (acres) 1 14.6 14.0 12.1 LAND UTILIZATION & EFFICIENCY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4) Parking and storage strategy Many of the residents at Burlingame Phase I have suggested that the design team make efforts to make parking and storage more convenient. The 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan proposes the use of covered carport parking with integrated lockable storage. Carport parking with integrated lockable storage is a proven concept at other affordable housing developments in the Aspen area and has received a great deal of support during public outreach efforts. The proposed plan includes 161 covered carport parking spaces and an additional 161 surface parking spaces to achieve the required 2.0 parking ratio. Lockable storage at the carports is approximately 50 square feet, and residents will enjoy additional interior utility closet storage in their units of approximately 50 square feet, creating a total of at least 100 square feet of storage per unit - with more provided as unit size increases from one to two to three bedroom units. This parking and storage strategy exemplifies the thoughtful work of the design team during this process. While the previous plan contemplated the use of under- building parking and storage, the design team proposes to remove parking and storage from under buildings and to replace it with the much less intensive construction of carports for a net savings of millions of dollars while providing a highly- livable, convenient, proven solution that many residents see as a great improvement over Burlingame Phase I, especially since covered parking will be available to each unit. Below are some concept sketches of the proposed covered carport parking and storage solution: Page 6 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 FAr — fi g s` STORAGEI STORAGE 1 2 THE CITY OF Asrv% O O I T 6TOFWGE�TOFtA STORAGE STORAGE OFtAG�RAG1 - 0 © 0 a 0 — .53 SF 53 S SF 53 SF SF i IN II„ 5) Relationships and connections to Phase 1 The 2010 Burlingame Phase II concept Master Plan proposes the use of two and three story buildings where appropriate. Adjacent to the west of the existing Phase I buildings along Mining stock Parkway, the plan proposes three two -story structures. These two -story masses help to ease the transition from the existing Phase I buildings up to the three -story buildings that are proposed further up the hill to the west. Pedestrian connections, landscaping and sodded areas will be integrated in order to gently mesh the Phase II portion of the site to fit nicely with the Phase I area of the site. Page 7 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 The sketches below further illustrate the proposed Phase I / Phase II connection: Pbase.2 Courtyard Phase 2 o t - v Phase 61W 0055 Phase 1 a;vy _� _• �'"P_qase 1 �- — Mining Stock Parkway 6) Architectural massing, height, scale and general character CJ THE CRY or ASPEN ot,,,..e o The general architectural character proposed for the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan is designed to exist in harmony with both Phase I and the surrounding environment. The Ranch Vernacular style that was established in Phase I is carefully recreated in Phase II - which utilizes a mix of two and three story structures where appropriate. The proposed architectural character, mass and scale of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan was initially presented to City Council at the May 17, 2010 work session. Some concern was expressed in the May 17 work session about the massing of the proposed buildings, and as a direct result of those City Council concerns, the design team made modifications to the proposed massing and presented those modifications at the June 7, 2010 regular meeting of the Aspen City Council. The drawings and sketches provided in Attachment C (PowerPoint Presentation) further illustrate the architectural character, mass and scale proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan. Conclusion: The design team believes that, while there may be some outstanding questions regarding the building and unit design details, these details can be worked out during the detailed design phase of the design effort and will be further vetted with City Council during detailed design. Since the June 7, 2010 City Council meeting, the design team has held two additional public outreach events that were well- attended (there have been a total of seven outreach events to date). At the two events since June 7, community members expressed a high level of support for the proposed 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan, and on June 15, 2010 the Housing Board echoed that support. Page 8 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 C� UE On or Asery Without City Council's conceptual approval of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan, it will be difficult for the design team to move forward with detailed design since detailed design requires a significant investment of design and engineering effort which would be at risk if these fundamental characteristics of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan were to be changed subsequent to that significant investment of effort and could result in delays and/or additional design expenses. The design team recommends City Council's conceptual approval of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan at this time so that detailed design may begin. Page 9 of 9 I a m 0 1 woo VIA , < *�4 174 f . 0 a N N N V _ U C L � a Q)o� ~ U Q Q 4wft Z o Q MENEM s a� ftftft a; QW � V Qft M EMNON Q' � CD V LU CD EMMONS i V 0 U U a i Q 0 N N I c a� VW � — a d � o � o S N a C6 N J U ^, C W N E �a m �o� L F - i ce , 60- U) Q O Q Q CL U O 1 J L. O W I.L > O O � C Q Q a ._ a O a U L +� Cl) ca N Q. E O o U N O U a O � N w w O V/ W .O E O O 4 - .x N 0 r r cn O T _ O U co CD N . N 'a J M I `•Z L cn N CD O N 4 r CA O cn c ,O W V c N ^ L cn i r. O ui ca L Q� ca V cn m E m L El P L L V r l a� a� ca E a� . m m a� c� t 0 N N C d N N O O L Q N t �F+ L O t tm m O N N O L Q m Q Q� U C O A i C 'N a m w ^w N A co N N V � N� U N.. G L U � m a�o� U U) Q O Q ^ 0 am I Ja a, C x C �F+ 0OUNW14 r ca d o � C CL a� � Y o � r L II y 0 C FO— O cm d �U N ,c Q L Q 0 L O ' N U � � O O � � cC o O O ' Q o r I ' _ X i � X A Y W � J W ism 4 I; W E . i+ d t �I O N C w Q W N O O. O fZ N O t rn 0 N O Q Q m A Q d V O V N (1) Cl) = ,c ca v ° CO) o c E _ >+ h'' O Q w V _ V .I�d N CD CL 0 cn - .c = N �,3 o = ca ,M O E oLu m M v O Q a X Q O m " M c _ L Q 3: E � N O °� o IL V o O Q a- ( 1 ) O O) d V +�+ C O .0 .r.+ O O Q .� ,C O 3 • 3 'a "' — ° v> cn en EM O > p w � � �UUtn v O�U � 0 u CD loom% r Y O 1 . V V p << W N V< W V 1 . I) I1 L r i W T E C d W ^ fir W r 0 N N C ��� O I N O O_ O L Q N O t L W r L O N Z a J H r ti r f6 ca R n. O A J 0 F z 7 d. a e m O 0 Y O 1 . V V p << W N V< W V 1 . I) I1 L r i W T E C d W ^ fir W r 0 N N C ��� O I N O O_ O L Q N O t L W r L O N Z a J H r ti r f6 ca R n. O A Z v J m V J V Z 0 m G W D w 7 S O r, 0 b ry 5 Y Z m C 7 P n F — r I: L o J � c fII t m 7 � 7 V1 = O � m v. H Z D N Y � N y W W~ W W O �n .n z o a o a a s l k r p N z 0 m N N N C b 1Y U z Q m m Z a tJ Z O m m CD �a E N Q) CD m t+ 4) t rr O N N C Q1 N O 1 0. O L W w 0 ` W w t O N N m Q Q. 0- cu cu Q V _ O A c E c a� . d V w d tC t O N C O N 7 C tC N 's w L O W+ t O O N N O L Q Q d V C O U n .� 00 v r 00 1J c-i Lfi rl to Gl 00 't -4 u tA .F, . 00 N 'J o6 c l M r-1 ry r \ Lrl ' � .--I r'J N n-' O M '• G1 � N O O w � � Q Y c r -- , Z • L = w �� Cip • rc t]0 '� m u Z m LL _ CL Ln N _ ✓ ^ J .yam T ` L! f— o G e O d'0 0 rao a, Z c E c a� . d V w d tC t O N C O N 7 C tC N 's w L O W+ t O O N N O L Q Q d V C O U ± » R w V) ƒ R \ a < u �_— / k §X/ % 0 E CL & U) 2 ■ . 2 = a) m CL 0 $ m m d o u E # ° � ° 0 § ®& C o > @ m a- m 2 0 ° & CL W 2 ° CL 0) @ o = \ 7 5 # 2 0 S -J m i 0) I 2 °kfo: q2o E 02 3 § 0 (��k0) 2� 4 ._ o \ k 2 U) � E cn CL cn 0c § m 7 >�t I CL m =E0) o§ /� k ƒ m 0 U 0 Iw C �O c a . c 'O 'a d d 'a r.+ R t 4. c N a w R i .1� d a E c c c i R c 1A L i US r t a c R c i C C R R C a a c c 4 / p a \ r 1 L 1 . ii � . ., �• LM ON r s 't F d .Q \V C . CD M CD R d r r O N N C V d C C O N Q N C O cu L d H d w w r r ai O U) U) O C. Q. m t0 Q N V C O Al 7 CD R *' O }+ L N L � � 1 R = U R O U N R � R � � i R N R R / fA i ;C m � O O = ++ O to O . N Lm 4� I r f + ` r � ' i C d .Q A E a • N N d Y t4 t N N C O v d c C O U y ❑. t N C O m d d N N w r rn 0 N .y O L Q. Q. m RS Q U C' O' 'i 3 o. Y V � O L �L T _ . G = N CD =a m� a� o CL o Q _ 010 W = _ Y y 0 � 3 a� a� m .a T C N Y m Y Y O N N C ar U d C C O U N N 0 d Y 0 w Y a� O N N 0 L Q Q. 7 Y Q d) v c 0 Al 0 r a� c c O � Y _ V O O L L �F 4 � r � r Q. � Y C V 'a O cC LO a) c) LO O C E c O cv L Y� ^ T- 4 r M Y s O O 0 .0 v 3 as ci d s E a� d d d V la s 0 N 4) tl !0 s v otS m v N C . N E N 's L 0 W t 0 N N !6 O Q Q e0 i0 3 w CL .0 0 r- v► m .Q �a E rn �N d 'C d d 'O w L O N d V t0 R L V ca d Ri V N G N !C E N L ar O w L Of 7 O N N R O O. Q ea io 7 r.+ Q. d v C O LE c a O �F+ V V/ V/ S � L ^ L W 4� Q U 0 a i C 'i C 5 i-r Q N G7 "i ii m .n A E C . d . N w N f6 t i/ O N L Q� V R y V W V c N f4 E N w L O r .0 7 O N N fC O Q O_ m 7 r Q d U C O A c 0 w U U C c � C L co W O a O c W Q1 3 N W ! I i l •h 'J 1 ' 1..._.._ 0) d C . d 1 0 d cc w d R t r O fA L (D U L 1p Z V d !4 V . N R N t r+ L w r 01 7 O N O G. Q. N i0 7 CL 4) v c O zE i v r� O V L d Q m O a 0 a� c • L m c VA t CL v m ca E c a� . d M d m d m !a s rr O M L d V L s a�S d V N C . H lC r r L 0 w .r s a� 0 N M la O L CL CL m R Q. d v D 0 _ c O c m c N M L W Q r�1 a m O a v- O �L c N II L c 3 O m W a� c �N N _N t r L 0 r t 3 O N N R O L. G. Q. �a R Q. a� v c 0 rw OL ...j.; rn L Q j Q ` I a ° O of c �L as N � y d LL 4 r �{ t � :rl�� Y • 47 4 a� s �a E c a� . d w � W s w 0 w L m v s v d V N C . H !0 N 0 w s 0 U/ Q . CL R R _ CL 0 v c 0 LE r � :rl�� Y • 47 l a� s �a E c a� . d w � W s w 0 w L m v s v d V N C . H !0 N 0 w s 0 U/ Q . CL R R _ CL 0 v c 0 LE t, t i I r I� - z S d m E c N (D d m w d a+ !6 s .r O a� 4) m r 06 0 7i di c . y m E _N t rr O w.. r t Im N O O. Q R R 7 Q . d V C O Lai 6 I i I i .. Qt W U LU u G w nz un n. O a J Ul U, W w v V d CL } LLJ J J ul <0 7 o W J W (I a- O2 _ _J OM61 �4 r i r d. r -- 1 ( 1 u 1 i f r a .. a 5,Y ` � �4 �r P S a t�_ 't ` ~ �'r f � M r d. r -- 1 ( 1 u 1 i f r a .. a 5,Y ` � �4 �r P S a t�_ 't ` ~ �'r f k r Far— I �' K li i k S ! id� 1n 1 IX LLJ 11 I - P � O T I r. �74 dt