The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.740 Castle Creek Rd.014A-84 " . 3. . ~\ 1-" ';'/:':,.'-',:,: ',-';:, " CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen -' '._, ,-v ".- \'", ",','.> X; STAFF: (FEE) (4 step) . Conceptual Submission Preliminary Plat 'Final Plat SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) ($2,730.00) ($1;640.00) ($ 820.00) "i_' _:,:'," :,:<':>,. -",-,':' :,<::.,,-.,.-"" ','-',',,",.0- " ',' ,,'-' '. , ,,",\',.';':,',: :', '. COnceptual .......i~reli.minarY :';':Final Plat Submission Plat ($1,900.00) ($1,220.00) ($ 820.00) '->,:',':, , ".," " -,,""\--' , ./(:_,:,",','i:'::..,' ~, " :'<', , . ':';':), .. ,\;..;- EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ..SPECIAL .REVIEW (1 step) ($1,490.00) ($ .680.00) ~'. ,";'.><h<.:,-;!:" : ","d,' ',' '::;:::;,:,:,~r~,2,~~:~;:::~':':' :.',~" , ,'."';.',"i ~ :"'.':'i<j,,",' ,,-".;-,- '.-,t,' ',' :':,'-/. 1.. . Special Review 2. 'U~El oe;terndnation 3.:Conditiona1 Use Other:~~ !7um ;Jt~fJtI/) ,':-; .i\";' ;/:>~ , ,", "'-.:,j.f':;;'><\< ;'::-;'" ,.', -,,-, ~ , ,,""-. ':~r::/',;-:;:, "" ;<;" CC MEETING DATE: . DATE REFERRED:t.{!1.1 Y'I ,; P&Z MEETING DATE: m...q~ . REFERRALS: " '. ~;CitYAttdrneY . .ci ty Engineer : ..\ :..... . '. Ho~sing. birectoi': -,'.' ..,',,',: , '~Aspen Water oept. , --,-City' Electric '" '~Aspen consolo S.D. _Mountain Bell ..2--Parks Dept. '. . Holy Cross Electric - . "_Fire Marshall . _School District. _Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas _State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood) _State Hwy Dept. (Grd.Jctn) _Building Dept. Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief _Other: FINAL ROtJ"TING: DATE ROl:TE:J: Sk3/€'1 . . _City Attorney _Other: ~City E~ginaar ~ _Build~ng Dept. : Other: ..... ,. ..1;' FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: "," , ); .' ...L. -t- . III .....:.., . ., ~ ,",uJ ..., r","~ o-,,.,.,ji ~1.l.4.<_...--' ,..,- r\. " ,', };~.a ~~ ~:j::" . ~~,.J '" '''i.1'';'',:, '." ',; '!",..~:,J" ---- . ,..:Ii!.., . ,-'" :..,~,.tffl},~...." V ~:,':",~ ~;~.. ': ' I ',>, "'. r-:t:e.r .~,~?~\.~:~~,:.,:~ -- . "_. . -'- . '. ""'" 'j/.".': q ~ . 'd\r,~l'....' ,. ....... /"jl . t .- I ., " ~ ,. ____._ _ :.. .",l...-t"""11t'\",,?,.V" D.,.;b I~: 'V Iq/g4- , I ,/ ,. .. "d' . ~ I . f ,...." _./__ ~~...v_'J'\ ...",... . \. ". _....M:._.. . ._,~,-i ", ',' '1,- ",," ,:ii' ,'. ~~l:" .' _ . _ .., " _ "" ,'11..1 _J . , ., ordin~nce Ko. ,!'.'.~. '......:.:.". ,:,"'" n6<.j1~('d rJz. ~ "....,,~ f\ lit., ~ r<",."..w,),,-\. -io-......,~....J ,... ("~.l't'''' ..._j "i::>;):..t~.1JY;: -:.~~ .,..,,;,!-~.,... ";"e--- ......-J=tn r.tl_l1l~ ';,2.& _ ,:......,< ,,; ._;,-:1; ~ ~ .-ul._i~...........,) . "". ','Y-~~'" 'f.. '. I -.."...'::), "'" . ..' .' "r' - " '"&1:~'''' , ",.,~,:,~:".;,l' t....I.4 ......!;.:...- l~" f.......l...... .>..~ r"'-,7..2.,.....-;l;;:e" ,_. -It",--'>,"IN.-\;....:..'. C<!L4&.-<o "~{t: ,-,-,,:_~ '~':{~~':":," .r I.JI. "1i.1.. ~ ~'. ,,;. ..... ~.i", 1_ .,". ; . ,,~ ..:". "';' I . ~ ,~^"-~ ,-- ~,.' ...~'!P;'",...." ,'1:a.....~_":.tI...~{""'"""""'l ~...p..r~._ :-"'A..L.~...",,,,\.....~,,,. -{k,I"'",,"o\&'~w"<:"'(IN'" ~.'. ~ ~ I~':~""~~'.." 'l"';\.~'" ~ +';..; (U._3,.:;,,\""'!k~I-". ....~- ..' - ..-,'It, ,0';"1._ ...~. ~!fYl""':'~'" .'"" "-, ,:r-" , ~:'i'? \ I ~""'. ~~~, ~>/-;l'U, \ .,f"'N'>iY ~~!t%~~: _ ':'~ .' . " ' .' .l: l t::..,.,...... ,_ ~ 'f. ',''\.:,.'1 ..~~~.tl., .;~~:. ,.' ~;. :::1':::,.' tf!.~:.;' ~;;\I-,r. '. ' . ,~~,'. ....' . " ~*:;;(;.. .' .. .~/;~,':'. ~~f~':" .'.,. :'i,' ,~{:. ..... ..:;'/:' ~ . '~'f.'" c ..., .:~ .'. - - DIS?OSITION: *Or\L.-::xr 1-<;,1.,,-:......,). CITY i?&Z REVIEW: t-''\-e.~, I'", \',..,7._'2.. \ 'F '1, ('~ I' /'....~;::J1, ~"...' "../J tt.\~..."t..r~.'.....!::.~9 !...~....) ~',.' .;--. :1 ) ')" -" & """t?i:.....~ ~.C'_~.. ~_...:::r' (\ ,.:, ,,~~- " ,,~:...\ ~""! , -' r -l..; (' \....d..J'a.'Ll...,::" ....... ~..,,, " "y:\ (' .. .' I.". .....,.., ~. ..,~: ?:" :,-;:::1t.- n....vit..P3-[. .. .:.... ''")n_~ oJ. e. /< I.l.~ ~ , ." ", .._,... ~.. ~:" ,~"..r:.ft.. J .:.1. , . "-:'/' I ....i. ~ , !.c.:, -r:... I ,,~ ~~1.;2 I' I " -.. ,,) . ..... ~. ~ ....... J \j --r- . f'o ("1 -1'--. " obi ' , -+ ;, I t?J:..I..JI....1 ~.4.h,~('~' L !."'l,....._~ l~.) ~. '''' .,"" ~ " k.';:(;J: Co. J../.,.?, +k w<.;;.s".., ,r \.... ~ J " . ,~~ , .... , (, ;"_.l',,, . .. " fi', ;. ,.... I CITY COUNCIL REvrEW: / " ,.,," ..." .,." .." Ordinance No. .' .... CITY P&Z R..l>1fIEW: "",""" ,- / / " .- , , ,/ / CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: .' Ordinance No. CITY P&Z R=:VIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: ., ~"---,,,- '-'~ '< .--. ~ MlMORARDOM DATE : Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Leslie Lee; Planning Office Roush Exemption from Mandatory PUD: Reconsideration of Trail Easement - City ~ase No. 014A-84 September 18, 1984 TO: FROM: RE: ========================================================================= APPLICANTS' REQUEST The representatives of James Roush and Cynthia Wayburn, are requesting reconsideration by the Planning Commission of the Roush Exemption from Mandatory P.U.D. The project is located in an R-30 PUD zone and its address is Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision. The total lot size is 78,200 sq. ft. The specific request is for reconsideration and removal of the condition of approval which required the granting of a trail easement across the lower portion of the property near Castle Creek. Neither the applicants nor their representatives wer!!! present at the May 22, 1984 P&Z meeting at which the approval was given and they now wish to have the condition of approval reconsidered. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW This particular case was exempted from Mandatory PUD by City P&Z on May 22, 1984 with only one condition of approval; that a trail easement (15 feet in width) through the eastern side of the property along Castle Creek be dedi ca ted by the owner to the City of Aspen (see attached staff memo). The special review approval allowed the duplexing of an already under-construction single family residence. The proposed trail alignment was identified and adopted in the 1973 and the updated 1979 Aspen-Pitkin County Trails Master Plan. As part of subdivision regulations in both the City & County, a trail easement may be extracted from a property undergoing subdivision review if the trail has been identified in the Trails Master Plan. For reasons described in Karen Smith's letter (see attached letter dated July 19,1984), the applicants find objectionable the requirement of granting a trail easement to the City as part of the special review approval for exemption from mandatory PUD. It is true, as stated in applicants' letter that the special review was for an exemption from mandatory PUD and that dedication of trails is not among the eight specific criteria of mandatory PUD, nor is it a general PUD requirement. The g.ranting of trail easements, however, is part of the subdivision regulations for the C~ty of Aspen (Sec. 20-l8(c)). A PUD or mandatory PUD, prior to its approval, must be in compliance with subdivision regulations of the City (Sec. 24-8.5). The original staff review was done with this in mind as well as the consideration of community-wide goals related to trails and recreational open space. PLANNING OFPICE RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the planning Office that the request for a trail easement as the condition of approval for exemption from mandatory PUD s.hould remain part of the original approval as decided by P&Z on May 22, 1984. Since PUDrequires compliance with subdivision regulations prior to or in conjunction with its approval, so should exemption from a mandatory PUD be granted only after compliance with subdivision regulations. The community-wide goals of providing a recreational and commuter oriented trail and open space system throughout the community would be furthered by the granting of this trail easement. .~ /-.' ,-.... "-"" KAREN B. SMITH, AICP Planning and Management Services 450 So. Galena Street, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 10 S~-:l. ~,~.Y;:Jl?\fP1SJl'('n"'..). I.. I,' "", eJ) r.:::::.lL:u':Lr..:.1. 'j , n (/"-.-..--.- .," ~ i ;'\\il ill I LL JUL ~9_1984 Jlh ASPEN I PiTfliN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Phone: (303) 925-4894 Ms. Leslie Lee Planning Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 July 19, 1984 RE: Roush Exemption from Mandatory PUD, City CaSe No. 014A-84 Dear Leslie: This letter will confirm our conversation and formally request reconsideration by the Planning Commission of the Roush Exemption from Mandatory PUD. This request is made on behalf of James Roush and Cynthia Wayburn who made application for the exemption on AprilS, 19B4 through the office of David Finholm and Associ- ates. For reasons that are described herein, the applicants, who were unaware that the Commission was considering the application, request reconsideration and removal of the condition of approval pertaining to the granting of a trail easement. with respect to notice of the Planning Commission'smeeting, there was a misunderstanding on the part of the applicant's representative that the matter was being scheduled for Planning Commission review. David Finholm and Associates' office was notified that the Planning Office memorandum was ready for pickup, but, being unfamiliar with Planning Office procedure, did not understand that this meant the matter was also scheduled for Planning Commission action. The matter was scheduled and acted upon during a time when the applicant's representative was on vacation, hence no one was present at the Commission meeting and the discovery of the action was not immediately made. Acknowledging the misunderstanding, the applicants wish to have considered testimony that would have been offered by them about the condition requiring dedication of a IS' bike trail easement across the Castle Creek side of the property. 1. Interference with Site Plan. Part of the applicant's design program has always been to incorporate a private picnic area on the lower portion of the site near Castle Creek. The aesthetic and scenic values of this lower portion of the property and its prospective use as a quiet, secluded ..,-'."...' ; ,-" f~ Ms. Leslie Lee July 19, 19B4 Page outdoor retreat were among the attractions that drew the applicant to purchase this parcel in the first place. This information was not related to the Planning Office, because it was not relevant to the application and the matter of a trail easement was not brought up until the Planning Office memo was released. 2. Relationship Between the Purposes 0 f the Review and the Condition. An application was made for exemption from the Mandatory PUD provisions of Section 24-B.13. The code provides that exemption from the PUD process may be granted by the Planning Commission if it determines that the proposed development meets the objectives of PUD. The objectives of mandatory PUD are primarily the eight criteria listed in Section 24-8.13(a) (l)-(B). These criteria were fully addressed in the application and determined by the Planning Office to be satisfied such that the purposes of PUD would not be met any more thoroughly by processing this application through the full 3-step procedure. Dedication of trails is not among these specific criteria of mandatory PUD, nor is ita general PUD requirement. Dedication of trails is only a requirement of the subdivision process, and this application does not involve subdivision approvals. In short, the applicant met all the objectives of PUD and the imposition of a trail dedication exceeds the scope of PUD exemption review. 3. Suitability of Trail Location. The desirability and suitability of a trail in this location is questionable. The bank above is steep, making access for maintenance and repair difficult. It is marshy, subject to high water and comprised of very dense riparian vegetation. Construction would be difficult and could have adverse impact on wildlife habitat. No easements seem to have been acquired to date on the stretch of proposed bike trail between the Castle Creek Bridge and the Roaring Fork River. Most of the land is already developed. The expense of acquiring easements and building bridges is probably quite high on this stretch. Much more economical alternatives exist including improving the existing Cemetery Lane bike path by widening the shoulder down the hill to Slaughterhouse Bridge and acquiring easements through the Institute up to Meadows Road. In summary, we respectfully submit that the mandatory trail dedication is unrelated to any possible impacts of the proposed development and is an exaction beyond the purposes of the planned uni t development procedure. The owners were merely trying to seek approval of a second kitchen to be used as a mother-in-law ",0,,_.1' ! ~ f " .,.-" Ms. Leslie Lee July 19, 1984 Page or caretaker-type unit. The unit is small and does not expand beyond the square footage or footprint of the building under construction. It fully meets the objectives of PUD. The extra condition is both onerous and unwarranted. We regret we were not present at the Commission's deliberations over this matter the first time around. However, we hope you will consider the merits of the argument as you would have then in a reconsideration of the action. Sincerely, ~~~ Karen B. Smith, AICP for James Roush and Cynthia Wayburn KBS:klm ,-., ,-., MEMORANDU~l FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Leslie Lee, Planning Office TO: DATE: Roush Exemption from Mandatory PUD City Case No. 014A-B4 May 22, 1984 RE: ===================================================================== APPLICANTS' REQUEST David Finholm, representing clients James Roush and Cynthia Wayburn, has submitted a special review application to City P&Z for an exemption from mandatory PUD as described in Section 24-8.l3 of the Municipal Code. The applicant is requesting the change of a single-family residence currently under construction to a duplex under the provision that subjecting this use to full PUD review would be unnecessary. The project is located in an R-30 PUD zone. Its address is Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision. The total lot size is 78,200 s.f. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW The existing structure is a single-family residence which is under construction and has not yet received a certificate of occupancy from the Building Department. No additional square footage or change in physical size will occur with the proposed duplexing of the structure. PUD special review allows for duplexes in the R-30 PUD zone with a minimum lot size of 30,000 s.f. The middle portion of the site under consideration contains steep slopes as the lot drops from Castle Creek Drive down to Castle Creek. The Planning Office requested that slope reduction calculations be done for the lot. After slope reduction, 61,000 s.f. of the total 78,200 s.f. lot was available for development calculations. 61,000 s.f. exceeds the minimum of 30,000 s.f. required for a duplex in the R-30 PUD zone. The question remains, then, "Does the application for changes to a duplex from a single-family residence meet the 8 provisions stated in Section 24-8.13 of the zoning code and should it be granted an exemption from mandatory PUD?" In changing from a single-family residence to a duplex, there is still adequate water pressure and other utilities to service the project (item *l) and adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and maintenance (item *2). The single-family residence has already been approved and is under construction in compliance with items *3-7 of the Section. These items deal with suitability of the site for development, effects of the development on the natural watershed, affects on air quality, compatiblity with the terrain and whether any proposed grading will result in a disturbance to the terrain. Item *B which deals with clustering of buildings does not apply. It should be noted that the applicant is exempt from the growth management quota system as stated in zoning code Section 24-11.2 (c), and is allowed by right to construct either one single-family or duplex structure because the lot was subdivided prior to November 14, 1977. Since the house is under construction, and not yet occupied, duplexing does not violate the principles of this exemption. The City Engineering Department commented that exempting Lot 6 of Castle Creek Subdivision from mandatory PUD does not appear to create any special problems from an engineering standpoint. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends approval of the duple xing of the single- .""*" ,-., Page 2 family residence located on Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision and exempting the project from mandatory PUD. The proposed duplex meets the objectives of planned unit development and appears not to create any additional impacts to the site and/or surrounding area. As a condition of approval, however, it i!L.,r..ffi9om1!lelld...!:~ ~hat a trail easement (IS ft. in width) through t~~~propettYi~e~Cle<al~~ed by the owner to the City of Aspen. The 1973 ~d updated 1979 Aspen Pitkin County Trails Master Plan identifies a proposed bicycle trail alignment to be located along the west side of Castle Creek and, therefore, passes through the applicants' property. ,-., ^'. MEMORANDUM 'j.iD1. ~1C1~)(~[.(~;:1:...i1.l1'i .~..rr. "'- _.~,.. " '......i;i" : I' '. "'" e lMAY /3 l~M,U i ASPEN I PiTKIN fJr . .PLANl'\llt./G arfjli~ . FROM: LESLU..LE;E,.J?L.ANIIJ:iUiE;.(}J!!!'.ICE JAY HAMMOND, CITY ENGINEERING ~ MAY 4, 1984 ~Cfr. TO: DATE: RE: ROUSH EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY P.U.D. -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comment: Exempting Lot 6 of the Castle Creek Subdivision from mandatory P.U.D. would not appear to create any special problems from an engineering standpoint. Although the plan submitted with the application does not indicate a scal~it appears the proposed structure does not violate required setb(,~kS in the R-30 zone. JH/co/RoushExemp. } '1= 5() 1 TO: FRml: RE: DATE: "....., MEMORANDUM Paul Taddune, City Attorney Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer Janet Weinstein, Planning Office Roush - Exemption from Mandatory PUD April 9, 1984 ,.......... ~ dlo~ ?</ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -------------- ---- --- ----- -- -- ---------------------------------------- Attached for your review is an application submitted by David Finholm & Associates on behalf of their client G. James Roush and Cynthia Wayburn, requesting special review approval for gxemption frQm mandatory POD_on property located at Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision.' dThe applicant is requesting such approval in order to construct a duplex structure. Please review this material and return your referral comments to Leslie Lee of the Planning Office no later than May 8, 1984, in order for Leslie to have adequate time to prepare for presenta- tion of this case before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on May 22, 1984. Thank you. . ,-.. ,-. DAVID FIN HOLM & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS BOX 2839 ASPEN, COlORADO 81612 (303)925'5713 April 5, 1984 Colette Penne Planning Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision duplex application Dear Colette, I am applying on behalf of my clients for the duplexing of Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision. In so doing, I am asking for an exception from the mandatory PUP as described in Section 24-8.13 of the zoning code, under the provision that the change meets the provisions required. Specifically, there is adequate water pressure, and other utilities to service the project. The existing roads are adequate for fire protection. snow removal and road maintenance. The site is suitable for development, (the project is under construction, compliance with items 4-7 of Section 24-8.13 of the zoning code. Clustering of buildings, etc, does not apply to this application. On your recommendation we have done slope reduction for Lot 6. As you can see, We have 61,000+ square feet available as per 24-8.18 of the zoning code. The enclosed site plan shows that the proposed duplex will not change in physical size from the single family status that we now have a building permit for. The building is under construction. pun special review allows the duplexing in R-30 pun if ther is 30,000 square feet. ~-- ,...., ,...., Page Two (Continued) It seems that you and the planning department could, with the enclosed information, faciliate duplex approval because its only a classification change being requested. The parking requirements, common area and landscaping are commensurate to the intent of the code. Thank you for your consideration. S~/~ David Finholro David Finholm , Associates - DF/lb Enclosure cc: James Roush & Cynthia Wayburn T. Michael Manchester """ ""' (l1l/{j 'itl DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS BOX 2839 ASPEN, COlORADO 81612 (303}925'5713 March 27, 1984 Colette penne Planning Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Lot 6, Castle Creek Subdivision duplex application Dear Colette, On your recommendation we have done slope reduction for Lot 6. As you can see, we have 61,000+ square feet available as per 24-8.18 of the zoning code. The enclosed site plan shows that the proposed duplex will not change in physical size from the single family status that we now have a building permit for. The building is under construction. PUD special review allows the duplexing in R-30 PUO if there ill 30,000 square feet. It seems that you and the planning department could, with the enclosed information, facilitate duplex approval because its only a classification change being requested. The parking requirements, common area and landscaping are commensurate to the intent of the code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, :::J24~ avid ;inhollfl Oavid Finholm & Associates DF/lb Enclosure cc, James Roush & Cynthia Wayburn T. Michael Manchester , /"'., 1'""\ ~I</;;_f'l DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS BOX 2839 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 (303)925.5713 March 21, 1984 SLOPE REDUCTION LOT 6 CASTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION OWNER: JAMES ROUSH & CYNTHIA WAYBURN SITE SQ. FT. 1B,200 Existinq Sq. n, After Reduction NO reduction 0-20". 59,681.5 5,9681.5 '01 reduction 21-30\ 2,835 1,417.5 '" reduction 21-40\ 130 182.5 Excluded 4H , above 14,953.5 Total usable square footage with slope reduction.......61,2S1.5 Sq. Ft. Existing building area. ......7,574 Sq. Ft. .See Section 24-9.18 Aspen Zoning Code .Under Construction . . JL3N38l :IIJ" .... ". '-:r1e.1.~d~-.~Iif;' 1Bl.:.. '.. .'....,..,. .: ~~~.~~1~ ., ,."'~.-l~. ---=0' ... .', ..~,,,.o~..~-o, . ' :' ~,' ..... ; '..' ..l,' -.,.1" ,~. .\o,,~.~~~~t;., ,....j'.'. ...:......"" .' / .' \ .-.-..., '. . I . i --....., , I I I I: , . E:L-'-' , ! ! ! I . .1._._. ,-" ._.,:;,.4~1:.. r...~--r._.-=~--.~....:~. -li '.f'..... ,',' . "" .-. t ' , I"." ,'....~... ' I' , J I I , .. :': I "'," r.... ...~..( :.~; '/1 II C" fol!'868~ :..., .. . , , . H-' ',... 'fo6'Se~L . . ~T .': : ....J I' " . , .: I J r I :. L-. ~...._.,....; I ~ --. .---......-...-~~'7L ...__. v '. .... .cH--J.a~.:9r1 '.----...-:- -- ,.._'--~.,--, -' Oli:'deL -. -- . "'" .',,:;' '. S:S:'6~8l 3C.A]fij[(][ ---:......- I I I , L.. "- '..... Y. r".' "r .1 I .':'" . .:.,. 60'l.te.L ' ---- 8S:'t18~ 3f'1JLS' ~ , I I . . I I : r 1/l I.. I ' I 'J I :' " 'I~.,"'J~.~.,,;~; :,:': : I . '... ., \ ~. "., . . 'it}' 'Ii!:" .. . ,'::'},,::,; :/:':',\:::\:,::. ' . ." ,,' ..':, ",.:}'2:k;rt'.:..;. ": ..'. ;.:' .: : . ...,~.:". .... .... ..: .z I l, i ~. --- I "1 I I . I/}I ii' I i ' II i 1 .' I ~ 06~~ I I . i . , I I 1L1 ' L.-., / i.-.-.-..-1 L-~~ \j j' .- . \. , , ~ ''vl , I . I I . I I . ..1 . ..... I. ."".. ',. ''':''. -I " ..' :". :~'''::.'.'. , .,' _.'.' . ~ . . '.'; ". .,: .:..::'.<::;.~:':,:. ...... ,. ..:'00# " I . I . I I , .. '%O~;;,o''''l , I :. I I I ! L r ' ~.,. j- "'Z'" . ! , ., -': , . ,,-.-.-' I ~..- ..--' 'T- . ., " 'L' '.' ....: .' I : 1'~'~'7'+;~;' , ....J .L....:.-:..,~,,~. -'_;' J. I ; , ".. -:,:.-:----.... ......... . .- .."....,~~.... ..1 't"""T' . . .'....:...:....:.J ..... ,'JlS'TYO. ". . . '. .'. '. .' :': ...... .' ,. . '" ,... , . .. '.,