HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061154.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2006-29
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN,AMPF#354,TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 7, SHILOH ESTATES,
INTO FOUR LOTS - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT
A public hearing was conducted on May 10, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Chair
Commissioner David E. Long, Pro-Tem - EXCUSED
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Brad Mueller
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 14,2006,and duly published April 19,2006, in
the Fort Lupton Press,a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of James and Cheri
Scott for a Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Planned Unit Development Final Plan,
AMPF#354,to subdivide Lot 7,Shiloh Estates, into four lots. Bruce Barker,County Attorney,made
this a matter of record, and advised the applicants' representative, Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges
Design, LLC, that he has the option of continuing this matter to a date when the full Board will be
present. However, if he decides to proceed today, it will require three affirmative votes, or in the
case of a tie vote, Commissioner Long will listen to the record and make the determining vote.
Mr. Hodges indicated he would like to proceed today.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written.
He gave a brief description of the location of the site and surrounding land uses. In response to
Commissioner Masden, Mr. Mueller stated most of the other lots are approximately 2.5 acres,and
the applicant intends to divide Lot 7 into four single lots averaging 4.0 acres in size. He stated the
Planning Commission's recommendation for denial is based on the finding that the proposal will
create urban development without adhering to urban standards. He explained although the site is
within close proximity to existing subdivisions and municipalities, it is not within an Urban Growth
Boundary, nor will it be served by urban services. He stated the Planning Commission also
expressed concern with the lack of effective development and the number of lots within the
proposed amended PUD. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Pam Smith, Department of Public
Health and Environment, indicated the location of the Windsor Assembly of God Church,which is
serviced bya septic system,as well as the Falcon Ridge PUD,which is connected to 38 advanced
treatment systems. She noted both developments were recently approved by the Board.
2006-1154
�� aL Pei) /`7<< PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF #354)
PAGE 2
Ms.Smith stated the total acreage of the site is 75.5 acres,and the current 14 lots create an overall
density of one septic per 5.4 acres. She stated if approved,the development will have 17 lots,with
an overall density of one septic system per 4.4 acres, which is still above the 2.5-acre minimum.
She stated Lot 7 is currently 17 acres.
Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, stated the site will be accessed from the internal road,
Cornerstone Way,which extends from Weld County Road 72. He stated Weld County Road 72 is
a collector status road,and the resubdivision will add approximately 48 vehicle trips per day,which
will create a minimal impact on the road system. Mr. Hein stated the applicant intends to privately
maintain the internal road, and staff is requesting the maintenance issue be addressed in the
Homeowners' Association Covenants.
Mr. Hodges stated the final plat for Shiloh Estates was recorded in 1994. He stated the site is
located between the Towns of Windsor and Severance, and there are many other PUD's in close
proximity to the property. He further stated the site design is appropriate,since urban development
should be concentrated in, or near, other recorded subdivisions or municipalities, and this is an
urbanizing area. Mr. Hodges stated the proposed lots will be comparable in size to the twelve
existing lots, and the access will be from a new internal road called Cornerstone Court,which will
be paved to County standards and privately maintained. He stated the subject of open space was
discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, and he displayed a slide of the existing original
open space. He explained there is language in the Code which allows a deviation from the 15
percent open space requirement if the intent of the Code has been met. Mr. Hodges stated Shiloh
Estates originally had eight percent of the 75-acre parcel designated as open space. Under the
current proposal, nine percent of the 17.5 acres will be in open space and, with the addition of
building envelopes, there will be a total of 59 percent combined passive and active open space.
Mr. Hodges stated the applicant met with the Town of Windsor,which indicated the site is within its
Growth Management Area allowing one residential unit on septic per2.5 acres. He stated the area
adjacent to the site is designated for higher density, including Falcon Ridge Estates,which is more
likely to have access to public sewer in the future. He further stated the Town of Severance had no
opposing comments,although it has annexed a parcel south of Weld County Road 74. Mr.Hodges
stated the referral agencies support the project, and he displayed a slide of the surrounding land
uses and reviewed the Code criteria for the record.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Hodges stated the applicant has not petitioned for
annexation to the Town of Windsor. He explained it does not appear appropriate since the applicant
cannot agree to annexation for the remainder of the subdivision. However, if the subdivision
becomes an enclave in the future it can be pursued at that time.
In response to Chair Geile,Jacqueline Johnson,attorney,stated the lot owners will be participants
in the Homeowners'Association. She stated the original Covenants provide that any lot may be
subdivided upon approval of the Architectural Review Committee. She explained State statute
indicates Covenants cannot be amended without a vote of 50 to 60 percent of the Homeowners;
however,there is exception when the Covenants have an express provision for subdivision of the
lots. Responding to Chair Geile,Mr. Hodges clarified the proposed trail area will be under the control
of the Homeowners' Association, and the space outside of the building envelopes will be the
responsibility of the individual lot owner,although it will function as visual open space. In response
to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Hodges stated much of the public testimony at the Planning
2006-1154
PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF #354)
PAGE 3
Commission hearing indicated the current residents use Lot 7 as visual open space. He noted that
although the area will continue to remain under private ownership,much of the area will still function
as visual open space. Responding to Commissioner Vaad,Mr.Hodges stated,as it currently exists,
Lot 7 is allowed one single residence and associated outbuildings, without a designated building
envelope. He further stated the Homeowners'Association has never maintained any portion of
Lot 7. Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Hodges stated he and the applicants have reviewed the
Conditions of Approval,and he requested Conditions of Approval#1.1.3 and#1.1.4 be deleted,since
they are already addressed in the notes that will be carried over from the original plat. He also
stated Condition of Approval#1.G,regarding annexation to Windsor,does not seem valid based on
the location of the site,which is internal to an existing PUD. He further requested that any reference
to urban design,including curb,gutter,and sidewalk,specifically the first sentence of Condition of
Approval#1.C and#1.1.2, be deleted,as recommended by the Planning Commission. Responding
to Commissioner Vaad,Mr. Hodges stated he is not aware of the requirement for annexation to the
Town of Windsor for other surrounding developments. In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Hodges
stated the current subdivision does not have curb, gutter, or sidewalks. Mr. Mueller stated if the
Board approves the proposal and waives the requirement for urban standards, staff agrees with
removing Conditions of Approval #1.1.2, #1.1.3, and #1.1.4.
Elizabeth Schump, surrounding property owner, stated she owns 140 acres north of the site, and
when she purchased her property she was informed that Lot 7 would have one house. She stated
her decision to purchase her property was based on the plat approved by Weld County,and allowing
more lots adjacent to her farmland and horse barn will have a negative impact. Ms.Schump stated
there is a ditch easement between the two properties,which she cannot obstruct,and the proposed
bridle path creates an additional liability if there is an accident on her property. In response to Chair
Geile, Ms.Schump stated she was provided with a copy of the Shiloh Estates plat by the realtorthat
represented her property. She stated she was not aware that the Covenants had an allowance for
further subdivision on individual lots;however,allowing additional lots will negatively impact her farm
where she grows hay and breeds horses.
Judy Whichard,surrounding property owner,stated she is speaking on behalf of seven homeowners
who are opposed to the proposal. She stated they want to preserve what was represented to them
when moving into the development,and they feel the proposal is a breach of the conditions under
which they purchased their lots. Ms. Whichard stated the proposal is not compatible with the
original plat,and she expressed concern with the potential for allowing further subdivision of Lot 8
in the future. She stated although the applicant is the current owner of Lot 8 and has indicated he
does not intend to subdivide, the lot may be sold and subdivided in the future. She stated the
applicant has submitted Draft Covenants to the County; however, the revisions have not been
presented to the Homeowners' Association, which is currently divided on whether to allow this
change. She stated approval of the request will result in a 21 percent increase in density,which will
also result in impacts from increased traffic. Ms.Whichard stated many of the residents chose this
development for its non-urban lifestyle,and although there are no restrictions on Lot 7,she believes
one house with various outbuildings on 17 acres is still preferable to four houses with outbuildings
in designated building envelopes. She expressed concern with the County staffs'reference to urban
standards, which detracts from the residents' desire for a non-urban lifestyle. She stated Lots 7
and 8 are the northern boundary of Shiloh Estates, and both are approximately 17 acres, which
creates an ideal transition to additional non-urban uses to the north. She stated prior to the Planning
Commission hearing, the seven opponents offered to agree to the subdivision into two lots;
2006-1154
PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF #354)
PAGE 4
however,the proposal was not entertained by the applicant. In response to Commissioner Jerke,
Ms.Whichard explained at the first community meeting theywere left with the impression that if the
applicants were not allowed to develop, it would be done by someone else who does not have a
vested interest in the community. However,the residents later considered their options and found
that further development was not inevitable. She stated they initially made a rushed decision,and
later chose to gather the relevant information before making any further decisions. Ms. Whichard
stated the Architectural Review Committee did vote to grant approval of the subdivision.
Commissioner Jerke commented the Covenants indicate it requires the approval of 75 percent of
the homeowners to change the Covenants and 100 percent of the mortgagees.
Chair Geile recessed the hearing until 1:30 p.m. Upon reconvening, Debi Vischer, surrounding
property owner of Lot 14, stated she represents the remaining homeowners that support the
proposal. She stated the applicants purchased the property 15 years ago with the intent to raise
their family and provide a retirement home for their parents on the two 17-acre lots. She stated
there has been a change in that arrangement, and they now intend to divide Lot 7 and provide
consistency with the remaining development. Ms.Vischer stated the applicants are not developers,
but residents of Shiloh Estates. She stated the applicant presented the proposal to the Architectural
Review Committee,which consisted of her husband and two others who all feel their vote was valid.
She explained that prior to the vote the homeowners were given ample opportunity to comment,and
she feels that questioning the decision four months later is a violation of the democratic process
they operate under. Ms.Vischer stated Lot 7 has been vacant and used for agricultural purposes,
and some of the residents have come to view that area as common open space. She noted that
the proposal would increase the open space to nine percent, and many of the proponents do not
want more open space because it just creates more land for the homeowners to maintain. She
stated the density will still be less than the original lots,and none of the surrounding PUDs offer the
same amount of open space and density. She further stated the building envelopes will help
maintain the sense of open space and views,the development will gain additional water shares for
irrigation, and the additional homes will help spread the Homeowners' Association costs.
Ms.Vischer stated the types of homes that will be built will increase property values in the area,the
existing lifestyle will not be altered,and there will only be a slight increase in traffic. She stated the
Covenants allow for further subdivision,a valid vote was taken,and the lots will be compatible with
the current land use models. She further stated Planning Commission's vote for denial was
influenced by emotion, versus compliance with County criteria.
Sharon Veillon, surrounding property owner, stated when she purchased her property she was
informed,by a representative of the applicants,that Lot 7 would not have a home for 20 years. She
stated she refinanced her home in November 2005, at which time the appraiser indicated there
would be a$20,000 to$30,000 decrease in surrounding property values if further subdivision were
to occur. Ms. Veillon stated the original plan was for one house and a single driveway,which has
turned into four lots and a major cul-de-sac. She stated she was not approached by Mr. Scott
regarding the placement of the building envelopes,and she clarified that there are seven families
opposed and five in support,plus the two lots owned by the applicants. In response to Chair Geile,
Ms.Veillon stated the information regarding the plans for Lot 7 were represented verbally,and she
moved there in 1999.
2006-1154
PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF#354)
PAGE 5
Dave Smart,surrounding property owner,stated he was one of the first residents in the subdivision,
and the construction traffic over the years has not impeded his lifestyle,nor does he expect that four
more houses will impact him.
Eric Kesler, surrounding property owner of Lot 10, stated the Drainage Plan does not account for
irrigation water that surface irrigates the site. He stated last year a majority of the surface water
went into the detention pond and filled it to capacity;however,in the event of a storm,the pond will
overflow. He stated the second detention pond proposed on Lot 4 of the resubdivision was not on
the original plat,and he expressed concern with West Nile and the cost to have the ponds treated.
Mr. Kesler stated although Shiloh Estates is supposed to benefit from additional water shares,the
residents have not been provided with a time frame for when they will be turned over to the
Homeowners'Association. He stated as more land is sold for residential purposes,the agricultural
demand will not merit delivery of water to the subdivision. He noted the individual lot owners will not
be able to sell the shares,and the only monetary gain will be to the Homeowners'Association. He
stated the open space for the riding trail consists of a dirt path,which has no visual appeal and is
only used for walking or riding. He stated the larger open space area consists primarily of a horse
arena,and the proposal provides substantial usable open space. Mr. Kesler stated the Covenants
outline the general requirements for home construction; however, there is no guarantee that the
homes will be built by Mr. Scott. He stated unlike some of the early residents, he moved into a
completed subdivision and did not anticipate having to live with construction projects, noise, and
traffic. He stated once he began a thorough review of the file, he changed his mind on what he had
originally perceived would be taking place. He requested the Board support the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and the majority opinion of the constituents in the development.
Responding to Chair Geile, Mr.Kesler stated the initial community meeting was on August 4,2005,
and the vote was completed by August 22, 2005.
Phil Dittberner,surrounding property owner,stated there was some discussion regarding the need
to change the Covenants, and upon review of the file he discovered a modified version of the
Covenants, which has not been provided to the members of the Homeowners'Association. He
stated he was not aware of the plans for the large retention pond north of the riding arena, and he
expressed concern with the scale of the pond,since it appears to be almost three times larger than
the existing pond. Mr. Dittberner stated the applicant's information regarding the open space has
been misleading,since most of the open space referred to by the applicant's representative will be
privately owned.
Arlen Anderson,surrounding property owner of Lot 5,stated the issue of open space is important.
He stated when Moriah Estates was developed to the west,the developer set aside 16 acres along
the east side that is accessible to the adjacent lot owners in Shiloh Estates. In response to Chair
Geile, Mr. Anderson stated the permission for use of that open space was given verbally.
Jim Scott,applicant and resident of Lot 8,stated he has lived at this site for eleven years,and when
the initial plans for Lot 7 changed,he developed a plan that is consistent with the existing subdivision
and surrounding land uses. Ms.Johnson stated Title 38 of the Colorado Revised Statutes(C.R.S.)
includes a provision which addresses the general way in which subdivision covenants are amended.
She stated 50 to 67 percent of all unit landowners must agree to an amendment;however,there is
an exception which states if the Covenants specifically permit the subdivision of lots, the
amendment proposal shall be made to the Executive Committee for the Homeowners'Association,
2006-1154
PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF #354)
PAGE 6
not a vote of the homeowners. She stated the applicants did apply to subdivide Lot 7, and the
Executive Committee chose to take it to a vote of the homeowners, although it was not required.
She stated the Covenants will only be amended to reflect the revised PUD, if approved.
CommissionerJerke commented page 25 of the Covenants requires approval by 75 percent of the
homeowners; however, page 11 includes an exception for further subdivision if approved by the
Architectural Review Board. Ms.Johnson reiterated the maximum vote cannot exceed 67 percent,
pursuant to State statute,and if there is provision for subdivision in the Covenants,than the decision
is made by the Architectural Review Board. Chair Geile stated the Architectural Review Board
originally consisted of the applicants and a person by the name of Maddox. Ms. Johnson stated
regardless of what a real estate agent may have represented, the residents are subject to the
information recorded on the plat and in the Covenants. She further stated at the time of the vote
regarding this matter, the Architectural Review Board consisted of members which had been
elected by the Homeowners'Association,and notice of approval was provided to the applicants in
September 2005.
Mr. Scott stated he did not intend to proceed with the project without the support of his neighbors,
and following the initial presentation, he received only one negative response. He stated in early
August 2005, he hosted an informational meeting and later requested the Board to vote,which was
done August 22,2005. He stated he later began the planning process and not until six months after
the vote was taken did he receive a letter requesting that he cease the proposal. Mr. Scott stated
at that point he had too much invested, and he feels he has exceeded what is expected as due
process with the community. He stated if this proposal is approved, the draft copy of Covenants
will need to be approved by the Homeowners'Association,and a committee will be formed to review
the revised Covenants and make a recommendation. He stated the retention pond holds water
brieflyto allow historical flow rates,and the drainage study relies on the detention pond located near
the existing arena. Mr. Scott stated he submitted a written offer for an arbitration; however, the
opponents would only agree to two lots with no irrigation water. He stated he did not accept the
proposal,since he had already promised the water to the community as a whole and agreed upon
lots sizes. He stated the lots are anticipated to sell for approximately$200,000,the resulting product
will not decrease property values,and the views will be maintained. He further stated the proposal
is consistent with the existing trail system and what was requested by the Shiloh Estates
Homeowners'Association. He explained there are dedicated easements along the exterior property
lines for open space,and the building envelopes will guarantee visual open space throughout the
units. Mr.Scott stated the proposed lot sizes are consistent,there will be single family homes with
limited animal units,this is an urban development within an urbanizing area,and he gave examples
of similar proposals which were approved by the County. He stated it was not his intent to create
division in the community,and he attempted to address many of the concerns prior to this hearing.
In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Scott stated Shiloh Estates owns two shares of water,each lot has
direct access to the ditch or diversion pipelines,and historically the water has been shared based
on the percent of land ownership. He stated the current proposal was to bring two additional shares,
as well as the addition of three lots, which will result in 50 percent more water for each property
owner. He stated the irrigation water is available in May, and the reservoir water is typically used
during the late summer months.
Mr. Hodges clarified the additional open space is for the benefit to the community; however, it will
be maintained by the property owners, versus the Homeowners' Association as a whole.
2006-1154
PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF #354)
PAGE 7
Mr. Mueller reviewed the positions of staff, the proponents and the opponents. In response to
CommissionerJerke,Mr. Mueller stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously regarding the
waiver of urban standards,and four to one for denial of the application as a whole. Mr. Barker stated
the vote of the Architectural Review Committee does not bind the Board of Commissioners, since
they are not a party to the Covenants. He stated although discussion regarding the Covenants does
go to the issue of compatibility, the timing issues and contents are not necessarily the concern of
the Board. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Barker agreed that State statute indicates
only 67 percent of the homeowners are required to amend the Covenants.
Chair Geile commented the Board must make its decision based on criteria established in the Weld
County Code and not the testimony as to what representations were made when the various lots
were sold.
Commissioner Jerke stated initially he did not support the proposal;however,it is now clear that the
Covenants do include a provision of further subdivision of the lots,and local government should not
supercede a written and accepted document. He stated both sides of the testimony have indicated
the applicant is a good builder, these will be nice high-quality lots with good residents, and he
supports the application.
Commissioner Vaad stated the schematics and positioning of the lots are compatible,they exceed
the average of the existing lots,there will be building envelopes to preserve view corridors,and he
finds the application is consistent with Sections 27-7-40.D.2.a through 2.h.
Commissioner Masden stated this the property owner does have the right to divide the lot following
due diligence,and although the Planning Commission recommended denial,the Board is bound to
review a proposal in relation to the specific criteria. He further stated that although the area
previously served as open space, it is privately owned and eligible for development and the view
corridors will be preserved.
Chair Geile stated the Architectural Review Committee establishes the quality of housing units in
a development, it does not appear the applicant's proposed changes to the Covenants will alter
compatibility with the existing homes,the applicant will provide more irrigation water,and there are
similar uses in the area. He stated although the Town of Windsor recognizes this as an urbanizing
area, the Board feels a requirement for annexation is inappropriate in this instance.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the request of James and Cheri Scott for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Amended Planned Unit Development Final Plan,AMPF#354,to subdivide
Lot 7, Shiloh Estates, into four lots, based on compliance with Section 27-7-40.D.2.a through 2.h,
with the Conditions of Approval as entered into the record. His motion also included the deletion of
the first sentence of Condition of Approval #1.C, and Conditions#1.G, #1.1.2, #1.1.3, #1.1.4, and
renumbering or relettering as appropriate. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerke.
Commissioner Vaad stated the letter from the Town of Windsor indicates recognition of this area
as low density and general agreement with the proposal, although he is not sure how the Town
arrived at the request for annexation. Chair Geile commended the speakers on both sides of the
issue and encouraged the residents to attempt to work together in the future. There being no further
comments, the motion carried unanimously, and the hearing was completed at 3:10 p.m.
2006-1154
PL0952
HEARING CERTIFICATION - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT (AMPF#354)
PAGE 8
This Certification was approved on the 15th day of May 2006.
E La APPROVED:
I �= OARD OF C'UNTY COMMISSIONERS
p
1861 I( z;; 2 a ELD CO, Y, COLORADO
ATTEST: gu,�I1 r/11'r ✓`�
Qi Wet M. J. eile, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Boa
EXCUSED
David E. Long, Pro-Tern
BY: X16 4
De ty Cler o the Board
Wil " H. Jerke
TAPE #2006-18 and #2006-19 a
Robert D. Mas en
DOCKET#2006-29 AA AA. 1O4
Glenn Vaad
2006-1154
PL0952
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case AMPF #354 - JAMES AND CHERI SCOTT
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summaryof Hearing (Minutes 03/07/2006 and
05/02/2006)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Applicant Letter requesting to proceed with hearing
process, dated 04/13/2006
F. Debbie Vischer Letter of Support, dated 04/24/2006
G. Judith Whichard Letter of Opposition, dated 05/01/2006
H. Judy Wineinger E-mail of Opposition, dated 05/02/2006
Matthew Wineinger E-mail of Opposition, dated 05/02/2006
J. Phillip Dittberner Letter of Opposition, dated 05/02/2006
K. Arlen Anderson Letter of Support, dated 04/28/2006
L. William Kennison Letter of Opposition, dated 05/01/2006
M. Debi Kennison Letter of Opposition, dated 05/01/2006
N. Eric and Beth Kesler Letter of Opposition, dated 05/02/2006
O. John Kesler Letter of Opposition, dated 05/02/2006
P. Dave and Lynda Smart Letter of Support, dated 05/04/2006
Q. Sharon Veillon Letter of Opposition, dated 05/03/2006
R. Larry and Anne Duran Letter of Opposition, dated 05/02/2006
S. David and Susan Beard E-mail of Opposition, dated 05/05/2006
T. David and Elizabeth Schump Letter of Opposition, dated 05/05/2006
U. James and Julie Campain Letter of Support, dated 05/07/2006
V. Applicants Letter of Rebuttal,dated 05/04/2006, re: Letter
from Judy Whichard (PC Exhibit 11-D)
W. Applicants 5 Maps of Proposal
X. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
Y. Various neighbors Letter of Support, dated 05/10/2006
Z.
AA.
BB.
CC.
DD.
EE.
FF.
GG.
HH.
I I.
JJ.
KK.
LL.
MM.
NN.
OO.
PP.
QQ.
RR.
SS.
U.
UU.
rN
(AI lniQ 14-
.9
N ;� 2 co u
J co
J 0, 0 ,n ` O Do
4 „ :) V
` v o
y � C� to
k ? ✓ �� �1
I N- u ,--f.
c i ? �1 . C +�
pc ..--,- I" .9 -t -N --,.;-- \_ f) ;.3
0
r- t� � /: - `tom Q
1.6 co . „_. - ' ) 3_, ' p, (,) -7,'-7. 4
C. C
Z p = d N .)\J -e` ' c- , c)
o
kc1
o H
E Q �` Ana cn 20 cc m 4 rn p , n N,
i c
Z ..
O 'o
co fA Q .e
O 'J y — Q!
O 7, Q c c q ra 1/40 i
(�� • v�l s
° A '-
2 S00 J
Q rf° Ig c Z � � - a v
Q N N in .� . r U N it ik d N S w J �,
Z W W W - c J C- 6 0: -C� �. J N
CO
S C G a Z �l J
J
Ca 4.1F v
t -
v
0 N �� �,�
w o a 47 w '. `
0
N
Z V \S
Z LL = V � V
F p o. co L
Q w 5 ' C' •s. l� A
,_I--
0 r a W o \- \ G... rz
Q ~ ). 0 c 0 M .n' C_,
O Z N ia E
I a : .6 v (1
h
w m
H 02 c
Z 0
O Q 0 O
in en Di. c
-I 0 (
0J t‘ ill a
--I 44 21
= a I
,4_____,L
o o a
Z W W -0 art at CD
0 0.isi 00 —I Z -9)�2 0
Hello