HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Council Action Form dated September 25, 2001 Vjl�
ITEM #:
DATE: 0 /25/01 1
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST TO
REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLINGS IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY (FS-RM) ZONE,
TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING", TO
CHANGE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DWELLINGS IN THE FS-RM ZONE, AND TO ADD A MINIMUM OPEN
SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR BACK-TO-BACK SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLINGS IN THE FS-RM ZONE.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting on May 22, 2001, the City Council directed staff to work with the developer
to examine possible changes to the Zoning Ordinance that precludes the construction of
back-to-back townhouse units.
Developer Proposal. A local developer proposes to create lots for single-family attached
dwellings in the Suburban Residential Medium-Density (FS-RM) zone that are smaller than
the minimum lot size currently allowed. The lot size proposed is 2,400 square feet for the
exterior (end) lots and 1 ,200 square feet for the interior lots.
The layout of the lots, as proposed by the developer, places units back-to-back in the same
structure. For example, if the structure includes a total of eight (8) units, four (4) units
would face the front of the structure and four (4) units would face the back of the structure.
The rear lot lines would bisect the structure down the center (see attached graphic).
The developer plans to construct the individual units such that each unit would occupy all
of the lot area for the unit, except for the front yard setback. For example, in the case of
an 8-unit single-family attached structure, there would be eight (8) units, each unit under
separate ownership. The structure itself would encompass all of the lot area for the eight
(8) units, except for the front yard setback. The structure, including the eight (8)
individually-owned lots, would be placed on one larger lot that would be owned in common
by the owners of all eight (8) units. The lot owned in common would abut the public street
right-of-way.
Consistency of the Developer Proposal with the Current Zoning Regulations. The
Developer proposal does not meet several requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance.
The inconsistencies with the adopted Zoning Ordinance are described as follows:
• Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling. The proposed lot arrangement for
the single-family attached dwellings would require a Zoning Ordinance amendment to
the definition of "Single-Family Attached Dwelling". The current definition requires that
each unit have its own front and rear access to the outside. The Developer proposal
would eliminate the rear access to the outside for each unit since the rear of each unit
would back up to the rear of another unit in the same structure.
The Zoning Ordinance defines a single-family attached dwelling in Section 29.201(52)
as follows:
Dwelling, Single-Family Attached means a single-family dwelling unit in a row of
at least two such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the
outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any
other unit by one or more common fire resistant party walls and the unit is located on
a separate lot.
• Minimum Required Lot Size. The proposed lot size would require a Zoning Ordinance
amendment to the minimum required "lot area" for Single-Family Attached Dwellings.
The Developer proposes a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet for exterior (end) units
and 1 ,200 square feet for the interior units. The current minimum lot area for
Single-Family Attached Dwellings is 3,500 square feet for all units.
• Minimum Rear Yard Setback and Lot Arrangement. A Zoning Ordinance
amendment to the minimum required rear yard setback would be required for the
Developer proposal. The proposed size and arrangement of the lots back-to-back does
not provide for rear yard setbacks on each individual lot. The minimum rear yard
setback for a Single-Family Attached Dwelling is 25 feet. Currently, the FS-RM Zone
does not allow this. To allow lots back-to-back requires approval of the single-family
attached development as a Planned Residence District (F-PRD). The F-PRD district
ordinance provides for considerable flexibility in the administration of conventional
zoning requirements such as setbacks and area requirements.
• Open Space. The Developer proposal does not include a proposed change to the
"open space" requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum required "Open
Space" in the FS-RM Zone is 10% of the gross land area. Staff believes this minimum
open space requirement should be increased to 15% of the gross land area since the
Developer Proposal eliminates the open space that exists in the rear setback area of
each individual lot. This would require a Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Staff Proposal for an Amendment to Section 29.1202(5)-2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
On August 16, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a Zoning Ordinance
amendment, proposed by staff, that would change the minimum required lot area for
"Single Family Attached Dwellings" in the Suburban Residential Medium Density (FS-RM)
Zone from 3,500 square feet per unit to 3,500 square feet for exterior units and 1,800
square feet for interior units.
At this same meeting, a local developer requested that the minimum required lot area for
Single Family Attached dwellings in the Suburban Residential Medium Density (FS-RM)
zone be changed to 2,400 square feet for exterior units and 1,200 square feet for interior
units.
The Commission then directed that staff analyze the staff proposal and the Developer
proposal, based on the following factors:
• Density and Open Space;
• Traffic;
• Stormwater Run-off; and
• Water Consumption/Waste Water Production.
Staff Analysis of the Factors Identified by the Commission. Staff's analysis of the
factors identified by the Commission is as follows:
• Density;
This assumes a net open space of 12% (15% gross) would be provided on the lot area
owned in common around the individual lots for single-family attached dwellings. There
would be open space on the individual lots only in the front setback area. The density
varies, depending on the number of units in each structure, since the greater the
number of smaller structures with end units would serve to decrease the overall density.
The density for the staff proposal assumes a net open space of 8% (10% gross)
provided on each individual lot. There would be no lot owned in common, as would be
necessary for the Developer proposal.
Staff Proposal:
• 12.09 lots/net acre ( 4-plex development) (8% net open space)
• 3.55 lots/net acre (12-plex development) (8% net open space)
Developer Proposal:
• 9.46 lots/net acre ( 4-plex development) (12% net open space)
• 13.69 lots/net acre (12-plex development) (12% net open space)
3
• Open Space:
The current FS-RM zoning regulations mandate a minimum amount of open space not
less than 10% of the gross land area. This converts to 8% of the net land area.
The Developer proposal eliminates private open space on each individual lot, except
for the front yard setback area. Therefore, all owners of the single-family attached
dwellings have primarily the common open space available for use. This could lead to
use of the common open space by more of the residents of the single-family attached
structures thereby creating the need for more open space. If the Developer proposal
is adopted, staff recommends that a minimum of 15% of the gross land area be
required for open space. This converts to 12% of the net land area.
• Traffic:
Staff Proposal:
• 136 trips/net acre (based on 12-plexes)
Developer Proposal:
• 137 trips/net acre (based on 12-plexes)
• Stormwater Run-off.
The change in stormwater run-off would be proportional to the change in density. This
would require that storm detention facilities be constructed to accommodate the
stormwater run-off on the site so as not to increase the rate of stormwater run-off from
the development onto neighboring properties.
• Water Consumption/Waste Water Production:
No significance change.
Commission Action (October 4, 2000). The Commission reviewed staff's findings and
referred the proposal back to staff for further analysis.
Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP). The Land Use Policy Plan provides for Suburban
Residential development to occur in the portion of the Planning Area described as "New
Lands". The "Suburban Residential" concept is seen as a development alternative to
"Village Residential" and is applicable to properties that do not meet the criteria for Village
Residential or for those land owners who are not interested in pursuing the design
integration of a village and all of the associated density and use advantages of Village
Residential.
4
Suburban Residential. Suburban Residential is described as development where the land
use has the following characteristics:
• Distinct and generally homogeneous land uses;
• Limited focus on building and development design integration;
• Greater emphasis on vehicular mobility; and,
• Less land use density/intensity.
Suburban Residential development is intended to occur similarly to past residential
patterns of the previous 20 to 30 years. The limited focus on building and development
design integration necessitates the requirement of effective landscaped buffers between
distinctly different land use. Street design should improve connections where possible with
pedestrian improvements including sidewalks throughout and mid-block cross-walks for
long blocks. Pedestrian connections for parks, schools, and open space facilities will also
be expected.
Typical amenities that should be included in Suburban Residential development may
include, but need not be limited to the following:
• Sidewalks on both sides of all streets, walks, and bicycle connections to school
facilities, parks, open space, and other pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the rest of
the city;
• Public and/or private park and open space amenities to accommodate the higher
density and concentration of people that will result from Suburban Residential
development; and,
• Development design features that fully protect designated environmentally sensitive
areas.
LUPP Goals and Objectives. The following goals and objectives found in the Land Use
Policy Plan apply to this proposal:
Goal No. 4. It is the goal of Ames to create a greater sense of place and connectivity,
physically and psychologically, in building a neighborhood and overall community identity
and spirit. It is the further goal of the community to assure a more healthy, safe and
attractive environment.
Objectives. In achieving an integrated community and more desirable environment, Ames
seeks the following objectives.
4.A. Ames seeks to establish more integrated and compact living/activity areas (i.e.
neighborhoods, villages) wherein daily living requirements and amenities are
provided in a readily identifiable and accessible area. Greater emphasis is placed
on the pedestrian and related activities.
5
Goal No. 6. It is the goal of Ames to increase the supply of housing and to provide a wider
range of housing choices.
Objectives. In increasing housing opportunities, Ames seeks the following objectives.
6.B. Ames seeks to establish densities of a gross average six dwelling units per acre in
maximizing the number of housing units in new areas.
6.C. Ames seeks to establish higher densities in existing areas where residential
intensification is designated with the further objective that there shall be use and
appearance compatibility among existing and new development.
Existing Attached Single Family Developments Similar to the Developer's Proposal.
Attached are photographs of two existing developments. One is located in Ames and the
other in Ankeny. Bloomington Court, a Planned Unit Development in Ames, was approved
in November, 1995. The style of these structures are very similar to what is proposed by
the developer in the Alternative Amendment. The structure pictured includes eight dwelling
units, with a double-car garage for each end unit and a single-car garage for each of the
four interior units. The units are placed on the lots back-to-back, as proposed by the
developer for the FS-RM zoning district. The lots occupied by individual units are all
included in a larger lot that is owned in common by all the owners of the single-family
attached units. It is this larger lot, owned in common, that abuts the public street and
provides frontage on a public street, as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Two structures are illustrated in the photos of the development in Ankeny. One structure
is very similar to the Bloomington Court example. It includes double-car garages on the
ends and four single-car garages for the interior units. The other structure includes a total
of 12 units, with double-car garages for the end units and single-car garages for the interior
units. These units are also constructed back-to-back, and are located on
individually-owned lots that in turn are encompassed by a larger lot, owned in common,
with frontage on a public street.
Staff Comments. It is clear that Zoning Ordinance amendments, as described in this
report, would be necessary before a single-family attached development could be
approved, as described in the Developer proposal. The Land Use Policy Plan provides for
housing developments in the FS-RM zone that are repetitive and homogeneous in their
nature, with a vehicular orientation, as described in the Developer proposal. In addition,
the LUPP suggests that such developments provide for common open space and
pedestrian connections. The Developer proposal is consistent with the LUPP goal to
increase the supply of housing and to provide a wider range of housing choices.
The major issue to focus on with regard to the Developer proposal is the lot
arrangement. The impact on density, amount of open space, traffic, stormwater
run-off and water consumption/waste water production is less consequential. The
development pattern would be greatly different than what is currently allowed.
6
Single-family attached units would be arranged in a back-to-back configuration with no
open space between the rear side of individual units, as is currently provided for in the
zoning regulations. Garage doors would line the front and rear sides of all structures.
Current regulations would have garage doors only on the front or rear side of the
structures, not both. The entire lot for each unit would be occupied by the structure, except
for the front yard setback area, and open space would be located in a common lot on the
perimeter of the structure.
Upon further analysis, since the Planning and Zoning Commission last considered the
proposal to change the minimum lot size for single-family attached dwellings in the FS-RM
zone, staff recommends the Council approve the Zoning Ordinance changes necessary
to allow the "Developer proposal" if the Council believes this development pattern for
single-family attached housing in the FS-RM zone is consistent with the Land Use Policy
Plan.
7
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed these proposed changes to the Zoning
Ordinance at their meeting of September 5, 2001 and approval was recommended.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve the "Developer proposal" to reduce the minimum lot
area required for single-family attached dwelling units in the FS-RM Zone, to change
the definition of "single-family attached dwelling", to change the minimum required
rear yard setback for single-family attached dwellings in the FS-RM zone, and to add
a minimum open space requirement for back-to-back single family attached dwellings
in the FS-RM zone.
2. The City Council can approve a modification of the "Developer proposal" to reduce
the minimum lot area required for single-family attached dwelling units in the FS-RM
Zone, to change the definition of "single-family attached dwelling", to change the
minimum required rear yard setback for single-family attached dwellings in the FS-
RM zone, and to add a minimum open space requirement for back-to-back single
family attached dwellings in the FS-RM zone.
3. The City Council can decide not to approve the "Developer proposal" to reduce the
minimum lot area required for single-family attached dwelling units in the FS-RM
Zone, to change the definition of "single-family attached dwelling", to change the
minimum required rear yard setback for single-family attached dwellings in the FS-
RM zone, and to add a minimum open space requirement for back-to-back single
family attached dwellings in the FS-RM zone.
This alternative does not eliminate the possibility of a residential development
with this type of housing. It is currently possible to construct this housing
type through approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) by the City
Council.
4. Action on this request can be postponed and referred back to City staff for additional
information.
8
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council must decide whether you believe the addition of these "back-to-back"
single family attached dwellings are appropriate throughout the community. If the City
Council believes they are appropriate, it is the City Manager's recommendation that
Alternative #1 be adopted. This action will allow this type of single family attached
dwellings in the Suburban Residential Medium Density zoning district by right rather than
only if a Planned Residential Development (PRD) is approved by the City Council.
Alternative #1 would approve a change to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum
lot area required for single-family attached dwelling units in the FS-RM Zone, to change
the definition of "single-family attached dwelling", to change the minimum required rear
yard setback for single-family attached dwellings in the FS-RM zone, and to add a
minimum open space requirement for back-to-back single family attached dwellings in the
FS-RM zone.
Attachment
s:\Council Action Forms\Text Amendments\attachedsinglefamily092501
9
8-Plex Proposal NOT TO SCALE
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET
Front Yard
Setback
2,400 sqft 1,200 sqft 1,200 sqft 2,400 sqft
Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot
Ah
2,400 sqft 1,200 Sqft 1,200 Sgft 2,400 sqft
Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Front Yard
Setback
Outer Lot is
Under Common
Ownership
PUBLIC STREET
Current FS-RM Zoning Regulations (8-Plex)
Cz
} U
CZ
Q) Q)
Cc U)
— — — — — — — — — — — — _ _.._ ___ — — — — — — — — �. _._ — — — — — — —
3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft 3,500 sqft
Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot Private Lot
� U
(z
C �
O U
Li (n
PUBLIC STREET
ZONING ORDINANCE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
TEXT AMENDMENTS — Additions are in bold and italics.
Deletions are str elEen through.
ARTICLE 2 (RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITIONS)
Section 29.201. DEFINITIONS.
(52) Dwelling, Single Family Attached means a single family dwelling
unit in a row of at least two such units in which each unit has its
own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over
another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one
or more common fire resist
ARTICLE 12 (FLOATING ZONES)
Section 29.1202. "F-S" SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
Table 29.1202(5)-2.
Suburban Residential Floating Zone
Residential Medium Density (FS-RM) Supplemental Development Standards
Minimum Lot Area (Single Family Attached Dwelling):
3-,500 sf per unit
2,400 sf per unit for exterior units
1,200 sf per unit for interior units
Minimum Principal Building Setbacks (Rear Lot Line):
25 ft.
0 ft. for back-to-back single family attached dwellings
Table 29.1202(6)
Suburban Residential Floating Zone Suburban Regulations
Open Space Requirement:
A minimum of 10% of the gross area shall be devoted to private or public open
space. A minimum of 15% of the gross area shall be devoted to private or
public open space for back-to-back single family attached dwellings.
Ownership and maintenance responsibility of the open space shall be a
Homeowner's Association or a similar private entity.
t ���, 4✓} F d}Y `i 1� _
lk
!. {
7 {�
Tta�°F'Fa.�tr� i 1• j{}t° a: i'i �Fi` +
77-7
{. �f .u.�aaa+Gnw rr+ k ,rl� f{ i i t !'ii 1�,�.� •
�.�t., Sal
�) cud` s;:-.a•..+.....- ,+a
1
f
t+'�t
f
�• °ri � � Tr' i ,
ii
. T.
j ,
le
214.
ti-t/1sr �
�bk 1
k�
r r
fir•
e Y ,.
•ems.,. �;s,,
tJ•
Y F{
i
•rR {fir� I i`�4 y ��� � "� -r ,
y � �rn� 4Sy••S `
\• j5 tY��i`.0
�. t
' 4j
H
fr
C
i-7
t
- y U
z
r
a
i �A
e�9R. �y
F)tJ� OHO
GREENSBORO DR
`O
A
2�
The Green
Number of Units: 21 N
Net Land Area: 246,094 sqft
Average Lot Size: 3,793 sqft
Percent of Open Space: 68%
Number of Units per Net Acre: 3.72
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
0
0
C'A
IRONWOOD CT
v
sy�oy�
�Y3
0
Ironwood Court
Number of Units: 15 N
Net Land Area: 108,625 sqft
Average Lot Size: 3,753 sgft
Percent of Open Space: 31%
Number of Units per Net Acre: 6.01
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
m
m
z
J 0
a
a
TH ST 30TH ST
KENNEDY ST
Q
Z
w
F
w T�
= O
0 �F
O yL
z F
5�
O�
O�
5�
2�� m
A
O
m
9L
North Park Villa
Number of Units: 55 N
Net Land Area: 340,436 sqft
Average Lot Size: 2,313 sgft
Percent of Open Space: 54%
Number of Units per Net Acre: 7.04
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
WHEELER ST
TRL kN PL
w
O
0 9E]
0
M —
C)
m
m
z
a �
¢z
j
30TH ST
KENNEDY ST
Briardale Square
Number of Units: 106 N
Net Land Area: 550,904 sqft
Average Lot Size: 1,865 sqft
Percent of Open Space: 43%
Number of Units per Net Acre: 8.38
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
LD3
r
m
EISENHOW ER Qa
O�
QQ-
Bloomington Court
Number of Units: 18 N
Net Land Area: 148,782 sgft
Average Lot Size: 2,800 sqft
Percent of Open Space: 49%
Number of Units per Net Acre; 5.27
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
i
i
i
G�
�Fe��FSTFM �\G0
Cr
1-O
��
F2
s�
yA
Little Bluestem Court
Number of Units: 18 N
Net Land Area: 66,705 sqft
Average Lot Size: 1,730 sgft
Percent of Open Space: 28%
Number of Units per Net Acre; 6.19
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
G ORGE W CARVER AVE
PINEHURST CIR
G
REF,�,SBoRo o/R
FykP%
IPO
UN
Arbor on the Green
Number of Units: 20 N
Net Land Area: 270,965 soft
Average Lot Size: 10,712 sgft
Percent of Open Space: 19%
Number of Units per Net Acre: 3.22
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
v�
Opp G O�
Mom'
NCO
O�
O�
C�
Southdale Subdivision
Number of Units: N
Net Land Area: 231,732 sgft
Average Lot Size: 1,668 sqft
Percent of Open Space: 44%
Number of Units per Net Acre: 11.47
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 100 0 100 200 Feet
September 8, 2000
n
•''�� '-4 �R�� Wit.. •, ~\!.i/',�.
�1 f
J
y
t -
.a
ir
' IMIN
.1 .-l2rl
i
7 t a
VII
f •� � f
E 1•+fi
-
_
a
/�' -r•►` _ .j. ��- ' �►�.��''i F1 ..`3'�,. �' "'� � may.. ,�g��u.�.`s �+
tit
Sy 1 i!f�3�,r �'of��7�. .��. • � x 1. �a� .:� � _ r'R .• "... ..
'` r �ti• ' �•t.• tl fr . # •fir, _ 'a •.
.� �•i L-t { 1 .r4 fko
.. ; `
i
f •
l i4.
r '1F •
t
,its +����, • ,
�i
. � f Y•e s �� ��c
dp
+VA
Cf %
a
� at:
I-. Y. r� •r I F s..
�� :.A i.
•�tr .�L��. .� _�� 1��•��•��•j►i i► w,,.�tm. ,�Y�yl?�r, d Pt=•:M h���'nr
' .� �1/r•�,••b...� + �,.. r �+), JI is•.\� :•�7 .'.r'i a5t "2 �.. Q ."" �'" r /l
'r.r'el...rrJf.} ��/ .�_y r :+ �..,}. �Ys ;. "'�P� „�,41,.. •k.. i_',�b
,
log wl,
po
Vln
? Wes•
v� •
a
r`^ia• je'sr-+ Jf Yj� ty _
tlti,•A!$ ► -fir .�
�� � 1. Tvr y •���.'*E y _ �4'� A r'r
-10
IL • ,
� y
;r11^ 1
,•P6
1 •�
A 13
t 7is t r ►.a is
a r• `
Ilk .4
.;`' ` ti�� ,�'+�:!' r - �+-�li+ may+'.¢♦JI a'�-n =w �
1}j is 4 i `.a4."4 X�C
+ '?R't? -�,i.!♦ .♦+ �.4 �•'1,4Ntji�' .r'-..l!a lr�} '` `" i �`° • s '.
1 K �7t�y+�•�'w'\i T.�-�'4 .i� •A•.,' ��a Jl.t}� C•.1 J`/ • a 4 Y ��• i" '.
}�.Fr#a"SY� ♦ t ~ltf ? a �SfJ:-Rb'r • } � 't -
�r+•1i j�a •-a• N"�r�+ ; t ... J.�. Mom{ ._ r'.�-`-t. � qE>�,•', ,. .wt ;P� a.
:�' � a�••�.l 3 F • :a�it{ . ' -�..a.J a,;.L�— � {}a' ;i'�;
v �1` s•.
•1.1 ^F:
#f t .if
.t i• /
w
fJj/ .ttall fFlitt
"l !(
tr�rrlJ: I r1�
+aa �
�. •fit_ �Ji .� � J.#1M irq��tt"�y.r+ •:.: � p� + '
b
[._•� -... .. •-._ � .. i 1• ark r �f.:�.s
' }• t t; 1
_ • : ,per-._� _�. t
..__...
a ti r.,d b
Ye �P r♦• t S� � t� _ .. � _
i 1
��(.? ti, t: ilia�rtt-��kt IEI�i tt�tF •tJ r � - � ��
t
. ,rr �iE�([iJ - ,, . � :}fir:,,,.. •
i Y tttr
1,64
W14
It ;�•r t r�� 11ff�f(r�t, a �.t, rt,r 1
r
t
i i [ rJ J•!,f -. J[�:S tl i �J_ -iS J:1� c .!i•i`lS: `, �,.
'j,. -JJ+t u�fJrJr,+��Eft t tt ;, t �• '�_. -
/
1't'_ _ '� t`,•...irl�JJ !`` ��S(T.l���St[,!� .'-�, 'E7r!.� _• x`+t .
Jj t a.a �-
Y {�.
i
r�
rA .
i
-t
do
IF
. ..
3p Ali=.�,`�-w:.e¢;�(f. .s41'! /,r{•} ti' ps: „�'