The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-09-10 Joint Board Packet(S.jkater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Meeting Notice Stillwater City and Town Joint Board City Council Chambers 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 7 p.m. Wednesday, September 10, 2008 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 Case No. 08-28. A request for approval of a senior care living facility to be located at 12525 75th St. No. The specific request is for approval of: 1) a City Code text amendment to allow senior care living facilities by Special Use Permit (SUP) in the Shoreland Overlay District; 2) a SUP for a 101 unit senior care living facility in the Shoreland Overlay District and the RB, Two Family Residential District; 3) a rezoning of the property from AP, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two Family Residential; 4) a parking variance; 5) a preliminary plat; and any related variances. Greg Johnson, applicant. 4. OTHER BUSINESS CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST Se (1water W�1_ !I I 0! H k P i A L! 0� Al I N N I :i 0 1 P. September 5, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-28 Greg Johnson, Director, Select Companies Lenard Huebscher 1) Code amendment to allow senior care living facilities by SUP in the Lakeshore Management Overlay District 2) SUP for a 101 unit senior care living facility in the Lakeshore Management Overlay District and in the RB, Two -Family Residential zoning district 3) Rezoning of the property from A -P, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential 4) Preliminary plat approval of a two -lot subdivision LOCATION: 12525 - 75tl-t Street (Co. Rd. 12) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SFSL, Single Family Small Lot Residential ZONING: A -P, Agricultural Preservation REVIEWERS: Public Works Director, City Planner, Washington Co. Highway Department, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Greg Johnson of Select Companies is planning to develop a 101 unit senior living facility on County Road 12 just east of the Rutherford Elementary School. The senior care facility is called Select Senior Living. Residents in the senior care center will be able to choose the level of care and number of services they would like, depending upon their needs. The facility will offer independent living, assisted living, a memory loss wing, and some hospice. Staff will include an on-site nurse that will be available 24 hours a day. Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 2 Currently Pastor Lenard Huebscher lives on the parcel that would become the site for the senior care facility. To develop the project, Mr. Johnson and the pastor would plat the pastor's property and the church building property as two lots.. Lot 1, Block 1, Select Senior Living of Stillwater would be the approximately 5 acre site for the senior care building. Lot 1, Block 2, Select Senior Living of Stillwater would be the site for the existing church and its parking lot. The pastor's home would be moved to Lot 1, Block 2 and serve as the parsonage. Infrastructure improvements that would be constructed by Mr. Johnson would include: 1) a platted public street that would align with Minar Avenue and temporarily terminate at the southern property line; 2) extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water; 3) stormwater improvements; 4) a public trail along the new public street; and 5) a private trail connecting to the public trail system at two points to create a walking loop for Select Senior Living residents. SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the senior care project as proposed, a number of approvals have been requested by the developer, including review and comment by the Joint Board on: 1) An amendment to the City Code to allow senior care living facilities by Special Use Permit (SUP) in the Lakeshore Management Overlay District; 2) Rezoning of the property from A -P, Agricultural Preservation to RB, Two -Family Residential; 3) An SUP for a 101 unit senior care living facility in the Lakeshore Management Overlay District and the RB, Two -Family Residential zoning district; and 4) Preliminary plat approval of a two -lot subdivision to be known as Select Senior Living of Stillwater. EVALUATION OF REQUEST CITY CODE AMENDMENT A portion of the senior care facility site lies within the Shoreland Management Overlay District for Long Lake. The City Code limits the land uses within the shoreland district to: single-family homes, parks and historic sites, and cropland.' Therefore, Mr. Johnson has requested an amendment to allow senior care living facilities by Special Use Permit within the shoreland overlay district. Residential uses within the City's shoreland districts are reasonable. Single family uses are already permitted. And, senior care facilities can be developed with sensitivity to lake resources. However, since the potential impact to the resources can be greater for the larger buildings and impervious surfaces associated with senior care facilities, a Special Use Permit should be required. This would give the City, neighbors, the Department of Natural Resources and the developer an opportunity to address potential impacts and mitigation more thoroughly. 1 City Code Section 31-402, Subd. 4(b)(1). Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 3 City staff has discussed the idea of senior care by SUP with the Area Hydrologist for the DNR Though that was a year ago, she believed it was within the realm of possibility. II. REZONING The property is currently zoned A -P, Agricultural Preservation. At city staff's suggestion, Mr. Johnson requested a rezoning to RB, Two -Family Residential. At the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 2008 there was discussion regarding several other potential residential zoning districts that should be considered along with the RB district. The LR, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, the RA, Single Family Residential Zoning District, the TR, Traditional Residential Zoning District, and the CR, Cottage Residential Zoning District were all considered along with the RB district. No decision was reached by the commission on which of the three may be the most appropriate. Instead, staff was asked to bring back a comparison of advantages and disadvantages for each of the potential districts. The table below compares the five districts. There are generally two criteria against which rezoning requests are measured. One is whether the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The other is whether it is compatible with the neighborhood. Comp Plan Consistency Summary: From the table above, it can be seen that only the RB and CR districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning to any of the other districts would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Explanation: The current Comprehensive Plan's future land use map guides the property for SFSL, Single Family Small Lot development. The two zoning districts that are consistent with 2 Whichever is less 3 Not Specified in Zoning Ordinance TR RA RB CR LR Min lot size 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 7,500 sf 6,000 sf 20,000 sf Use Single Fam. Single Fam. Single Fam/ Two- Fam Single Fam/ Two- Fam Single Fam. Bldg height 2 '/2 or 35'2 2 %2 or 35i2 35' 2 or 28'2 2 '/z or 35i2 Impervious NS 30% 25% bldg 25% im ery NS' NS3 Comp Plan consistency No No I Yes Yes No Spot zoning No ? Yes ? No Sr. living allowed No Yes Yes No No There are generally two criteria against which rezoning requests are measured. One is whether the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The other is whether it is compatible with the neighborhood. Comp Plan Consistency Summary: From the table above, it can be seen that only the RB and CR districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning to any of the other districts would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Explanation: The current Comprehensive Plan's future land use map guides the property for SFSL, Single Family Small Lot development. The two zoning districts that are consistent with 2 Whichever is less 3 Not Specified in Zoning Ordinance Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 4 the SFSL density and land use are RB and CR zoning districts. Incidentally, either zoning district would also be consistent with the draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan's future land use map. The LR, TR and RA Zoning Districts are larger lot districts that correlate with the SFLL, Single Family Large Lot designation in the Comprehensive Plan. So the LR, TR and RA districts are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Nei hborhood Compatibility The proposed senior living facility is allowed by special use permit in the RA and the RB zoning districts. Which means that in general the use would be considered compatible within neighborhoods that are zoned predominantly RA and RB. Essentially these are all Stillwater neighborhoods developed prior to 1995. City staff does not believe that the fact that senior living facilities are not listed as allowed uses in any of the post 1995 neighborhoods is an indication that they would be considered incompatible in those neighborhoods. Rather, that they simply have not been considered for those neighborhoods yet. If the facility is designed properly, it could fit into any residential neighborhood satisfactorily. None the less, if the subject property is rezoned to anything other than RA or RB an ordinance amendment would also be necessary to allow the senior living facility in that other district. Miscellaneous Notes 1. The proposed building is a 3 story, 35 foot tall stricture. The only zoning district listed in the table above that would allow that height is the RB district. If the property were rezoned to anything other than RB, a height variance would be required. 2. Through a process of elimination the most appropriate district to rezone the property seems to be RB. None the less, there are two disadvantages to rezoning to RB. a. One is that once rezoned, if the senior living facility is every demolished, two-family strictures could replace the facility. In some of the other rezoning choices only single family structures could replace the facility. b. The other disadvantage is that the resulting RB district would be an isolated "spot zoning". Generally speaking, "spot zoning" should be avoided because it can create incompatibilities. In this instance, the senior living facility would be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods and the spot zoning would not create a problem. Only if it is demolished and two-family structures are built in its place may this cause a problem with its surrounding single family property owners. 3. Though not requested, this may also be an appropriate time to rezone the church property as well. III. PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Minimum Dimensional Standards Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 5 T.ot stn nrinrd., Minimum lot standards for the proposed RB Zoning District are compared below with the lot dimensions proposed by the developer. As can be seen, all minimum lot standards are met. Setbacks The minimum building setbacks required in the RB Zoning District are compared below with the proposed setbacks for the senior living facility. Setbacks Lot Standards From C.R. 12 From South Area Width Frontage Depth Required 7,500 s.f. 50' 35' 100' Lot 1, B11 ca. 5.3 acres 652' 425' 289' Lot 1, B12 ca. 5.0 acres 471' 942' 380' Setbacks The minimum building setbacks required in the RB Zoning District are compared below with the proposed setbacks for the senior living facility. Setbacks From C.R. 12 From South From West From Minar Required 100' 25' 25' 20' Proposed 100' 53' 9" 181'31' 48'8 " Miscellaneous Maximum lot coverage Buildings 25% allowed 13.7% proposed Impervious surface 25% allowed 10.5% proposed Maximum building height 35' allowed 34'proposed In summary: all dimensional standards are in compliance. B. Civil Engineering • The proposed street layout has been reviewed and found satisfactory by both the City's Public Works Department and Washington County transportation planner. The road will create a four -legged intersection with County Road 12 and Minar Avenue. It will provide access for the church, the senior living building and the underdeveloped property to the south. • There should be a temporary turnaround at the terminus of Minar Avenue. • The Washington County Highway Department requires that the final plat include a notation that access will be restricted along the County Road. • Though the senior care facility will not generate enough traffic for the County to require turn lane or bypass lane improvements, it together with Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 6 traffic generated by future residential development south of the facility will require those lane improvements. Therefore, the developer should be required to deposit an escrow for a fair portion of those future lane improvements. That escrow should be deposited prior to release of the final plat or building permit, whichever may come first. • Municipal water will be extended from County Road 12 past the new building to the terminus of Minar Avenue. Sewer will be extended from the manhole in a neighboring lot in Liberty on the Lake through the elementary school property to the new building. An easement from District 834 will have to be secured by the developer for this. Sewer will also be extended to service the new parsonage location. The portion of this extension that has a diameter of 8" will require an easement to the City. • The project will include sufficient stormwater ponding capacity to manage surface water from the senior care property and a portion of the residential property to the south. A storm sewer pipe will need to be stubbed to the property line by the developer. • This development will be responsible for paying the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $17,414 per acre; the Transportation Mitigation Fee of $14,820 per acre; and sewer and water fees totaling $10,971 per acre. These fees will be due prior to release of the plat or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. • All electrical and communication utility lines are required to be buried. • Brown's Creek Watershed District review and permit are required. C. Future Subdivision Future development of excess church property and the two underdeveloped residential properties south of the senior facility has been considered. The attached plan set demonstrates that the location of the new segment of Minar Avenue along with the extension of utilities will allow each of the three neighboring properties to develop independently of each other. The option for all to develop simultaneously as a single plat is also still preserved. There has been concern expressed by one of the landowners to the south that if the City approves the proposal, the development value of his property will drop. This is not correct. The lakeshore management overlay district within which the property to the south lies, permits residential lots with a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. This does not change whether the City approves the senior living facility or not. Therefore, the development value remains the same. The speculative development value of the property to the south could be affected, though. If a developer were able to acquire all three of the underdeveloped properties in this neighborhood, and were able to buy sufficient abutting open space, and were able to receive approval of a Lakeshore Planned Unit Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 7 Development from the DNR and the City, then perhaps the development density of the properties to the south could be higher than 20,000 square foot lots. However such a Planned Unit Development was recently attempted and failed. Therefore, lots smaller than 20,000 square feet are very speculative at this point. A letter has been received from the southerly neighbor that explains his concerns. It is attached. C. Tree Preservation A tree inventory has not been submitted with the preliminary plat application materials. It will need to be submitted with the final plat application, as will a tree replacement plan. D. Park and Trail Dedication Ordinance Standards Ordinance 963 establishes minimum public park and trail dedication requirements. In cases such as this one where the Comprehensive Plan and park planning efforts do not identify a need for on-site parkland, a park dedication fee is required in lieu of a land dedication. Park Dedication Fee Unfortunately, there is no established park dedication fee in Ordinance 963 for senior living facilities. The most similar fee may be for multiple -family projects, which requires $1,500.00 for each unit. However, the impact of a senior living project and an apartment building are not similar. Therefore, the Park Board was required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amount of park dedication fee that should be required. They considered the matter at their August 25, 2008 meeting. Their recommendation to the City Council is as follows. Unit type E Number of Park I Standard i Recommenced I Recommended Total park dedication fee would therefore be $26,250 for the project. Trail Dedication Fee In addition to the park dedication fee, Ordinance 963 also requires a trail dedication fee if a trail is not to be built and dedicated to the public. In this units usage fee/unit I feetunit Total Memory loss 19 0% $1,500 p $o a I _ $0 . Assisted living F 47 '0% �^ $1,500 $0 $0 ' Independent living I 35 ��^50% �� $1,500 $750 $26,250 $26,250 RECOMMENDED TOTAL Total park dedication fee would therefore be $26,250 for the project. Trail Dedication Fee In addition to the park dedication fee, Ordinance 963 also requires a trail dedication fee if a trail is not to be built and dedicated to the public. In this Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 8 project a public trail is proposed along Minar Avenue that would connect to the County Road 12 trail. The cost of public trail construction should be deducted from the required trail dedication fee. However, as with the park dedication fee, it is unlikely that the impact of the project's residents upon the trail system will be in the same order of magnitude as a standard apartment building. Therefore, the Park Board made the following recommendation for a reduced fee. Unit type f Memory loss Assisted living Independent living CI Number of Trail units usage F 47 25%° - 35�� . F 1001X. Standard Recommended Recommended +$ fee/unit fee/unit Total -$500 -s-0- - — — $0 $500 ! $125 $5,875 $500 $500 $17,500 RECOMMENDED TOTAL $23,375 The total trail dedication fee would therefore be $23,375 minus the cost to the developer of constructing the public trail along Minar Avenue. E. Parking The industry that serves the senior living population evolves so rapidly that the City Zoning Ordinance does not have a specific requirement for the proposed facility. There are specific requirements for "boardinghomes for the aged", "institutions for the aged", and "nursing homes". The parking requirement for each of these is one space for each five residents phis a space for each employee on the largest shift. This parking standard recognizes that the residents are not driving and do not need personal parking spaces. These facilities only need visitor and employee parking. The proposed senior living facility is not a nursing home. But, the proposed facility will have a number of residents that do not drive. There are 19 planned memory care units and 47 planned assisted living units. The residents in these units typically do not drive. So, for these 66 units it would be appropriate to apply the 1 per 5 standard, resulting in 13 required spaces for these residents. The independent living units will have more driving residents. In similar facilities in the metro area there is on average fewer than one driver per unit. But to be conservative we could require one space for each of the 35 planned independent living units. That would allow spaces for visitors as well. In addition to the residents and visitors, there will be as many as 10 staff members on the site during the day shifts. There will be fewer during night shifts. And, to be conservative 10 spaces should be allowed for various volunteers and deliveries. Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 9 In summary, this would result in the need for 13 memory loss and assisted living spaces, 35 independent living spaces, 20 spaces for staff and assorted daytime volunteers and deliveries. This is a total of 68 spaces. The proposed facility will have 68 spaces. 22 will be in the surface lot and 46 in the underground garage. Unless employees and volunteers park in the underground garage, surface spaces may not suffice. Consequently, 10 proof -of - parking spots should be provided. If needed, these spaces could be built. IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT If the City Council approves the requested amendment to the City Code, then the senior care facility would be allowed by SUP in both the RB Zoning District and the shoreland overlay district. Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (A) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. Zoning Ordinance All relevant Zoning Ordinance standards have been reviewed in previous sections of this report. Comprehensive Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan's housing chapter encourages providing a range of housing opportunities for the aging and elderly. One tool identified for doing this is through the zoning ordinance, which allows higher density senior residential facilities by SUP in several of the City's single family zoning districts. The Comprehensive Plan's future land use map guides the subject property for SFSL, Single Family Small Lot development. The two zoning districts that are consistent with the SFSL density and land uses are the RB and the CR zoning districts. The proposed project is proposed to be zoned RB. (B) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Architectural design — The project site is not located within a historic residential neighborhood, downtown, or the West Business Park. Therefore, no architectural standards are mandated, nor is a review by the Heritage Preservation Commission required. None the less, architectural design is important. At the August Planning Commission meeting there was discussion about the color and materials associated with the exterior facades. The original proposal was predominantly white, which accentuated the three story height of the building. In this semi -rural neighborhood the Planning Commission thought that the color scheme would be out of place. It was suggested that colors from Liberty on the Lake be worked into the fagade. Select Sr. Living September 5, 2008 Page 10 The developer subsequently created two other exterior options. They are attached. Option A removes the front entrance columns. Option B retains those columns. Both options introduce a predominantly "non-white" color palate. Option B 1 uses beige trim and accent, whereas Option B2 uses white trim and accent. The columned option looks less institutional and is therefore preferred by the developer and by city staff. The Joint Board should consider the options and make comments. Lighting — A lighting plan has been submitted with the application materials. The illumination spillover is held at 0.0 luminaires along C.R. 12, along the elementary school property line and along most of the southern lot line. The pole mounted light near the southeast corner of the building casts 0.1 luminaires at the southern lot line. The lighting plan should be revised to hold this at 0.0 luminaires. Also, prior to City Council consideration of the proposal, cut sheet details should be submitted for each of the exterior fixtures. This will help review both aesthetic considerations as well as glare potential. (C) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.. * At the public hearing before the Planning Commission in August, the neighbor to the south requested upgraded landscaping along the southeastern portion of the site. This would help break up the mass of the building from his point of view. The developer will berm the southeast corner of the site and add landscaping as shown in the attached landscape plan. Attachments: Letter from Neighbor Revised Landscape Plan Revised Site Layout Architectural Options SELECT SENIOR LIVING STILLWATER, MINNESOTA LAYOUT PLAN �'1 Mao No 08-- Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING # SURVEYING ♦ ENGINEERING N 12445 55TH STREET NORTH '+E LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 8 Phone (651) 439.8833 Fax (651) 430.9331 N iY O E S ORIGINAL SCALE 1 INCH — 40 FEET 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL NOTES 1) BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY PAUL JOHNSON, ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION FROM ASBUILTS BY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FFE, INC. OFFERS NO GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS 2) ALL RADII TO BACK OF CURB. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 4) PAVEMENT STRIPING TO BE 4' WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPE ACCESSIBLE ACCESS AISLE STRIPING SHALL BE 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPE 18' ON CENTER AND AT 45 DEGREE ANGLES TO STALL. AREA SUMMARY IMPERVIOUS BUILDING 31,855 S F SIDEWALK/PATIO 3,249 S.F DRIVEWAY/PARKING LOT 18,032 S F BIT. TRAIL 5,172 S.F TOTAL 56,308 Sf PERVIOUS179,880 S F 76% IMPERVIOUS 56,308 S.F. 24% TOTAL 236,188 S F 100% SCLEGr snNIUK LTVINU - 8 1ILLWATER, MR4NESOTA - 09-04-08 SHEET 3 OF 14 SHEETS a� M.P N. 08-134 A; ry t may, •'•_.` y� MAPLf SELECT SENIOR LIVING STILL ] LEGEND -- — — — PROPERTY BOUNDARY Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING ♦ SURVEYING ♦ ENGINEERING N 12445 55TH STREET NORTH ( � E LAKE ELMO, MMESOTA 55042 LANDSCAPE PLAN DECIDUOUS TREE 0 s Phone (651) 439.8833 Fax (651) 430.9331 W* ¢� ORNAMENTAL TREE NOTLS 1) NO PERIMETER TREES TO BE REMOVED, ONLYTWO MATURE MAPLES REMOVED NEAR EXISTING PARSONAGE, CONIFEROUS TREE 4 . ROCK MULCH ORIGINAL SCALE I INCH = 30 FEET p LS b RO SIGNIFICANFTREE REMOVAL SCALE IN FEET yr . ad _ r3) BLACK HILLS SPRUCE j RIVER BIRCH CLUMPS / '�+IrI\f '•"-'. oe RIVFIY Rep(]! J i � - µ�7 i GREEN$PI 'y ij.Vlf7C RILLS SPRUCE �``•e. ,.•' O I ` ipp— P-76 MUGG PIN r- -rte •r-r--T-1T�--� �. ll/iRatITNG.ixtr� I �. "Ill" PINK SPIRE T -CRABAPPLE si WEEPING WILLOW 1--/' 00 pi— t 1) PJM RODODENDRON --� p( 9)ANTHONY J WATERER SPIRAEA - .. �wj HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY 1) PINK SPIRE CRABAPPLE 1) PRAIRIE XNNUAL PL,RMr.%,G8Ej CRABAPP MONUMENT 5) MUI �t>r1 $ �•�. f ^ _ iif,�:_ • ' _ .i -v>' '"'r'F+Rf ura -�. Maar. 'L'siltsumax�:..;W-L'fl:Itlrr>�'(•p/T'Iv[[a!mgYsr-�$CY�.iT-F110E$i�RViiE.. _ 8) AUSTRIAN PINE- "e-- 0 •�' w�•....-. -r..-� r-�, v..-.,-,.-,.4-r-••-•--•�.�,"`-.,�--•--•.'^-w.�-.-..w-__.v-•.'u.--,.'+tw-.�...��.^�,�-`-r.,.rr-.,rte.. _ •" ��K..,-f. ".•� - - '�„ •y.w-.'''i1 ;^ a+ -_5 ~ r. +w: wr�r>s. Is+l - w1`�r f � r ,.. _. •_ --' 1 r•St. 41 3" i.I• N—IE,l NLNIUK LIVINU- SiILLWAILK, MINNESOTA -09/04/08 SHEEP 7 OF 13 SHEETS �i I 1 SACK ELEVATION (SOUTH) SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 24 X 36 SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" s II X Il 0' 4' 8' 16, 46 ts�yj ?� '-_• �/.--.�r�.�..-w':�''_ri i'7L�4 ..._�..«,�.r ��—�-..�...,. Y�—� ��raaw. a`ar�, .__ ��.. foil isL AC ■ ..r.: al s uii Milo El mr-im p iiii��i�iiE 1, Ili i �� , iAt Jug" gauja �r i��,��a��p�� 1�� E:� p."'' i�Fi�� .,��'c��`�� y � !! � ' � � �� .sir awlry - Jim r. oil wow N