HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-07 City of Lakeville
Economic Development Commission
Regular Meeting
Agenda
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue
Lakeville, MN
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Introduction of new EDC Member Dan Vlasak
3. Approve January 30 , 2007 meeting minutes
4. Review and Discussion of Proposed Sign Ordinance Changes -Daryl
Morey, Planning Director
5. Review of 2006 Economic Development Annual Report
6. Director's Report
7. Adjourn
Attachments:
January Building Permit Report
City of Lakeville DRAFT
Economic Development Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 30, 2007
Marion Conference Room, City Hall
Members Present: Comms. Matasosky, Pogatchnik, Tushie, Brantly, Emond, Gehrke,
Erickson, Ex-officio member Mayor Holly Dahl, Ex-officio member City Administrator
Steve Mieike, Ex-officio member Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Todd
Bornhauser,
Members Absent: Comms. Smith, Schubert.
Others Present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; Adam
Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist, Steve Michaud, Park & Recreation
Director; Dennis Feller, Finance Director; Dan Rogness, Dakota County CDA; Janna
King, Economic Development Services.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
Chair Matasosky called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Marion Conference
Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota.
2. Approve November 28, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Motion 07.01 Comms. Erickson/Gehrke moved to approve the minutes of the
November 28, 2006 meeting as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Election of Officers
After a brief discussion, Chair Matasosky asked if anyone was interested in being an
officer for the EDC.
Motion 07.02 Comms. Emond/Gehrke moved to re-elect Jack Matasosky as
Chair, Barry Pogatchnik as Vice-Chair and Bob Brantly as
Secretary for 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Presentation of Dakota County Strategic Plan for Economic Development
Dan Rogness from the Dakota County CDA and Janna King from Economic
Development Services were present to give an overview of the Dakota County
Economic Development Strategy. The six strategic initiatives for 2007-2008 include:
Economic Development Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 30, 2007
1. Invest in transportation and transit networks
2. Coordinate strategic infrastructure and land development
3. Link workforce development and economic development
4. (a) Create prospect response capacity
4. (b) Enhance image, marketing and branding
5. Provide quality workforce housing
6. Strengthen development-related research and policy capacity
Ms. King added that the goal of the County is not to create a new department, but to
collaborate with existing resources within the County and prevent duplication of
efforts.
Comm. Tushie added that transportation will be a big issue and that it basically
parallels Lakeville's Strategic Plan for Economic Development.
Comm. Pogatchnik asked if the County had committed any funding for this initiative
yet.
Ms. King responded that the County Board will be reviewing the Strategic Plan and
fiscal impacts in April.
Mr. Rogness added that the funding will also vary by activity and the timing
associated with each activity.
Chair Matasosky stated that the County should be encouraged to utilize community
resources and maintain a high level of communication with everyone.
5. Presentation of Proposed Changes to Park Dedication Ordinance
Requirements
Mr. Michaud gave an overview of the proposed Park Capital Improvement Financing
Plan along with the park dedication fee structure and the history of park funding.
Comm. Tushie asked if the proposed $101,658,000 is in today's dollars and Mr.
Michaud responded that is was.
Comm. Emond asked what percentage of Lakeville is currently park land. Mr.
Michaud responded that the goal is to have 10% at buildout, and that we currently
have less than 10%.
Mr. Feller discussed the five options for financing the proposed capital improvement
costs for Lakeville's park systems based on the 2006 Comprehensive Parks and
Trail System Plan:
2
Economic Development Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 30, 2007
Option I: Park Dedication Fund $101,658,000 -Park Bond Issue $0
- Increase Park Dedication Fees 41 % in 2007
- No increase in taxes
Option II: Park Dedication Fund $82,258,640 -Park Bond Issue $19,400,000
- Increase Park Dedication Fees 14% in 2007
- Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and
2015.
Option III: Park Dedication Fund $82,258,640 -Park Bond Issue $19,400,000
- Increase Park Dedication Fees 9% in 2007 and 9% in
2008
- Increase taxes $30 on average value home in 2008 and
2015
Option IV: Park Dedication Fund $71,986,293 -Park Bond Issue $29,672,348
- No change in Park Dedication Fees
- Increase taxes $125 on average value home in 2008
Option V: Park Dedication Fund $71,986,293 -Park Bond Issue $0
- No change in Park Dedication Fees
- No increase in taxes
Mr. Feller noted that proposed improvements were based on 2007 estimates. As
such, an inflationary increase in costs would need to be financed with a
corresponding increase in the park dedication fee structure or other revenue source.
Mr. Feller then noted that an alternative to debt finance would be a "pay-as-you-go"
tax levy. The 2008 tax levy would be approximately $562,000; the 2015 tax levy
would be approximately $974,000 and adjusted annually for inflationary factors. Mr.
Feller further described the advantages and disadvantages of this approach as
outlined in the Park Capital Improvement Financing Plan.
Mr. Feller next reviewed the recommendation of doing atwo-step Park Dedication
Fee increase of 9% in 2007 and 9% in 2008. In addition, the recommendation will
be to use the new community surveys to obtain public input on what the public is
willing to pay for park amenities and to fulfill the Park Improvement Financing Plan.
The survey responses will help guide the Council's decision as to which of the five
options is most appropriate.
Comm. Brantly suggested that in the community survey, information about potential
missed opportunities if funding is delayed be included. He also expressed his
support of the plan.
Mr. Michaud reaffirmed the importance of preserving park land now and the cost
savings it can have in the long run.
The group discussed how much of that land would be dedicated through
development over time and if the City might miss out on some of the identified areas
if you wait for development.
3
Economic Development Commission A p~+~
Meeting Minutes ; ~ ,P F~..~,
January 3Q 2007 m
Mr. Michaud clarified that it would be approximately $20-25 million to purchase the
land identified for park but that some desirable land is already owned by developers.
Mr. Mielke added that if the Park Dedication fees were increased by 41%, it still
wouldn't put Lakeville at the top of the list for commercial/industrial property. This is
one way to avoid having to do a referendum.
Comm. Tushie stated that he thought it would be a good idea to get the money now
to purchase the identified land because he wasn't sure if it made sense to put the
entire burden on the development community, although it is part of the cost of entry
to develop in Lakeville. It would seem to make sense to have both the development
community and the public contribute in some capacity.
Mr. Mielke responded that he agreed but because the City has already invested a
substantial amount of money into the Parks system that the Park Dedication Fees
have already paid for, would it be fair to someone building a house down the road to
benefit from someone else's previous investment.
Comm. Tushie agreed with Mr. Mielke and stated that land prices are currently down
by almost half in Lakeville and now might be a good time to buy the land that might
never be dedicated to the City.
Comm. Emond agreed with Comm. Tushie and also noted that this is impacting
home values.
Comm. Brantly, Chair Matasosky and Mr. Bornhauser stated that the public needs to
be actively involved and included in the communications so that they understand the
benefits and financing of the proposals.
Chair Matasosky stated that a referendum is an important part of this process so that
the public understands the financial impact of this plan.
Comm. Pogatchnik added that it also needs to be fair to the older residents who
have already paid their share.
Mr. Feller stated that the tax levy for a city voter approved referendum is based on
market value rather than tax capacity value.
The group discussed the "opportunity costs' or "missed opportunity costs". Waiting
for adequate funds to accumulate as a result of dedicated tax levies for land
acquisitions may take time. As such, the City assumes the risks associated with
escalating land acquisition costs or that the land is lost to development.
4
Economic Development Cwnmission ~
Meeting Minutes ~ ~ ~T''"
January 30, 2007 ' `
Mr. Feller stated that the EDC's comments regarding the Park Improvement
Financing Plan would be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will
consider, at its February 20 meeting, approval of the recommendations as contained
in the Plan subject to the comments received from both the EDC and the Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources Committee.
The EDC thanked Mr. Michaud and Mr. Feller for presenting and discussing this
issue with them.
6. Summary of 2006 Development Project Feedback Surveys
There was no discussion on this issue.
7. Review of 2005-2007 Strategic Plan for Economic Development Work Program
for 2007
Mr. Olson reviewed the progress made on the 2006 Work Program and outlined the
recommended 2007 Work Program consisting of:
1. Completion of an Economic Benefit Study.
2. Completion of the Affordable Housing Needs Study.
3. Completion of the Business Telecommunications Technology Task Force
Study.
4. Preparation and implementation of the 2007 Action Plan for the Downtown
Development Guide.
5. Completion of corporate campus/office park market analysis.
6. Completion of the 2008-2010 Strategic Plan for Economic Development.
Motion 07.03 Comms. Emond/Tushie moved to accept the 2007 Economic
Development Work Program as recommended. Motion carried
unanimously.
8. Review of the Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments
Mr. Mielke noted that this item will be discussed in greater detail at the next EDC
meeting.
Mr. Olson gave a brief overview and status update of the proposed changes to the
sign ordinance.
Comm. Emond asked what the level of enforcement is with the current ordinance.
5
Economic Development Commission
Meeting Minules
January 30, 2007
Mr. Mielke acknowledged that certain portions of the ordinance aren't actively
enforced unless a complaint is received or there is an obvious abuse of the
regulations. He added that the new ordinance will give the City the ability to enforce
more of these abusive situations when it is necessary.
Mr. Mielke added that much of a sign ordinance has to do with community standards
and what the community wants to see regulated. This will continue to be discussed
with the business community and other stakeholders in Lakeville. The portion of the
ordinance that was recently addressed dealt with changing from being content
based to solely dealing with type, size and location requirements. The proposed
ordinance is being updated to reflect acontent-neutral standard as it relates to
freedom of speech.
9. Director's Report
There was no discussion on this issue.
10. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Attested to:
Adam Kienberger R. T. Brantly, Secretary
Economic Development Specialist
6
City of Lakeville
' Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator
Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist
Date: February 23, 2007
Subject: Review and Discussion of Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments
Attached is a memo prepared by Dan Licht of NAC, the City's Planning consultant,
regarding proposed changes to the City's sign ordinance. The City Council and
Planning Commission have requested input from the EDC regarding these proposed
changes. Planning Director Daryl Morey will be in attendance at the meeting to give
an overview of the issues regarding the proposed sign ordinance amendments.
The EDC is being asked to provide feedback on the proposed changes. The
Planning Commission will be discussing the proposed amendments and feedback
from the EDC at a future work session.
` NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CON5ULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Olson / Daryl Morey
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 23 February 2007
RE: Lakeville -Sign Ordinance Revision
NAC FILE: 336.00 - 06.01
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission initiated a discussion of the Sign Ordinance based upon the
input of the City Attorney regarding the implications of the recent Court decisions in the
cases involving the Cities of Eden Prairie and Hopkins related to First Amendment
content issues. City staff, the City Attorney and our office reviewed the City's existing
sign regulations, the effects of the Hopkins and Eden Prairie lawsuit decisions and the
need to draft revisions to the Sign Ordinance. A draft ordinance amending the Sign
Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a work session on 19 October
2006 with direction to proceed with a public hearing to consider the proposed changes.
A public hearing was opened at the 7 December 2006 Planning Commission meeting to
consider the proposed amendments and continued to the Planning Commission
meeting on 18 January 2007 to allow an opportunity to solicit additional input from those
potentially affected by the proposed amendments. After further discussion at their
meeting on 18 January 2007, the public hearing was closed and the Planning
Commission recommended by a 7-0 vote approval of the proposed ordinance
amendment with modifications addressing concerns raised by the Lakeville Area
Chamber of Commerce. In recommending approval of the majority of the proposed
Sign Ordinance amendment, the Planning Commission directed that there be review by
the Economic Development Commission regarding temporary portable message board
signs, balloon signs, sandwich board signs and commercial/ihdustrial real estate (for
lease) signs. The City Council considered the proposed Sign Ordinance amendment at
their meeting on 5 February 2007 and voted to approve the amendment, which included
a provision prohibiting new electronic changeable copy signs for all uses (except for
motor fuel pricing), by a unanimous vote. Staff and the City Council recognized an
inconsistency in allowing electronic changeable copy signs for public orquasi-public
uses while prohibiting them for business uses.
ANALYSIS
Purpose. Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a
variety of messages that can also create traffic hazards and aesthetic concerns, thereby
threatening the public health, safety and welfare. Lakeville's zoning regulations have,
since as early as 1970, included the regulation of signs in an effort to provide adequate
means of expression and to promote the economic viability of the business community..
These regulations also protect the City from a proliferation of signs of a type, size,
location and character that would adversely impact upon the aesthetics of the
community and threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Legal challenge. The basis of the legal challenges to sign regulations in the Cities of
Hopkins and Eden Prairie was that the ordinances restricted free speech by regulating
the content of signs within each City. Although the initial sign permit applications were
for billboards not allowed by the respective sign ordinances, the basis of the lawsuits
were other provisions dealing with the content of signs. The decision of the District
Court in one case was that the definition of various sign regulations based on the
content of the sign violated the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing free
speech. Because so much of the sign ordinance was based on these defined types of
signs, the District Court ruled the entire ordinance unconstitutional. As a result of these
rulings, the plaintiff gained the right to construct billboards that would have otherwise
been prohibited.
Allowed regulations. In order to avoid conflict with First Amendment free speech
issues, sign ordinances must only regulate signs on the basis of zoning district, location,
area, height, lighting and construction. Sign ordinances should minimize use of defined
types of signs to avoid distinguishing one sign from another based on content. From a
zoning perspective, this approach presents a challenge as sign ordinances have
evolved to include allowances or exceptions that would generally be appropriate based
on the intended purpose of the sign. The intended purpose of a sign, however,
ultimately relates to its content creating the potential legal issue. Examples of such
signs as previously allowed by the Lakeville Sign Ordinance included real estate and/or
subdivision development signs, directional signs, and temporary signs identifying public
or quasi public events. It was the allowance of the real estate and subdivision
development signs that were specifically challenged in the Hopkins case.
Amended Sign Ordinance. Based on the fundamental requirement of content neutral
regulations and the specific issues presented by the Hopkins and Eden Prairie law suits,
a comprehensive revision of the Sign Ordinance was adopted by the City Council at
their meeting on 5 February 2007. The intent of this amendment was to translate the
existing sign allowances into a content neutral format. Thus, the number, area and
height of signs allowed under the updated Sign Ordinance are for the most part the
same as the previous regulations. The specific topics for further discussion include:
¦ Sandwich board signs.
Commercial/industrial property real estate (for sale or lease} signs.
Temporary portable message board signs/balloon signs.
2
Sandwich board signs. In providing comments regarding the proposed Sign
Ordinance amendment, the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce asked that
consideration be given to allowance of sandwich board signs in front of businesses.
These signs were traditionally located in central business districts or pedestrian oriented
areas. Some cities have begun making allowances again for these types of signs as
part of their sign ordinances. The main issue in doing so is ensuring that the sign does
not impede pedestrian access or interfere with use of the public right-of-way when
located on public property. City staff offers the following language for consideration to
allow sandwich board signs:
II-23-I5: GENERAL REGULATIONS:
Z. Sandwich board signs are allowed within commercial zoning districts,
provided that:
1. Not more than one (1) sign is allowed per principal building
except that one (1) sign is allowed per tenant within a principal
building having two (2) or mare tenants each with an exclusive
exterior entrance.
2. The sign shall only be displayed when the business is open to the
public.
3. The sign shall be placed only on the business property and shall not
encroach into any principal building setback, except within the C-CBD
District where the sign may be located upon public sidewalks directly
abutting the business property or within required principal building
setbacks, and shall not be placed on any vehicle.
4. .The signs shall be located so as to maintain a minimum four (4)
foot pedestrian walkway and so as not to obstruct vehicular tra~c.
5. The sign shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet from the back
of curb of a public street or private drive aisle.
6. The sign shall conform to the following maximum dimensions:
a. Height: three (3) feet
b. LYidth: two (2) feet
c. Depth: two (2) feet.
7. The sign shall require issuance of a sign permit annually in
accordance with Section II-23-5 of this Title.
8. In addition to the provisions afSection 11-23-S.C of this Title, the
owner of the sign shall provide a certificate of
general liability
3
insurance with minimum coverage of $300, 000 naming the City as
an additional insured for the sign to be located upon the public
right-of--way within the C-CBD District.
Commercial/industrial real estate signs. In discussing the Sign Ordinance
amendment, the Planning Commission raised an issue with the existing allowances for
real estate signs for commercial and industrial properties. The Sign Ordinance
amendment approved by the City Council on 5 February 2007 carries forward the
previous allowances for real estate signs modified only so as to be content neutral. One
64 square foot, eight foot tall sign is allowed per street frontage when a building is
offered for sale or lease. The Planning Commission's concern is that these signs
essentially can become permanent fixtures on a property inconsistent with the intent of
the Sign Ordinance to minimize the number of signs of signs displayed on a property for
public safety and aesthetic reasons. To this end, the Planning Commission has
suggested a provision be included in the Sign Ordinance allowing additional area upon
a permanent freestanding sign for information regarding the sale or lease of a building.
City staff offers the following language for consideration of this concept:
11-23-7: PERMIT NOT REQUIRED:
F. 11'laen a building is offered for sale or lease additional signs or additional
sign area shall be allowed provided that:
1. Within agricultural/rural districts, residential districts and the P-
OS district:
a. One (1) sign shall be allowed per street frontage.
b. For single family, two family and townhouse dwelling units,
no sign shall exceed twelve (12) square feet in area and six
feet (6) in height.
c. For multiple family and institutional uses, no sign shall
exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area or eight feet (8)
in height.
d. In those cases where a parcel of land exceeds ten (10)
acres, no sign shall exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in
area or ten feet (10) in height regardless of the use of the
properly.
2. Within commercial and industrial districts:
a. Freestanding signs erected after [EFFECTIVE DATEJ
may make provision for an additional thirty two (32)
square feet of sign area to be displayed when a building is
offered for sale or lease and no additional sign as provided
4
for by Section 11-23-7.F2.b of this Title shall be allowed
on that street frontage.
b. For properties having a freestanding sign for which a sign
permit has been issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATEJ or
street frontages where no freestanding sign exists, one (1)
sign shall be allowed per street frontage and no sign shall
exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area or ten feet (10)
in height.
Temporary portable message board signs/balloon signs. The initial Sign Ordinance
amendment drafted by the Planning Commission would have prohibited temporary
portable signs except in the P/OS, Public and Open Space District and balloon signs
altogether. The basis for this recommendation is that the intent of the Sign Ordinance
specific to commercial and industrial uses is to balance the need for business
identification with public safety and desired community aesthetic issues. The Planning
Commission reasoned that the permanent signage allowed by the Sign Ordinance
provides adequate opportunity for business identification.
The use of temporary portable signs typically goes beyond basic business identification
to include advertising messages. The Planning Commission considered the use of
temporary portable signs an expansion of the number of signs allowed on a property for
potential advertising purposes as inconsistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance.
The Planning Commission also noted concerns about the aesthetics of these signs
which lack the quality materials, construction and integration into the site design of
permanent sign structures. City staff addressed practical concerns with allowing
temporary portable signs including requiring permits to be obtained before displaying a
temporary portable sign on a property and locating the signs within required setbacks or
within required parking stalls. There is also an administrative issue with enforcing the
duration for which temporary signs are allowed to be displayed by the Sign Ordinance.
Use of balloon signs raised similar concerns for the Planning Commission and City staff.
Additionally, use of balloon signs may involve violation of the provisions of the Sign
Ordinance prohibiting installation of signs on building roofs, height and area limitations
for allowed signs and material and aesthetic quality.
CONCLUSION
The ordinance amending the City's Sign Ordinance approved by the City Council on 5
February 2007 responds to recent First Amendment legal challenges brought against
the Cities of Hopkins and Eden Prairie as well as address several housekeeping issues.
This memorandum addresses three areas for additional discussion by the Economic
Development Commission and Planning Commission as to recommendations for
additional amendments. The Economic Development Commission will discuss these
issues at their meeting on 27 February 2007. The Planning Commission will review the
Economic Development Commission's recommendation at a future work session prior
to holding a public hearing to consider any additional changes to the sign regulations.
5
d~ ~~~8 J
City of Lakeville
~ Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator
Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist
Date: February 23, 2007
Subject: Presentation of 2006 Economic Development Annual Report
Staff will be presenting the 2006 Annual Report at the February 27th meeting. This
report is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at their March 5th meeting.
Copies of the presentation will be available at the meeting.
~~,~1 i~~a
City of Lakeville
~ ~ ~ Community and Economic Development
Memorandum
To: Economic Development Commission
From: David L. Olson, Community and Economic Development Director~./~
Copy: Steve Mielke, City Administrator
Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist
Date: February 23, 2007
Subject: February Director's Report
The following is the Director's Report for February of 2007.
Dakota Electric Partners in Progress Event
Dakota Electric Association is holding its annual Partners in Progress event on
Wednesday, March 7th at 4:30 p.m. at the Royal Cliff in Eagan. EDC members are
encouraged to attend. If you are able to attend please contact Judi Hawkins at City
Hall at 952-985-4403 by Monday, February 26"' so that we can RSVP on your behalf.
Copy of the invitation is attached.
2007 7anuarv Building Permit Report
The City issued building permits through the end of January with a total valuation of
$6,306,202. This compares to a total of $5,789,832 during the same period in 2006.
Included in this valuation were commercial and industrial permits with a total
valuation of $1,252,000. This compares to a total valuation of $132,000 during the
same period in 2006.
The City issued permits for 12 single family homes in January with a total valuation
of $3,556,000. This compares to 12 single family home permits during the same
period in 2006 with a total valuation of $3,452,000. The City did not issue any
permits or townhomes or condos in January which compares to 5 townhome permits
issued in January of 2006.
New Commercial Develooments
The City Council approved a new 70,000 square foot Cub Foods store to be
constructed in Heritage Commons at their February 20th meeting. A copy of the
exterior elevation of the proposed Cub store is attached. This phase of Heritage
Commons will also include up to 44,500 square feet of attached retail space, a 4,000
square foot free-standing retail building, and motor fuel center that will be operated
by Cub Foods. Construction is expected to begin in late March or early April with a
completion date of early to mid November.
The City Council also approved a 4500 square foot Bremer Bank building to be
constructed immediately south of the CVS pharmacy located at the southwest corner
of Cedar and Dodd.
Dakota Electric Association
cordially invites you to attend an annual celebration
recognizing the achievements of our communities.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 ~I
4:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Program begins at 5 p.m.
Royal Cliff
2280 Cliff Road, Eagan, Minnesota
Refreshments will be served
Cash bar • Door prizes
RSVP by February 26
Contact Cathy Werner at
651-463-6387. 1-800-874-3409 Ext. 387
cwerner~ dakotaelectric.com
it
~ppKOTA ,,.x,
GJEELECf~RIC ~r70~~r
iison fide _
-..wa,am~~
For those statutorily prohibited from receiving complimentary food and Bever-
ages, the value of the food provided equals $6.
v, ~.~-~~_~_~~,azxbg3r cc~~-,nooocnnnnnmwa>=_
~ 4 c o rv w rv° p o a s w o n as c n° o 0 0 0 o c c
a n w S+ 'n ~ ~ c c a~~° y m F c 3 3 3 9 a a°~ ~ o
e T% r B o m -v' ~°o a g n~ q~ w° ~ y x£ °s ~ 0 3 3~ 3- 5 0 ~ S
m n 3. ~ 3' a m r -m- m' °a ° m aw w c o ~a
3 3 5 m ae A 2- 5~ F;, ~e a A n 'n Q ,yny p
~ v a~° 3. ~ F 'p^ 3 0~ a 0 6> c d m v w v pU P m 9
a a n w ~ c A c E £ ~ ar y n °c m a°-. w o
5 F F ~ w 6 n~ w c m p o~ F s '2 S
p 3 = a _ a -n 3 m
g _ > 3
a ~ -
m' a ~
a
p ~ ~
p rn
c v ~
p
_ .3
W O O O O O N O C O A O O O N N O 0 0 O O O O O W O 0 0 V A O O N O K
~ .Np N W N A A Y
qU r A 01 r C J N `D `D ~P m
L 0 0 0 0 0 Vii O N w w 0 0 0 N b 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pC1 J O O O~ O ~
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O C O O !J ~ C C O O ~l O O O N ~D O O U O rq C
v. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O to O O O O O to O O O v~ O O O O O ~
O_ C
o rti
o m
J Z
~ ~
V~ W C ~
to r U J
D
m Q+ lwn C'J.1 N U W A J tNii A .N- C r Z ^
~ p o o p o 0 o p o~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0? o 0 0 0 'j o e~
O O G O O C O O C C O G G C O G G O O O O O C) O O O O O O O O O G O G Z J r(
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
• ~"yFi
~ l
H
Y % ~
u ~ w w ~ ~ C
' ~.W.. w J N N ~
C 0 0 0 0 0 OC O O N O O O O T~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 0o O O !N O ~
V~ 0 0 0 0 0 Oo O O N O O O O~ A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W O O W O
A
..7
b A- O O O N O A Oo W O N O T r 0 0 O~ C O N O~ r 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0
In N ~
O J OC r W w N ~
A C 7o tUn ~O Obi J A N OCO N A ~ J ~
w- 0 0 0 C O Oa b W O )C O A r 0 0 0 to 0 0 ~O O W J O O O Oo ~D O O O O .y
N O tNi~ ~ O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v~ O O O J O C O O v~ tNn 0 0 0 0 U O G O O Rl ~
O 9
z
~ m
o ~
a C
U W t ~ V~
r
Vi W~ tAJ~ N W V' N In N O ~D ~
b 0 0 N O J O! O O+ O o .P A~ W
O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O y Z
O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 ~ N O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o coo O o c o 0 0 0 ~ o m
o c b c o b c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o o p ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c c o o Z
t
~
rn
6
N ~ _ z
N N to •p O
J ~C ~ N A C W T '.s1 W
GO`+ ~ O O O O W O O °Ni 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 VAi O O A O W 0 0 0 O Q~ O O O C S G r
C 0 0 0 0 0 In C O l'1 O O O O O Oo 0 0 0 J O O Cc O~ O G O O O W C C O O ` ~ ~
Oo O C O O O C 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 O O O A 0 0 Oo O A O O O O O A 0 0 0 0 < O
r J
s c m S a~ g F~ 'm ~ w y~ w~ O O~ £ f ~ d~ 3 a~ 3 9 F i' 3 0
o' y~ 3 0 ~ T o~~ F n m c y 'b° .n c ti o c' ~ m a o m a G p
°o = a~ w' m d£ F 3 c io ~ S a a S D a 'n B. m~~ v v
_ m e w ~ D 3 ~ _ 5 n m F' p
m Z g ~ 2 S A x I n c o. m r ~ co
tr, ~ 3 3 y f7 m a y c c .2 b
2.
w~ m ~ ~ 0 3 m' ~ D rv
~ -
a a'a a ~ m
r m
~ a c.
v
c
m -
3
v. .N. q
N O~ Go - O- O O O N N- W O L O O O N- O L O O~ U- O~ O O 'C
A w O. r Y
~ W b N W W V~ N W `O W `t W J W W J N~ O~ RI
V O ~D J - ~ C ~O )O A b Oe O iD 0 0 0~~ 0 ~O O ~D O V 00 O N O O ~
A C ~n ~D to in O ~n C O O O to O O C C O O G U 0 0 0 G v~ O O ao N C C [q O
N C O N U C O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O w N 0 0 ~ _
O n
N z
O ~
J z
O ~
w ~
Vii Vii tAi~ N O .P Oo ~ r
~ 0 0~ Oo C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J- 0 0 '~'3 O~ V
c o 0 0 0 o c o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
ry
~ r
9~
b ti ~
> m ~
z ~
~ A
~ ei
O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S _
O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ O C O 0 0 0 0 G 0
J W N N N ~
Oo O A A O ~ V. ~ O- ~ O V~ N W S Q. A O O C J O- O O O J W to O O S
m N - Y
[~1
00 to ,N L N Q~ N N N ~ ~D O~ N- O 00 W N A W W'
U O Oo Oo O O C O C C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U 0 0 O O O O O C O 4~
O+ O G W N O O O O C O pp O O O O O O C O O C O O O O G O O N O 0 0 0 [-1 G
C O O U O O C 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0
c A
N <
O
O O
~ r,
> o
W WV W W - - r {M
07 W J W W W O~ v 'D 1~ CzZ
p~ q ~ O O N O r.j
O O V~ J C O O O C O O O O O O O In O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O 0 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O G O G 0 0 0 0 0 ~P~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~
C C O O O C O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 p
y a
r
z a
a °
c~
O 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O g O~~ C 0- 0 0 0 0 S ~ N
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
N J
m m m ti~~~ o F ~ A~ w~ o a b a n A~~ y m y w 0 9 a ~ rn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cwo ~ o ~ Y N ~ ~ ~ n 3 ° Q e w m ~ w a 3 o A $
= y v 3 m n a°~ - ~ 3 ~i w n n c a~ ~ ~ n~ 9~ n~ ~ F~ m w m
~ < m = £ £ o 'm' ~ _ m rn o 5~ 3 U. 'o o w w' w d o' ~ rn 7
~ 0 0 $ F i m y w c 3 y; 3~ w, o
a a n 3 o v a ~ Q w ~ `'Z n
O ~ £ ~ 3 Y
C° ~ w n =
A y ~ ~
Q p w v~
~ R
n 3 ~ fC4
y 6
W r r N
A 0 0 0 0 - r O - N N r w 0 0 0 0 ~ to O .T O O O O N N~ N P {
w N N r Y
N to N A oa O A ~ y
O GO w W W td w ~p O J W J W W A
w O O O O A ~D O ~O b A A O w 0 0 0 O b J O W O O O O b N l7 b ~D N b O .y~
O O^ 0 0 v~ to O ~ O O O v. 0 0 O O to 0 0 P O O O O O U O to O-~ O [tl C
O O .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O C O N O O .%1
o f7
c ~
c ;z~
J z
C p Y
J O~ W W r r Z
O O O A A y C ~
O O O O C C O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ O C OO O O O O O O O C C 07 O O
O O C O O O pp 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C C C O 0 0 0 J ~
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z
r. Ir
M y
H
L
~ ~ A
Z
~ ~
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O S ~
O O O O C C O O O G O C C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O G O O C O O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O
W N
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V - N ~p N O O O O- N Go O O O r b r r 0~ 00 0
N
w N
+1 A n. W N ~W l/'
`1 A W U w J V~ W to W W W w G1 W ~
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~O O b O O C 0 ~D ;D N 0 0 0 to iL b ~D J N O .b Y,
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v~ V~ O vi 0 0 0 0 0 In O Oa 0 0 0 to v. to Vi O w O to C
O O O O O C C O 0 0 O O O O O O O C O G O W O O O O C O C O O w 0 0 Rf
O_ a
R1
O
O O
T ~
N N D C y
- U . r Y
3T oa w Go v. ey
O O O V~ ,ONi O W O D r
O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O C N O O O O W O O ~ C [n9
C C+ O O O O O O C O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 O C O C C O C C C G O 0 0 ~ ~
O C C O O O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O C O C C O C O O O O Z T
~ S
Y 6
z
z °
ro
p o 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p p o o G c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ <
c c c o 0 0 0 0 o c c~ b c c o 0 o c o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o c o c c K% m o
0 o G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
w o
y
N
m n D e C a m g 3 m a va' m m
s c o
a°~~ a ~ a g a 3 3
~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ c tap ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ i
O = `G ~ w ~ N
~z
~ m~ A~d= ~ 2. c m
~ ww o;,
a f _ _
~ tp ? ~
~ 9 3
y.
n
3.
w a
r, ~
W r o IJ O~ O r A U
~ _ a
W N N A A O O O m
O O O O J O O O O O O ~
a o 0 0 o c c o 0 o c c m °
A c 0 0 o c c o 0 o c c m
C
0 7y
o rf
a C ° p
P C" . Z
N Y C ~ H
O
N O O O O O O O O O O C (p ~p'}
° O G O O O C C C O O O z J' 1~ °C
O C C O O O C O O O 0 0
0
o-'yh
~ l
I~
a f D
C
ti z A
s
m
m
a o o? o c p o 0 o c o ~
' o 0 o c c o o 0 0 o hf
s c o 0 0 o c o 0 0 o c ~
w ~
W O O W O O N W S J 'C
L
b to - A
A L to 's O m
O O O J ~ O U O C 0 0
~ O O O O O C O O C O O m
° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c c m °
o ~
N o-f
o ~
P ~
'Jp C ~ H
~ 1' 77
~ .w+ Z
-~1
N c o 0 o c c o 0 0 o c e m
e o 0 0 0 0 o c o o c O °
o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 o Z a
'J
m
7+
N z
m
q C 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O C C S
T G O O C O G O C ^J m ~(p p
Oo O O C O O O O O O O O ~ O
p J