Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2002 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment~• ~ • MINUTES ~ s ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2002 Members Present: Chairperson Sidney Grant, Rod Rothermel, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Alternate No. 1 Charles Schoppe, Alternate No. 2 George Maltsberger Members Absent: Ruben Salinas City Staff Present: Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore, Director of Planning Doug Kneupper, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. ~ CALL TO ORDER. Meeting called tb order by Chairperson G. rant at 6:00 PM. II. ~ APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 27, 2002, MEETING. Minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #A02-003, WHICH SEEKS APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF ASINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON AN EXISTING SLAB THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. APPEAL IS BEING REQUESTED AS PER SECTION 106-89(3) OF. THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore presented staff's report. The applicant, Carl Jakob, is appealing the Building Official's decision to deny a building permit for construction of a single-family dwelling at 1807 Elmwood Avenue. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a home on an existing slab foundation that partially encroaches the subdivision's twenty-five foot recorded building line and the city's required residential twenty-five foot front yard setback. The northwest corner of the slab extends within approximately fifteen feet of the front property line, resulting iri a ten-foot front yard setback encroachment Ms. Wilmore noted that in 1995, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved Appeal #A95~- 001, on the same basis, for the property located at 1806 Elmwood across the street from Mr. Jakob's lot. A. PROPONENTS None B. OPPONENTS None Zoning Board of Adjustment • • Minutes of October 24, 2002 Page 2 ~. Motion by Bob Capen to approve Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #A02- 003 with the following conditions: 1. Permit approval shall require certification from a Texas registered engineer that the existing slab will adequately support asingle-family dwelling. 2. Permit approval shall require written approval by a State licensed master plumber that the existing ground plumbing is in working order. 3. Permit application shall reference Appeal #A02-003. Second by Rod Rothermel. All were in favor and the motion carried. IV. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, #NCS02-001, WHICH SEEKS APPROVAL TO ENLARGE A FRONT YARD FENCE. REQUEST IS BEING SUBMITTED AS PER SECTION 106-262(G) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. Ms. Wilmore presented staffs report: The applicants, Bryan and Brandy Gwin, are requesting approval to enlarge a nonconforming structure by replacing an existing front yard fence with a decorative 4-foot wrought iron fence. The height and material of the fence would change; the fence location would not Ms. Wilmore noted the applicants plan to utilize the site for the retail sale of boats. Previous owners operated a used car lot at the site that included apre-existing, nonconforming two- foothigh post and cable kont yard fence. The current, owners claim the existing front yard fence does not satisfy dze requirements of d~eir insurance company. Staff believes that increasing the height of the fence will increase the degree of nonconformity. _ A. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant swore in Birney Havey. Mr. Havey explained the new fence is necessary to satisfy insurance company requirements. The new landscaping will partially hide the new fence. Chairperson Grant swore in the property owner, Bryan Gwin. Mr. Gwin stated that the concrete slab area in the front would be lost if the fence were moved back. It would create an area that would be unusable between the fence and the new landscaping that is being installed. Mr. Gwin also noted the need for this type offence for insurance purposes. B. OPPONENTS None Zoning Board of Adjustment ~ • Minutes of October 24, 2002 Page 3 Motion by Rod Rothermel to approve Request #NCS02-001 to enlarge a nonconforming fence. Second by Charles Schoppe. All were in favor and the motion carried. V. STAFF REPORTS -DUE TO HOLIDAY, DISCUSS AN ALTERNATIVE MEETING DATE FOR NOVEMBER. Motion by Bob Capen to change next month's meeting date to Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 6:00 P.M. Second by Rod Rothermel. All were in favor and the motion carried. VI. ADJOURN Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned 6:20 P.M. espectfully Submitted, Pe Planning Secretary Approved on this ~~ day of 2002. Sidney G t Chairperso. ,Zoning Board of Adjustment s • . VARIANCE FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BELLAIRE .REPRESENTED BY BILL HELM WAIVER FROM 180= UNIT UM~ FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEXES EXHIBITS: . APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A -LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT B -MULTI-FAMILY REQUIREMENTS - Sect. 106-333 Table B EXHIBIT C -SKETCH RENDERING OF PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX ~~ - ~ - .. CITY OF LA PORTS ''`" - G BOARD OF ADJUS~NT . VARIANCE REQUEST . . ~ - - Application No.: OoZ _ 0 ~~ OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $100.00 Date Received: ~ ~ D ' ` 0 ~-- Receipt No.: ~, l ~-$ Note: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. Applicant: ~,~sT .~/9~ddf L ~•snl~L' oF,B~LG~,K'~ Name ~zTo,v~ ~'~ Address 77oPr .Phone I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized Qi// ,~clii1 to act on my behalf in this matter A ~ . fj/f;iT~iiT~oGYgL 4 O/~VaI~.6/MC. . Owner: ~ ~r~r~~~ . ,sty l ~irJ®r~vN~e ~aT •~ 7x 7~-~ cC - z,ta Address . Phone ~~I C~ anq .~ I YO u,viTs ?'a ,20 o by DTs Pcr Pioj «T I am requesting a variance to Sect. ~ ~ of the .City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property located at ,?2'c,1 ~w uls ~` ~tir~>~F•sk•~y . ~ Street Address ~a G ,B,TTo ~h ~.~ ~c~ L . ". Legal Description (r~Site Plan - () Mino~c Developme~ Site Plan ()Major Development Site Plan ()General Plan - - A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. - .. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he~ must provide Authorization to ct on the Owner's behalf. /o-z3-O2 Date ~ Applicant's Signature ~. . ~ Office Use Only Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners -Date: Board's Decision: Approved () -Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: i ~ ~ 3 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." The City's Board of .Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditions: - - 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) ~ Literal enforcement of the • Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography constitutes the primary example of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the . owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of tLe Zoning Ordinance. 4) No variance that allows a use that- is prohibited within the Use zone in.question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allowable. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will ' meet the above conditions. ~ F . ~ If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO TffiS MATTER: . 3 ..~'~~ i • TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: . _......... • _ • EXHIBIT A .; LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 22.355 acres out of that certain 22.355 acres of land in the William M. Jones survey, Abstract No. 402, Hams County, Texas. .~ r a 7/24/2002 11 3:48 PM • GF'.283926 Commitment No.4a-901-80-283926 Page 1 EXIiIBIT "A'• DESCFIPTION That certain 22.354 'acres of land in the William H. Jones Survey, Abstract No. 482, Harris County, Texas, and being more particularly described•by metes and bounds as follows, to-wit: • 8EGINNING at the intersection of the north right of way line of Fairmont Parkway (based on a width of 250 feet) with a Northeasterly right of way line of Luella Boulevard as recorded in Volume 198, Page 76 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas; THENCE North a8 deg. 03 min. 48 sec. LQest, 14.14 £eet along said .Northeasterly right of way line of Luella Boulevard to an angle paint; THENCE North 03 deg. 04 min. 25 sec. West; 1,813.50 feet along the East right-of-way line of Luella Boulevard to a point in a Southeasterly right of .way line of Venture Lane as recorded in volume 198, Page 76 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas; THENCE North 41 deg.. 55 min. 37 sec. East, 1a.19 feet along said Southeasterly right of way line of Venture Lane to an angle•point; THENCE North 86 deg. S5 min. 35 sec. East, 350.78 feet along the South right of way line of Venture Lane to a point of curvature of a curve to the right; THENCE in •a southeasterly direction, 611.96 feet along the southerly right of way line of venture Lane following the arc of said curve to the right•having a radius of 1,770.00 feet and subtending a central angle of 19 deg. 48 min. 34 sec.~to a point of tangency; THENCE South 73 deg. 15 min. 51 sec. East, 164.94 feet along the southerly right of way line of venture Lane to a point in the Westerly right of way line of a Harris County Flood Control District Drainage right of way as described in volume 199, Page 141 of the Map Records of Barris County, Texas; THENCE in a southwesterly direction along the westerly right of way line, of•said Harris County Flood Control District Drainage right of way the following ,,bearings and distances; South 16 deg. a4 min. 09 sec. West, 284.91 feet; South 28 deg. 24 min. to sec. west, 70.78 feet; South S1 deg. .44 min. ~12 sec. West, 70.78 feet; South 63 deg. ?a rnin. 13 sec. west, 388.91 feet to an angle point; THENCE South 86 deg. 56 min. 00 sec. West, 437,76 feet to a point for corner.; THENCE South o3 deg. 04 min. 00 sec. East, 220,00 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 86 deg. 56 min. 00 sec. East, 275.71 feet to a point in the Westerly line of the said Harris County Flood Control District Drainage right of way; THENCE in a Southerly direction along the westerly right of way line of the said. Harris County F1ood~Control District Drainage right of way the following bearings and distances; ~a.3,S, South 11 deg. 20 min. 46 seC. West, 500.74 feet; ~~~N~ .. .. ~~ ~ • GP8 283926 • Commitment No.44-901-80-283926 DESCRIPTION r~ Page 2 South 07 deg. 27 min. 57 sec. East, 169.12 feet; South 18 dag. 30 min. 25 sec. East, 237.34 feet; South 03 deg. 04 min. 51 sec. East, 46.22 feet; to a point in the North right of way line of Fairmont Parkway; TIiENCE South a6 deg'. ~6 min 51 sec. SJest, 347.20 feet along the North right of way line of Fairmont Parkway to the Point of Beginning and containing 22.3547 acres of land more or less. NOTE: This Company does not represent that the above acreage or square footage calculations are correct. ~' ~gl10~'p,~c ~~FRE ~~~ Reasons for requesting a variance from a minimum of 180 units to 200 units for the proposed apartment project to be built at the comer of Fairmont Parkway and Louella Usually to interest a financial institution to purchase the property it should be at least 200 units. Insurance Companies Pension funds. Etc., do not buy small properties. The small properties are usually bought by individuals or syndicated groups. The types of investors do not have the financial strength of an institution, and therefore may not maintain the apartments as well. The increase number of units will allow us a better unit mix. 7. ~~ 7.Ril'oN caiNd~wnn w~aN aui w~as:c ~nn~ 'a~'i~n • ~~ ~ Reason for requesting a variance from a minimum of 180 units to 200 units for the.proposed apartment project to be built at the corner of Fairmont Parkway and Louella. Because so much of the land is in flood zone AE and unusable; requires a little higher density on the useable area. Also we are not going to build the 3 story buildings on the boundary next to the residential subdivision; therefore, in order, to keep the density up we need to build 20 additional units, which will bring the density to 10.428 units per acre. This increase in the number of units will allow a better unit mix. Z 'd LllB'oN SaINd~IW~1 WIaH aHl WH7.1:11 ~nn~ •si•noti Staff Report November 20, 2002 Variance Request #V02-002 Requested bv: Mr. William Helm representing First National Bank of Bellaire. Requested for: Waiver from the City's 180-unit maximum for multi-family complexes Location: ~ ~ Luella at Fairmont Pazkway - 22.355 acres in the William M: Jones . ~ Survey, Abstract No. 402, Harris County ' Zoning: High Density Residential 3 (R 3) 20.355 acres and General Commercial (GC) 2 acres . Background: The project is proposed on approximately 20 acres zoned R-3. The boundaries of the property are. Luella on the west, Venture Lane on the north, Willow Spring Gully on the . east, and on Fairmont Parkway on the south. (See Exhibit A.) Two hundred units aze proposed~giving the project a density of ten (10) units per acre. On June 2002, Mr. Helm inquired about the development and zoning regulations for multi-family units. Staff informed Mr. Helm that City Council placed a moratorium on the construction of mid to high density residential development to create new regulations. On October 14, 2002, Council adopted Ordinance 1501-XX. Among the new regulations established was a 180-unit maximum on all multi-family. complexes. This change is found in Section 106-333 Table B. (See Exhibit B) On October 18, 2002, Mr. Helm met with Staff and presented a conceptual rendering of the proposed 200-unit development. (See Exhibit C.) This proposed build-out exceeds the City's 180-unit maximum. ~ . Citing Section 106-192 B (2) b, the applicant is seeking a variance from the 180-unit maximum. As an attachment to his application, Mr. Helm notes several major hardships that affect the property. First, "a lot of the land is in flood zone AE and is unusable; a higher density is needed in the area that is useable." The applicanrt also noted that the requirement that the 3-story buildings be built away from the adjacent residential subdivision poises another hazdship. To keep the density that the development needs, the applicant believes he must build 20 additional units. This will give the complex approximately 10.4 units per acre, which is below the required 14 units. Mr. Helm also noted that securing a "strong" financial institution could be .difficult which could ultimately affect the maintenance of the property. Finally, the increase in the number of units will allow a better unit mix. Analysis: Section 106-192 B (1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as deviation from the literal provisions of the chapter which is granted by the Board when strict conformity to the chapter. would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances . unique to the property on which the variance is granteaC Except as otherwise prohibited the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement when the board finds that all of the following~conditions have been met. ~ . • • - Zoning Board of Adjustment November 20, 2002 #V 02-002 . Page 2 • That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest. • That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the speck piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and • That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed The Boazd must decide if the applicant's request to build 200 units instead of 180 units per Section 106-333 Tab1e~B is reasonable. The Boazd is charged with deciding whether all of the above conditions were met. Nonetheless, Staff believes that Mr. Helm's request does not meet the test for hazdship for the following reasons: First, while the tract has a "flag shaped" configuration, this has not precluded nor impaired development. Furthermore, the amount of acreage located in the floodplain will not.impose a burden on developmern. Second, allowing 20 additional units (approximately 11% over the current standazds) would not negatively impact the community; however, it cleazly goes against the new regulations approved by Planning and Zoning Commission in May 2002 and adopted in October 2002 by Council. During the Council's workshops and public heazing, the Council agreed that the 180-unit maximum was sufficient. Next, the requirements for the placement of 3-story buildings will protect the privacy of adjacent residential development. Mr.. Helm indicated that the current layout of the complex does not impede the project. Fourth, mairnenance of the property will occur, because all multi-family developments aze required to issue a bond ensuring .their commitmern to the upkeep of the complex for its lifespan. Conclusion: ~ The applicant has not demonstrated that circumstances unique to his property exist. Based on the facts outlined iri this report, the conditions required fo grant a~ variance do - not exist. meals: Asper Section lOt%r 196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte: Arty person or persons; jointly or severally, aggrieved by arty decision of the Board of Adjustment, or arty taxpayer, or arty o,~cer, department, board or bureau of the city may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Section 211.011, duly verified setting forth that such decision is illegzzl, in whole or in part, spec~ng the grounds of the illegzrlity. Such petition shall be presented to the court within'ten days after the filing of the decision in the o,~ce of the Board of Adjustment. . • • • i -~~ -i ARTICLE III. DISTRICTS DIVISION 2. RESI DENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS Su bdivision !. Generally Sec. 106-333. Table B, residential area requirem ents. (a) Table B, residen tial area requirements. Maximum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Coverage / Lot Lot Yard Site Development Minimum Area / D. U. Width Setbacks Maximum Area /Unit Open Space / Landscaping Uses S. F. L.F. L.F. F.R.S. Height S. F. Unit S. F. Required e Zbe, 9. e, f0 1SE,t2;;_f3,10; 19 ;76 17 18 Single-family detached 6000 50 25-15-5 35 Ft. 9100 - 40%/NIA 4.8 Single-family large lot 43560 100 25-15-5 45 Ft. DU/A - 30%/N/A 0 4356 1.0 Single-family special lot 4500 40 20-10-0 35 Ft. DU/A Footnote 60%/NIA line, 0 lot line 7300 # 1 6.0 Duplexes 6000 60 25=..20;;20 45 Ft. DU/A Footnote 60%/N/A 8.0 # 1 Single-family converted 6000 50 20-10-5 35 Ft. DU/A N/A 50%/N/A to multi-family N/A Townhouses, 2000 20 '~ ` -~ 220;-20 45 Ft. 4400 Footnote 75%/25% quadraplexes (10,000 s.f DU/A # 1 ........ of site area 100 ft. wide) 10.0 IV-ultifamly 20000 100 25-20-20 45 Ft. 1600 288 60%/25%a '1':4, Footnote DU/A # 1 Manufactured housing 4500 40 20-10-5 25 Ft. 7300 Footnote 60%/6% 6.0 # 1 DU/A Manufactured housing 100 of front N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A/N/A subdivision or parks (5 road frontage acre min.) Group care facilities (less 25-20-10 25 Ft. N/A N/A N/A/6% than 6) and day care homes Public or private educa- 30-20-10 45 Ft. N/A N/A N/A/6% tional and religious insti- tutions, large group care facilities, daycare cen- ters, recreational build- ings, boarding, and nur- sing homes Freestanding on-prem- ises signs See article VII of this chapter ~~~~ • • Table 8 footnotes. Required Developed Lot Size Open Space I Lot 5000 - 6000 Sq. Ft. 200 Sq. Ft. 4000 - 4999 Sq. Ft. 300 Sq. Ft. 3000 - 3999 Sq. Ft. 400 Sq. Ft. 2000 - 2999 Sq. Ft. 500 Sq. Ft. a. Minimum size of developed open space _ ..._ (i) For multi family residential developments,;'., Minimum of 25% Hof fhe total development,~egardless of„size~of _ _ ._.,. _. r . ..._. . development: (ii) For townhouse/quadraplex developments: One-half acre for every 80 units or fraction thereof. b. All required developed open spaces must be operated and maintained by a homeowners association; subject to the conditions established in sections 106-676 through 106-679, with all documentation required to be submitted for filing in conjunction with the final plat. {See also the city development ordinance number 1444, section 4.04 which is on file in the city secretary's office.) 2. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be required adjacent to all conservation areas. Buildings, parking areas, and refuse containers will not be allowed in such setback area. These areas are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover, with a planting plan required to be submitted and approved by the enforcement officer. 3. The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement located in a rear yard, shall be three feet. No portion of any building including projections of any nature shall encroach into any utility easement or vertical projection of the easement boundary. 4. Where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of only one adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed 30 feet. 5. All side yards adjacent to public R.O.W.'s must be ten feet. 6. In the case of zero lot line housing, the side setback opposite the zero lot line must be ten feet. 7. D.U.A. is an abbreviation for dwelling units per acre, or the maximum density permitted. 8. All structures except slab on grade, shall be placed on a foundation system described as: An assembly of materials constructed below or partially below grade, not intended to be removed from its installation site, which is designed to support the structure and engineered to resist the imposition of external forces as defined by the Standard Building Code, or in the case of industrialized housing, the requirements of the TDLS. Such foundation system shall be skirted or enclosed with wood or masonry to give the appearance of a solid foundation, if one is not provided, compatible with the appearance of adjacent housing, and subject to the requirements of the Southern Building Code. 9. See article V, division 4 of this chapter for additional requirements. 10. No sign shall be located in a sight triangle so as to obstruct traffic visibility at a level between three feet and six feet as measured above ad}scent road grade 1`1 ~;In_the case of multi family re'sidenfial developmentsrwith 50 or more u~}ts satd,complexes,ust be;located at least;:.1 OOt)-feet from other; multi fag i] residential'developments of 20 or moreurnts x ,,,,.. e must be a ten foot opaque screen consisting of stir'ubs,atid fencing '(See Sec', t,06 334 ,(i) ~2 ortscreen~ bu adn4d' fenc~n ~re tueements ) g g q v... , 13 N Residential developments that area townhouses quadruplexes_ or,multi family dwelling units must.:have a m+nimum of 25°fo landscaping _y, _ via ., .. Y ~ .:, ~ v_"~. i r.. u,. ~ ~ .: rt 3t q-...: - r,r -s -~• _ - r~ - ,,..,, , Y ,~ ~,4 tlVlulti family residential `developments :ad}scent to single-family residentia~ ,,developments'lmust,'esta_blish a,'25 fobt,;buffer p: eats. T;h~s bu I residential deffer ~s'in addition to the setback as established by th 15 ~~n thee ase otf mudlt falrrii y veto ments, no off-streeC firkin shall be.. laced ,,vs table or within the re ' wired, additional 25-fo p p g P . ithrn the'regwred ~-#eet-setback; ' ;,The_~space needeii.,to ;meet then when the development is -situated ad}scent to asingle-family .residential additionl,ent. _ _ _ ` e requlr•ed..parkmg, spaces shall be_excluslye_of the`-required setback and he buffer 16 ,.In the case of multi family residential developments''being ad}acent',to single family,resident~al developments the~`bwldings within the,~multi family residential developments that are directly ad}scent to -the single family residential development shalL.be .. Timrfari"tn~9-ctnrioc iri.;h'ainht .r,Ruildinas'within the.inferaor,'of the.-.multi'family_:residential,developments may-be:3.stori,es,;'in liza ..'3 ~4;~.4 N'N'S5 37 ~ =.`~' `:. `,,. ~^ _ ~,.. . 111 .. ~~ _ r 3 ~. D x m ~` .~- ,. c .~ C aa?OtiF. ~~ tiP+\ t. J ~.,~ ? 2?5.1i ~...; °_'f~~ ~~~ isf ~.~:'; ~ l (' ~'r D FAtR.M.oo~T ~'AR~ ...~ .~ n '~ . -' A o '~ N ~~ ~O ;~ ~ . ~ : ...,. . .~~~ 78~ _~~~~ -~'