Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.C. Park Land Acquistion ~ , l~ -- CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark Themig Meeting Date: November 23, 2004 Subject: Park Land Acquisition Update INTRODUCTION The following is intended to provide you with an update on the status of acquisition of the priority park site (Shutrop Property), and to have a discussion about residential development occurring on a portion of the property. BACKGROUND The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board identified the Shutrop Property north of County Road 16 as the priority site for park land acquisition. City Council endorsed that recommendation earlier this summer, and appointed Councilor Lehman, Chair Dorenkamp, and staff to work on several questions about the property and develop funding options. Since thattime, we have been working with the Shutrops, Scott County for future CR21 alignment, and Tollefson Development who has a relationship with the Shutrops for developing some of their other property. Funding the acquisition of the property is the most significant issue, followed closely by the impact that CR 21 would have on usability of the land as park land. The County has not released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for future CR 21. However, we were able to obtain a drawing that shows their preferred alignment for the roadway, and met with them recently to talk more about the roadway. DISCUSSION Funding the Acquisition Councilor Lehman, Chair Dorenkamp, and staff have been exploring ways to fund the acquisition. At this point, it doesn't appear that we have adequate funding sources to purchase the entire parcel without long-term park funding implications. In order to minimizethe long-term funding implications, one of the possibilities we have developed would involve reusing a portion of the property for housing. We have been working with the Shutrop's potential residential developer, Tollefson Development, on a concept that would provide approximately 38 single-family lots east of future CR 21 and north of CR 16. Given the site characteristics (bluffs, woodlands, access), this development approach would involve a PUD (Planned Unit Development) that gives the developer the ability to request special variances that may not be allowed in normal developments. I have attached two concept drawings that show what the development could look like. Since this is very early in the process, these could change. However, it will give you a good idea of the impact a residential component would have. In this scenario, the land ~ ,"'!"> . .21 '_h:""",;;,-.-:~\l? north of the residential as well as the land west of CR 21 would be park land. Tollefson is committed to preserving the greenway corridor concept, as well as providing trail connections through the residential to the future pedestrian underpass. In addition, they would work to preserve as much of the woodlands and bluff line as possible, and offer a conservation easement to protect this area in perpetuity. In addition to the residential, we show layouts for youth ball fields, a soccer field, and parking on what could be the park land. My understanding from your previous discussions is that this park would likely remain more passive than active and we would continue to pursue active areas in cooperation with the School District. However, it does show that some fields could be constructed above the bluff if desirable in the future, although the drawing doesn't provide for stormwater ponding and support facilities. If a portion of the parcel were to be developed, Tollefson would purchase that portion, reducing the funding the city would need for acquisition of the remainder of the property. However, the Shutrops are interested in the benefits of a "friendly" condemnation procedure. The City Attorney has indicated that the city could proceed with condemnation on the entire parcel, and in a simultaneous transaction, convey a portion to another party. Under this scenario, we would have several different funding sources: Potential Source Amount Park Reserve Fund $2,000,000 identified in the CIP Sale of Land for Development To Be Determined CR21 ROW To Be Determined Fire Station To Be Determined Greenway Grant Funding To Be Determined CR21 Future CR 21 will divide the 103-acre parcel into approximately 40 acres east of the new highway, and 50 acres west. The alignment plan shows a tunnel under the roadway that could be 200'-300'. It is not clear from the alignment plan whether or not there would be any other corridors under the roadway, such as a wildlife corridor. Also, the alignment doesn't show how required stormwater ponding would be handled. The County initially anticipated that the EIS would be out in the spring of 2004. However, I understand that the EIS now would be release until sometime in 2005. The EIS is important in learning what environmental impacts the roadway would have, but does not necessarily answer detailed design questions. On Wednesday, November 17, we met with Scott County staff to learn more about roadway and right-of-way acquisition. Since the EIS is not out yet, County staff asked us to submit all questions regarding the roadway and its impact to them in writing, and they will work with their consultant to respond. This should give us some information that we will need in the near future to determine the impact of CR21. We also discussed acquisition of the right-of-way for CR 21. County staff indicated that they would expect that residential development would contribute some of the right-of- way as has been done in the past, but understands that the County would need to contribute funding for the remainder. ~ PRAB Recommendation The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board discussed this concept at their October meeting. They recommended (with one dissent) that we proceed with exploring this option, but have a contingency plan for other possible land in the event this doesn't materialize. They also want to be sure that whatever parcel the city chooses meets the needs of the residents of Shakopee. REQUESTED ACTION The City Council is asked to discuss the merits of developing a portion of the property for residential use as a way to acquire other portions of the property, and whether or not this should be pursued further. If directed, we will continue to work on the funding sources and amounts. " '\J CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director Meeting Date: July 20, 2004 Subject: Park Land Acquisition INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to authorize staff, the chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and Councilor Lehman (liaison to the Advisory Board) to proceed with discussions for acquisition and development of funding options for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's priority land acquisition site, the Shutrop Property. BACKGROUND For the past several years, the city has been considering acquiring a significant parcel of land for use as a park. In 2001, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board considered acquisition of a parcel on the east side of O'Dowd, but recommended against it due to access and development issues. In April, the Advisory Board reviewed four parcels of land that had been identified previously for land acquisition (see Attachment A). Each of these parcels has the potential for a combination of passive and active recreational use, which was one of the conditions for an ideal park site. During May, I conducted several tours of the parcels so the Advisory Board could have a better understanding of the characteristics of each parcel. In June, the Advisory Board recommended that the Shutrop property along CR 16 be the city's priority land acquisition site, and that the city work with other potential partners to fulfill long-term park needs. The Environmental Advisory Committee also reviewed the sites at their June meeting and concurred with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendation, although noted that the wetland area is fairly monotypic. I have met with Norm and Jan Shutrop to discuss their interest in selling this parcel to the city and they appear to be willing to consider an offer, but our discussion has remained rather general. They did attend the June Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting when land acquisition was discussed, and they are aware that Council will be discussing it on July 20. DISCUSSION Parcel Description The Shutrop Parcel is a 103-acre parcel that is located north of CR 16 and bounded generally by Dean Lake and Southbridge open space to the north, CR 16 to the south, and undeveloped private property to the east and west. The parcel contains a mix of wetlands, wooded bluff line, and upland area. Portions of the parcel are still a working farm and contain a house and other farm structures. i - Development Potential Although the site is 103 acres, the topography and vegetation on the site appears to promote more passive than active uses. (It may be difficult to construct a sports complex on the site.) However, the natural characteristics make it ideal for passive uses including trails, picnicking, and experiencing nature. A strength of this site is the possibility of acquiring additional adjacent park land as development occurs to the east and west. On the east side, a wetland complex extends to CR 18. The city has acquired a four-acre park as. part of the. Riverside Fields development along this wetland complex, and could continue requiring park land as development moves toward the Shutrop property. Going west from the Shutrop property, there are two parcels along Dean Lake that extend up the bluff that could also be acquired some day through park dedication, if these parcels develop. Although acquisition could occur now, development of the property would probably not occur for 5-10 years. I have asked the Shutrops about their long-term plans, and they appear to be willing to remain on the property and take care of it until the city develops. it or their plans change. If they remained on the site, the city could lease the land and buildings back to the Shutrops. County Road 21 The most significant issue facing the Shutrop property is future CR 21. We met with Scott County earlier this year to discuss the impact that CR 21 would have on the Shutrop property. At that time, we were told that the draft EIS for CR 21 that would identify impacts to the property would be released sometime this spring. Last week we had a follow-up meeting with the County and were informed that the draft would not be out until this fall, and the EIS not complete until sometime in 2005. We were able to get a general idea of the initial CR 21 needs. At this time, it appears that the County will need to acquire approximately 11 acres for the road right-of,.way on this parcel. In order to fulfill their initial plans for wetland mitigation, they would need additional acreage on the property, but they are evaluating other options as part of the EIS. The County's tentative timeline would place acquisition for CR 21 beginning in 2006. If the city proceeded with acquisition now, the County would either need to come up with funding for their land now, or purchase it from the city in the future. Pike Lake Trail The city's transportation plan update that is underway will determine whether or not Pike Lake Trail needs to be connected to Southbridge Parkway. WSB will be providing a preliminary analysis of Pike Lake Trail later this summer. Partnerships Shakopee School District is seeking land for a future secondary school site. Superintendent McBroom has indicated that they will need 80-100 acres of developable land that could be served by utilities in 8-10 years. One of the potential weaknesses of the Shutrop property is the ability to construct active park amenities such as sports fields on the site. In order to address this weakness, the ! " Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that the city continue to work closely with the school district as they seek land to determine whether or not a partnership could be formed where the city would develop the sports fields for the land that the school district acquires. If we were able to work out an agreement, this would ensure that sports fields would be available within the next decade to meet the city's future needs. Finally, I was contacted by a consultant doing a park master plan for Prior Lake. According to the consultant, Prior Lake is seeking land for an adult sports complex and was wondering if Shakopee has similar needs. Since our needs appear to be more passive and youth oriented, it doesn't appear that a Prior Lake/Shakopee partnership is practical. FUTURE STEPS Development of Funding Options The 2005-2009 CIP that you will be reviewing on July 22 contains revisions for the 2004 CIP that provides up to $2,000,000 for land acquisition. There may need to be adjustments to this amount, as well as exploring creative funding options to acquire the Shutrop property. Part of the action being requested tonight is to authorize exploration of creative funding options. Evaluation of CR 21 Impact When the draft EIS is released for CR 21, it may be advisable to retain the services of a consultant to help the city evaluate the impact that CR 21 will have on the site and its ability to function as park land. Further information would be brought forward at that time. Appraisal At some point, the city will need to have an appraisal completed on the property. Council could authorize this now, or at a later time. Other Parcels Other parcels could also be considered if this parcel is found to be inadequate or too costly. REQUESTED ACTION City Council is asked to authorize staff, the chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and Councilor Lehman (liaison to the Advisory Board) to proceed with discussions for acquisition and development of funding options for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's priority land acquisition site, the Shutrop Property. Council is also asked to provide direction to staff on whether it would like to proceed with an appraisal of the property now, or at a later time. . u'A~~ Mark Themig . (., Attachment A CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director Meeting Date: June 28, 2004 Subject: Park Land Acquisition INTRODUCTION The Advisory Board is asked to discuss park land acquisition and potential partnerships, consider selecting a primary and secondary site for potential park land acquisition, and make a recommendation to City Council. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In April, the Advisory Board reviewed four potential sites for park land acquisition. Since that time, some of you were able to attend a tour of the four sites. Hopefully those of you that were not able to attend one of the tours were able to drive by the properties. land Value At the time we gathered the data on the four sites, all owners were willing to consider a sale of all or a portion of their land for park uses. However, it is likely that they all will be looking to be paid the current market rate for land. Recent land sales in the urban service area ranged as high as $157,000 for open farm land, but all of the properties being proposed are out of the urban service area and have wetlands as well as upland areas that would impact the value. Determining land value for any of the properties would likely involve an appraisal, but the following are recent land sales outside the urban service area for comparison: Location Total Acreaoe Purchase Price Date Per Acre Cost O'Dowd 43.3 $1,375,000 9/9/2003 $31,755 Lake/CR17* 2700 Marystown 10 $270,000 11/26/2002 $27,000 Road (CR15/CR78) McKenna 19.83 $508,904 6/21/2002 $25,663 Road/CR16 CR42/ CR83 38.97 $2,316,525 5/22/200 $59,444 (Southwest Corner) CR42/CR83 116.44 $5,400,000 5/12/2000 $46,552 (Northeast Corner) *Previously looked at for park land acquisition - , , Potential Partnerships If the Advisory Board was interested in partnering on land acquisition, it may allow for the acquisition of more land that could be used for multiple purposes. The School District has funds available for land acquisition and has indicated an interest in possibly working with the city. I spoke with Superintendent McBroom this week about their needs. They are looking at 80-100 acres that could be served by utilities within the next 7-10 years. I am meeting with Community Development Director Michael Leek and Superintendent McBroom on June 25 to discuss the timeline for future expansion of MUSA and will have more information for Monday's meeting. Another potential partner is the City of Prior Lake. On June 23 I received a phone call from Gregg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates who is doing a park master plan for Prior Lake. According to the message from Mr. Ingraham, it appears that Prior Lake may be looking for a partner in land acquisition and/or park development. Although I was not able to contact Mr. Ingraham or a staff person from Prior Lake prior to completing this report, I should have an update for you at the meeting on Monday. Funding The proposed 2004-2009 CIP has $2 million identified for land acquisition. Depending on.which property you prefer and whether or not you are interested in partnering, there could be potential to enhance the value of the $2 million. For example, in the case of the Shutrop property, development of other portions of their land and right of way acquisition for future CR21 could help fund acquisition of the 103 acres now. If we would partner with the School District, the land that would be developed for active park uses could be shared with the District. Other scenarios may exist in working with Prior Lake. REQUESTED ACTION The Advisory Board is asked to discuss park land acquisition, provide direction to staff, and make a recommendation to City Council. Items you should consider are: 1. Is there a priority and secondary site of the four proposed? 2. Are you interested in partnering with the School District, the City of Prior Lake, or both? 3. Do you have any other parcels that you would like us to pursue? . , '. CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director Mark J. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director Subject: Parkland Acquisition Meeting Date: April 26, 2004 INTRODUCTION On Monday, April 26, 2004, staff will conduct,a short presentation on four different properties that are available for sale to the City for parkland. Three of the properties are located in the City of Shakopee and one is located in Louisville Township. BACKGROUND In the late 1990s, land values in the urban serve areas of Shakopee began to skyrocket at about 20% p~ryear. By 2000, the cost of an acre of land in the urban service districts was selling for about $60,000. Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that future land acquisitions for parks be done in the rural areas of the community... The City Council agreed. This does not, however, include land that developers are required to dedicate for neighborhood parks. In the summer of 2001, a local realtor notified the City Council of 43 acres of land for sale on the east shores of Lake O'Dowd. The owner wanted $1.4 million for the land or $34,00 per acre. After six months of careful evaluation, the PRAB recommended against the purchase of the land. The only access to the property was through a residential neighborhood and much of the shoreline was very shallow and inaccessible. NEW POTENTIAL PARK SITES Last year, staff met with three landowners who indicated an interest in selling some or all of their property to the City. Of course, this is if the price is right. Two of the parcels are located in Shakopee and one in Louisville Township. . Richard Schmitz of Shakopee has 160 acres located at CR14 and CR79. . Benard Juerrissen has 118 acres located at CR42 and CR 17. . Dale and Betsy Theis have 50 acres on CR 15 and CR72. Each of these properties contains a mix of upland and wetland areas that could accommodate both active and passive uses. Also, we believe that most of the property owners would consider selling a portion of their property if the City was interested in the entire parcel. A forth site under consideration is a 100 acre area along the bluff by Dean Lake owned by the Shutrops. The site is located south of Dean Lake and Southbridge Development, north of County Road 16, east of County Road 83 and west of County Road 18. The property includes a large wooded area, open space areas for active play and a great vista of the Minnesota River Valley. The Scott County's proposed County Road 21 Project will split-off a portion of the property to the west. The new road will traverse through a large wetland area within the park. The County has a need to mitigate the wetland (2: 1 replacement) and has identified on-site mitigation as , , their preferred method. The County Road 21 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be available later this spring, which will help identify the road alignment and wetland issues. Finally, there is potential of acquiring property to the west along the bluff line and lakeshore as those parcels develop. See attached and Community Park Analysis, maps, and photographs for more details about each of these four properties. Finally, there are numerous other parcels that are further out in the rural areas that could be considered. At this point, we haven't extended much beyond the city boundary in identifying potential parcels, but certainly could. We also need to have further discussion with Louisville Township about a cooperative purchase. (Jackson Township already owns a 79 acre parcel on CR 15/CR 78 that serves as park land for township residents.) REQUESTED ACTION Staff has several questions for the PRAB to consider in its analysis of acquiring property for parkland. For example: 1. Is it preferable to acquire land within the current City boundaries or does it matter if the City acquires parkland in an adjacent township (Jackson or Louisville)? 2. Should the City collaborate with the townships to acquire land for parks? Jackson Township has about 80 acres of parkland and Louisville has none. Should the City work with Louisville first because it has no parks? 3. How much land should the City acquire? Should it acquire 40-50-60-80-90-100 acres or 200 acres? Should the City acquire land at two different sites of 50 acres or more or have it all in one location? 4. What natural characteristics or amenities do you value most in a community park? WaterlWetlands? Woods? Open space for wildlife? Flat topography for sports fields? Hills for sliding? Bluffs-Vistas? 5. To better understand how these properties would be developed, what sort of needs (activities) or priorities should be established? Trails, recreational paths? Sports facilities and fields? Open space and wildlife? Picnics? Nature Center? 6. Are the properties conducive to the needs and activities you desire in a community park? At this point, we aren't suggesting that we discuss land costs and funding issues until the Advisory Board's review of the CIP next month. By appointment, all four landowners are willing to allow park advisory board members to tour their property. The PRAB should advise staff if it would like to tour any of these properties, and if so, what date. . . SCHMITZ JEURISSEN THEIS SHUTROP ACREAGE 160 available acres 118 acres - back 40/50 50 acres 103 acres acres ROADS BORDERING CR14 & CR79 CR42&CR17 CR15 & CR72 (Behind CR 16 and the southeast LAND Marystown bar) side of Oean Lake) TOPOGRAPHY Rolling hills & wetlands Soft rolling hills wlwetlands Flat with some soft rolling Lakeshore, wetland, bluff, .. on the back 20 acres topo and upland WOODS Small woods on west side of Small woods on perimeter Some trees on the northeast Woods along bluff line and property or about 5 acres of farm fields or about 15 corner of the property. center of site. acres. OPEN AREA (Upland) 100 acres (62.5%) 85 acres (70%) 33 acres 66% is farm land 45 acres upland woods and farm; 12 acres bluff area ~ WATER Wetland covers 60 acres 5 acres of emergent/aquatic 10 acres (20%) 37 acres wetland with Prior (37.5%) -listed in the ONR's (5%) wetland and 30 acres emergent/aquatic wetland & Lake outlet chanel High Quality Wildlife (20%) of degraded wet 7 acres (14%) degraded wet Corridor Map prairie prairie DISTANCE FROM About one mile south from Adjacent to Oeerview Acres Five miles south of O'Oowd 1/2 mile from Southbridge NEAREST PARK O'Oowd Lake Park Park. (mostly wetlands) and Lake Park and Jackson MNOOT 75 parcel. 1/4 mile a half mile south from Township Town Hall Park from Riverside Fields park. Timber Trails Park EXISTING STRUCTURES Barn and old farmhouse Farm house and barn. None Farmhouse and buildings. (no occupancy) . ... . POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Trails, picnics, athletic fields Trails, picnics, athletic fields Trails, picnics, athletic fields Mixed passive and active (major grading), sliding hill, (some grading), sliding hill, (some grading), nature uses. Potential for continued nature activities, disc golf, nature activities, disc golf, activities, disc golf, acquisition of upland and community events community events community events bluff area to the west as development occurs. Schmitz Property CR 14/CR 79 ., . . a Jeurrissen Property C17/CR42 Theis Property CR is/East of Marystown . .. - ., Shutrop Property CR 16/South.east Shore of Dean Lake -~----- -~ --.--. ----- ~ ~ _..-..- -~ ~--- ~ --~- ---. ---, ( . H"Tl ~~~~~z9 ... 0 - "'- ...... co. o "' '" ..... );.... ~ .. '. m ..... ~ Iii 0 g g .: Z:Z~U:U:~ ~~~~~~ CO{)Ct- .... Iii. ~ f >.-g~ ::~ ~-~ %Eo~:i ~-8g;[o 0 :~:o2 :z o\.,.oc.B 0. :5 ofi.~cn " <>:: ~~-g!:5 I ~, 00 Q) >., '-- ().a:CD...O Ee:~]-; -g ~ &~ '5.2, t: "jj ~ ~'i:3:5 '" E in c5 oS :1 '" '" 11 ...... .. .~] ~ i 0- -4 ~lil ~ll~~ ~j oq:! ~g ~ OU] h~ 0::., ~~ ""'. ~... ~--= <Df .3 I ~l ~ Ii :~ o .. I;l ~1 ~~e ~~ ~ DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: TOTAL PLA TTEO AREA: XXXXX Sq.Ft. XXXX Ac. JOHN OLIVER & ASSOCIA TES, I PROPOSED RIGHT OF WA Y AREA 201 IIf"ST TRA VELERS TRAIL WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY: XXXXXX Sq.Ft. XXXX Ac. SUITE 200 EXISnNG WETLAND BURNSVlLLE, MN 55337 WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY: XXXXX Sq.Ft. XXXXX Ac. PHONE: (952) 894-3045 NUMBER OF UNI TS: 38 FAX: (952) 894__3049 >- I- GROSS DENSITY: XXXX Units/Ac. CONTACT: JOEL HUSSONG 0::: NET DENSiTY: XXXX Units/Ac. Wz GROSS DENSlTY= TOTAL UNITS / TOTAL ACREAGE 0...::;; NET DENSITY= TOTAL UNITS / (TOTAL ACREAGE - ROW - ~u.i .. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.' 30 Ft. o...Wa:: 0...0 0...0 lJ... o~ LEGEND l 0::::1: ZONING INFORMA TfON: I-U> t :::> ZONING CLASS: R-IA/P.U.D I ALLOWABLE DENSITY: 3 UNITS/ACRE PROPOSED EXISTING (f) FRONT YARD SETBACK: 35 Ft. REAR YARD SETBACK: 40 Ft. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SIDE YARD SETBA CK: IS Ft. Call 48 Hours before digging MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 80 IT ---~ PROPERTY LINE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH /60 FT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Street Width (Interior) 60' ROW CURB LINE Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002 SHEET NO. / RETAINING WALL MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 100' 200' 300' 1 OF , , I IN FEET / 1 - - . . @2004 John Oliver. &- Associates Inc. '--.- ~r-=. ---~ . -= ~ .,~. / , " "'. ____ '..........-.:/ 0""-'" (~-"-""""'---'''- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'y~. -,C'-.__~ '- . . . . . . . . . . . . \', '., / / " '-, \ --- -''\) I: \.'_j-- .. /' \ ' ~') Z . . . . . . . . . . . "- \ ~ j....~ 1'>1./ 0 . . . . . . . . . .... " .\ I \ ~ I ./ fi: c '~ ''I '-) , I 0: . . . . . . . . . / .J. . I . I, ~-.__/ I ~ ~-" . f (/, { . . . . . . . (:O~-:" . . . ::-:- / / ,-.-~ '. C . , . . . . . . . . . . '"'. '1 .Y . , "; I /~' . . . . . . . ./~./ . 'V' / ~. 'v ~, -( r~) i . . : I I '''-. '- . . . . . ..... ............ , /)' ,: ........>:>; i "'""\ . . . . . . ... .............. , --. . ':- l/ / ) '---- ---.. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. / \, ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( / '~- -~ .- -.-~ -- -..... C. \..,- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ I -', (~', ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! ' , \ I .",) , I- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ I, , I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /' 1:;0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ \ (--~-( ;-..... o::Z o . -" . -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; \~ i { -- ~nrr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i \ \ ~~~~~z~ I _ N_ . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . " 10. \ ~-. o '" '" . . . . /,'---, . . . . . - -- -- ~ - ~ . . . . ) / . . . . ~ ~ C ~ ~ ': ;