Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2009 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, September 17,2009 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Items: 1. REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Blvd. (The applicant has requested that this item be deferred indefinitely.) 2. REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of Taft Avenue. (45 day limitation period: October 9,2009) D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 3, 2009 E. Other F. Adjournment >>> Please note meeting time is 7:00 PM <<< Informal Formal November 16 November 19 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ09-00007 Stonebridge Estates, Part Ten GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: September 17, 2009 Arlington Development 1486 1st Avenue, Unit A Iowa City, IA 52240 Gary Watts 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52246 319-248-0533 Rezoning from ID-RS to RS-8 To allow development of small single-family lots Taft Avenue and Huntington Drive 7.91 acres Undeveloped (ID-RS) North:Single-family residential (County-R) South: Residential (RM-12) East: Agricultural (County-Ag) West: Undeveloped (OPD-5) Single-family residential Lower West Branch August 27,2009 October 9, 2009 Sanitary Sewer can be extended from neighboring Iowa City subdivisions on the west and south. The City will provide Police and Fire protection, and refuse and recycling collection services. The transit route Eastside Express serves the proposed subdivision with a stop along Ashford Place. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property is located east of the Stone Bridge Estates development. The applicant has indicated that it will be developed as Stone Bridge Estates, Part 10. The property is bounded on its west by the south branch of Ralston Creek and by Taft Avenue to its east. At this time Taft Avenue is an unimproved, chip seal road, however it is planned as a north-south arterial street, which will carry considerable truck traffic to and from the industrial park to the south. A single- family home is established on the property to the north. The applicant, Arlington Development, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). The requested RS-8 zoning will allow development of approximately 30 single-family lots, located along Taft Avenue and a northern extension of Huntington Drive. Thames Drive will provide access to Taft Avenue to the east and Stone Bridge Estates to the west. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighboring property owners. ANAL YSIS: Current Zoning: The ID-RS zone allows a minimum of one single-family dwelling unit per 5-acre lot. The property is zoned 10 because of lack of street access. With the development of Huntington Drive to the south and Thames Drive to the west residential street access will be provided from adjacent subdivisions. As noted below Taft Avenue will eventually be improved to provide arterial street access to this property. Proposed Zoning: The RS-8 zone allows the development of small-lot single family dwellings, but also allows flexibility for duplex development on corner lots that meet minimum lot area and width standards. However, lots in the proposed concept plan for this development do not meet the minimum standards for duplex development. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Northeast District Plan shows the area north of Thames Drive as appropriate for large-lot single-family housing. The plan considered large lots, with access provided along a rear alley running parallel to the creek. Large lots were proposed to allow space for a buffer to minimize noise and glare from traffic along Taft Avenue. South of Thames Drive the plan depicts lots served by a central alley with lots fronting on Taft Avenue and other lots fronting on a single-loaded street along the creek. Double-fronting lots were avoided in order to provide space for an appropriate buffer along Taft Avenue. Staff believes that smaller lots allowed by the proposed RS-8 zoning, may be appropriate if adequate space and a detailed plan for a landscape buffer are provided, and if there is an appropriate transition between the development and the single-family property to the north. Curving Huntington Drive to the west before it reaches the north property line will not only provide a better transition to the established single-family house, but will also provide opportunity for a single loaded street with any future development to the north. The Northeast District Plan also provides some guidance regarding the preservation of open space along the creek, stating "the plan depicts single-loaded streets adjacent to the Ralston Creek stream corridor to be open to the entire neighborhood, not just available to a small percentage of the residents whose private back yards might otherwise back onto the waterway." Compatibility with neighborhood. The neighborhood being developed on the west side of the creek consists of single-family housing, though on somewhat larger lots that are zoned Low Density Single-Family (RS-5). To the north is a single-family home on a large lot with County PCDlStaff Reportslrez09-00007stonebridge 10 .doc 3 residential zoning. Property to the south (Windsor Ridge, Part 21) is a Low Density Multi-family (RM-12) zone and is already developed. The proposed small-lot single-family development could provide an appropriate transition between the multi-family and large-lot single family developments. However, Staff believes there needs to be a better transition between the proposed development and the existing single-family property to the north. The concept plan shows Huntington Drive ending perpendicular with the north property line. If left as proposed, the location of Huntington Drive will be problematic in the future, as an extension to the road would be too close to the existing house. Staff suggests curving the road westward, such that a future extension would run closer to the creek providing the opportunity for a future extension to be single-loaded, looking onto a public open space associated with Part 8 of Stone Bridge Estates. This will open up views to the creek and the historic stone bridge. The Northeast District Plan depicts single-loaded streets adjacent to Ralston Creek. Curving Huntington to the west will also allow future subdivision of the large lot to the north. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property is adjacent to the South Branch of Ralston Creek. When the property is subdivided, the developer will need to provide a sensitive area site plan to address issues related to the presence of the stream and the requirement for a stream buffer. Access and street design: Access to the development will be provided along an extension of Huntington Drive, which connects to Windsor Ridge Part 21 to the south. Once it is constructed Thames Drive will provide additional access -Thames will connect west to Colchester Drive and east to Taft Avenue. Whether Thames Drive can be connected to Taft Avenue prior to the upgrading of Taft Avenue will depend on the grades of the roads. Section 15-3E-2K of the subdivision code states that "At the discretion of the City, subdivisions may be approved that access existing public streets that do not meet City standards, provided the subdivider contributes toward the future construction cost of brining the segment of the subject public street that abuts the subject property to City standards." As stated above, Taft Avenue is currently an unimproved chip seal road, but is planned as a future arterial street. Therefore the subdivider of Stone Bridge Part 10 will be subject to the arterial street costs (12.5% of total construction cost) at the time of final plat. This information must be included in the legal papers for the subdivision. Because the proposed lots are small, staff recommends that as a condition of the rezoning the applicant provide a detailed landscaping plan to buffer the development from the future arterial street, which will carry considerable truck traffic. An appropriate plan should include species and size of trees/shrubs. A good example of an appropriate buffer for Taft Avenue is established along the east property line of the single-family property to the north of the proposed development. Berms or a decorative masonry wall are other methods that could be used to help create a buffer. To provide for the future improvement of Taft Avenue, the applicant will be required to dedicate space for right-of-way and construction easements. Therefore, at the time of subdivision, staff will recommend that funds to create the landscape buffer be set aside by the developer prior to building permits being issued for the lots. The buffer will then be installed after the Taft Avenue is rebuilt. The current concept plan shows Huntington Drive curving to the east at a location just south of the intersection with Thames Drive. Staff would recommend that Huntington continue straight on its northerly track from lot 4 onward. This would provide those lots on the east side of Huntington more space to accommodate the buffer as well as usable back yard space. A PCDlStaff Reports Irez09-00007stonebridge 1 O.doc 4 minimum 40-foot building setback is required along Taft Avenue. Within this setback a 20-foot landscaped buffer is required. No fences are allowed in the 20-foot buffer area; this prohibition must be made explicit in the subdivision papers. The Subdivision Code requires double-fronting lots to be a minimum of 125% of the required lot area for the zone in which the lot is located. The additional required lot area is to be used to increase the depth of the lot between street frontages. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the development showing the minimum 40-foot setback and space for the minimum 20- foot landscape area. While the lots do meet the requirement of being 125% of the required minimum lot size of5,000 square feet for lots in the RS-8 zone, staff believes that the lots with frontage on Taft Avenue should be a minimum of 150 feet deep to provide for a substantial buffer, setback and usable back yard space. Staff believes that this greater buffer is warranted due to the proposed departure from the single-fronting lots shown in the Northeast District Plan and the anticipated level of truck traffic on Taft Avenue. Because lots on the west side of Huntington back up to the creek, where space is being reserved for a stream buffer and trail system, these lots will have a greater sense of depth and therefore shallower lots on the west side of the street should not be problematic. A proposed subdivision will need to provide a temporary emergency vehicle turn-around at the end of Huntington where it abuts the single-family property to the north. On the west side of the creek, Thames Drive will include an 8-foot sidewalk on the south side of the street to provide an adequate trail connection to the future creekside trail system. Staff will recommend that the 8-foot sidewalk be continued east to Taft Avenue as part of the subdivision. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of will be addressed at the time of subdivision. Fees in lieu of dedication would be appropriate given the lack of suitable open space on this property. Storm water management: The applicant will provide infrastructure to convey the storm water to the creek which carries the 1 OO-year storm run-off to the public storm water management facility-Scott Park Detention Areas on the south branch of the Ralston Creek. No separate storm water management facility on the property is required. Infrastructure fees: When this property is subdivided the applicant/owner will be required to pay tap on fees for water main water main extension at a rate of $395 per acre. No fees for sanitary sewer are required. As noted above, fees will also be collected for the improvement of Taft Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone, for property located on Huntington Drive, be deferred until the street layout is addressed and a detailed landscaping is provided for review by the commission. If the street layout and landscape plan for the buffer area are resolved, staff recommends approval of REZ09-00007 subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the following: 1. the developer is required to dedicated space along Taft Avenue for right-of-way and construction easements to allow the improvement of this roadway; 2. general conformance with the concept plan with regard to lot depths and street layout; and 3. substantial compliance with a landscaping plan for the buffer area. PCDlStaff Reports\rez09-00007stonebridge1 O.doc 5 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial View 3. Concept Plan Approved by: A~~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCDlStaff Reportslrez09-00007stonebridge1 O.doc '3^,,' .J..:fv'.J.. en a: I C I.t) C C. o ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj - _, JJIH ~~._... O...N..... ....-1 I .........Qj ~/ Nl.~06~dV6~80 -i (~. - I ~ & 31 VClOdCl08 ),,118 ,... Z o \ \ '( (' .' \~ \'''- .-.----'-, ,1 .CO 3:~ ~,o .JI W' :1<:, ffii alCI I'! r-.. o o o o I 0\ o N ~ ~ Q ~ o ... ~ .~ ~ =' =r: ~ aj < tt: ~ f-4 Z o ...... ~ U S ~ f-4 ...... en ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ c.J l'- o o o o I 0'\ o N ~ . 4-l o = o bJJ = O;j E ::c ~ . Q) < ~ ~ ~ .. Z o 1-4 ~ U o ~ ~ ~ 1-4 en I , I , ~_-'-_ D" " I~ --- I I / / J ~, / \ ,y -l \\ --- , y---- [,@'U' 1] @1i'@OOrg @~~@~ @ll!JOO[])OWO@O@OO 360,63' , I I 0, I I ---t --I U\\,\ ' \" ! i \,! i'i i i ... - 5-0' EVERGREEN TREES ..., (PlANlDl ON BERM) O - 1 11/2-2. DEelD TREES (PlANTED ON BERW) n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ . ~~ [ .2" 1 ~} ~ ...." 0.2" ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ [ ~ 0 !l- ~ ~ ~oo ~-: ~N .!t ~~ 2l "liS ~~~ rn ~ )>z)>:;!o en ('") -I :z o-mm z~cnCJ ('") '"tJ;;o o >- c ~o ~ -1(;) -< mm :z: (") o :z (") m "1J -I "1J S; :z f g ~~ l 61 a'~ ~ ~iD ~ :2(') en n::;: n n w.D5 ~ ~ w.:i! fIl ~ ~ ~ $~~ ~~~~ 1!i~~~ ~,.. CIl :0 "',.. m gj;:;l!2: '" ~~~ 10 ;;;Rl~ ~[;j~~~ ~~~ ~ ~*~ ~~fflEJ5~ IUI~~I MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Wally Plahutnik, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Cannon, Catherine Bryden RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Payne absent) to recommend approval of REZ09-00004, an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones using the language outlined in the staff memo dated August 2,2009. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Freerks announced that REZ09-00003 will be deferred and would not be discussed at the meeting. DISCUSSION OF MILLER ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Miklo announced that residents of the Miller Orchard neighborhood would be presenting a plan for the neighborhood to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Miklo said the plan was not something the Commission would be asked to vote on, but was being presented for informational purposes. Eastham asked if the plan would eventually go before City Council, and Miklo said that it would. Eastham asked if the plan would then become part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said that it would not. Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2009 - Formal Page 2 of 6 Mark Cannon, 706 Miller Avenue, a resident of the Miller Orchard neighborhood, said that the first thing the neighborhood needed to do was to thank the Commission profusely for understanding the needs of the neighborhood and for acting in its interests. Cannon said that the plan was the result of a year of work done by about 30 people from the neighborhood, City representatives, and University of Iowa Urban and Regional Planning students. Cannon said that the plan was needed because it seemed as though the neighborhood was always acting in response to intrusions; the plan is a way for the neighborhood to act proactively to shape their neighborhood. The general sense in the neighborhood, Cannon said, is that the neighborhood is on a very slippery slope and is possibly in decline. Canon said the neighborhood needs some out-of-the-box thinking. Cannon said the neighborhood identifies itself as Roosevelt School and the surrounding area, and that the loss of Roosevelt as an anchor to the neighborhood is very strongly felt. Cannon said that there are a large number of rental units in the neighborhood, with a number of properties owned by absentee landlords. Canon said he believes there has been an increase in crime in the neighborhood as well. Nonetheless, Cannon said that the fact that 30 neighborhood residents committed themselves to the creation of this plan demonstrates that the neighborhood is alive and well. Cannon said that he took a little bit of exception to the idea in the plan that advocacy through "badgering" was the best way to work on the neighborhood's behalf. He felt that there should be proactive attention from the City and its various departments to look at Miller Orchard as a neighborhood in need of assistance that should be identified for special attention and efforts. Catherine Bryden, said that she felt the Commission should be more concerned with some parts of the plan than others. She said that she felt like the Commission should focus on the parts of the plan dealing with housing rehabilitation and the retention of the current housing stock. She asked that the Commission keep this non-binding plan in mind as it considers rezoning items that come before it. Keeping housing in the area primarily single-family and affordable is a main goal of the neighborhood. She said there is a definite lack of such housing in Iowa City, especially close to downtown and close to campus (as Miller Orchard is). She said long-term viability was a concern for Miller Orchard residents, as was safety. She advocated addressing traffic safety issues by expanding sidewalk and trail networks. Investing in the commercial district is also a priority for the neighborhood. The closing of Roosevelt, she said, was a decision that was made hastily and without real community input. In light of that decision, the neighborhood has made the decision to become more proactive in general. The neighborhood wants to be actively involved in determining what is to become of the Roosevelt site, as they want to make sure the site continues to be a community asset. Cannon stated that the Miller Orchard neighborhood needs creative, innovative thinking if it is to avoid becoming another "needy" neighborhood in the city. Freerks noted that this was not a plan that would be voted on, and so there would be no public hearing on it. However, she invited any member of the public or the Commission who wished to comment on the plan to do so. Eastham commended the plans creators in working on the document with the University's Urban & Regional Planning Department, as it made for a document that presented very well. Eastham said he would like to note that there are a couple of very concrete ideas for improving the physical appearance of the area. Eastham said he felt that commercial development would certainly make the area more appealing for long-term residential living. Eastham asked Miklo if there was something that could be done in terms of zoning to improve the area's potential for commercial development. Miklo said most of the area is zoned CC-2, which allows for a wide variety of uses. Eastham said viable commercial space will be a draw for residents. Eastham said he would like to see both renting residents and owning residents work together to move the Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2009 - Formal Page 3 of 6 area forward and improve the overall neighborhood. Plahutnik said he would like to thank all those who worked on the document and for the presentation. Plahutnik said that the Miller Orchard neighborhood is sort of a microcosmic history of some of the failings of transportation in the United States. The river, the rail, and the road: all things that once were meant to help bring things together, now act more as barriers to the neighborhood. Plahutnik said that John Linder was a friend of his, but that even he would agree that no one would wish to walk over to his shop on a warm summer evening, sit down, and buy some tires. Plahutniksaid that one of the things he's always dreamt of was for the river running through Iowa City to be considered the city's biggest asset, rather than a dumping ground for unwanted industry. Plahutnik said that when the river finally becomes the showcase it was meant to be, Miller Orchard will then be one of the few neighborhoods with access to that showcase. Plahutnik said that he wants the neighborhood to hang in there, and that they should know that everyone currently on the Commission has the same type of vision for the Miller Orchard neighborhood that's reflected in the plan. Weitzel advised the residents of Miller Orchard not to get discouraged as they have a great foundation to build upon. Weitzel said that the fact that so many neighborhood residents were dedicated to the creation of this plan shows that there is great interest in the neighborhood. Weitzel said he would like to see the neighborhood highlight historic aspects. He acknowledged that there are challenges and that the road to change would be long, but encouraged residents to hang in there. Freerks note that the park has been a great benefit to the community, although it was several years in the making. Freerks said that there is a great need in the community for smaller single- family homes that are affordable. She said there is a great desire for that. She said there is a lot of potential there. Freerks said she was impressed to learn that the Miller Orchard neighborhood was the second neighborhood to establish a neighborhood association in Iowa City. Freerks said that the long-term, active involvement of residents that is talked about in the plan is something she agrees is critical to the neighborhood. She said that renters can be actively involved, though she understands the neighborhood's desire for a balance between owner-occupied homes and rental units. Freerks said that they should continue to update the document as needed, and said that while it is annoying to have to e-mail and make phone calls, it does sometimes work. Freerks said she thinks the goals outlined are attainable. She said the Roosevelt closure is unfortunate in her mind, but that she hopes the neighborhood will be good stewards of the parcel on which it sits. She asked Miklo what the status of the parcel was and what it is identified for in long-term plans. Miklo said that as long as the school district owns it and uses it for district purposes, then there is not a lot the City can do to influence its use. If the property is sold on the open market, the City will then need to make a zoning determination, which the Commission would have some influence over. Koppes asked what would happen if it was sold to the University. Miklo said it would then be zoned Public (P2), which is a zoning designation for properties owned by the State and Federal governments. Freerks said she was impressed with the document and thanked the residents for sharing it. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation period for this item has been waived. Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2009 - Formal Page 4 of 6 Freerks stated that the applicant has requested that the item be deferred to the September 1 th meeting. Eastham announced that he has a conflict with this item and would not be participating in its consideration. Miklo said that the applicant has had some discussions with the neighboring homeowners association about a drainage easement over their property. No agreement has been reached on that, Miklo said, and so the deferral was requested. Miklo noted that there is a letter from the neighboring property owner in the packet of each Commissioner. Miklo said Staff recommends deferral. Freerks asked if there was a point at which a more long-term deferral was in order. Miklo said that if it needed to be deferred beyond the next meeting he would recommend an indefinite deferral so that the public did not have to keep following the matter. He said that when it did make it back on the agenda after an indefinite deferral, notice would be re-sent and postings would be done again. Weitzel moved to defer REZ09-00003 until the September 17th meeting. Koppes seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (Eastham abstaining; Payne absent). REZ09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones. Miklo said that this item had been on the last meeting's agenda and that a recommendation to Council had been voted on, but some of the discussions had made Staff think more about how electrical service to these sites was handled. After looking at it, Miklo said, Staff thought it might be appropriate to put in a reminder or "tickler" into the code so that the Board of Adjustment would be authorized to specifically address that issue. As a result, Staff is recommending changing the previous language. Miklo said that the Council is not meeting until September 15th, so making this change to the language will not slow down the process for the overall change. Miklo said that previous discussions had come upon the question of where cell phone towers were currently allowed. Miklo shared a graphic that showed the industrial zones, areas where cell phone towers are allowed by right with just a building permit. Commercial zones were also outlined. In commercial zones, cell phones can be allowed by a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. In public zones, cell phone towers can also be allowed by special exception, although very few have been granted. Interim development zones will allow cell phone towers by special exception if the amendment is adopted by City Council. Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the zoning code allowing Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2009 - Formal Page 5 of6 communication towers in interim development residential zones as presented in the staff memo. Plahutnik seconded. Plahutnik said that he was against the original amendment to allow cell towers in Interim Development Residential zones, but that he appreciates the more stringent language. Freerks said she felt the changes helped to clarify things. Weitzel said that there are parts of the code that specifically protect certain areas from cell phone towers being built there. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Payne absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 20. 2009: Koppes motioned to approve the minutes. Busard seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Payne absent). OTHER: Miklo asked Commissioners to put on their radars a meeting on November 12th or13th. Miklo said that as part of the Central District Plan a broad vision was created for redeveloping the riverfront corridor. Iowa City has been chosen to participate in a program funded by the federal EPA and the Rebuild Iowa Office. The program funds consulting firms to come in and help devise a more detailed plan to carry out that redevelopment vision. Those consultants will be holding a workshop on November 12th, and potentially the 13th. Miklo asked Commissioners to think about attending. ADJOURNMENT: Busard motioned to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Payne absent) vote at 7:40 p.m. Z o tn ~ :Ec :EO::: 00 00 C)~ ~W~ ZOo OZo N<(N CC ZZ <(W C)t- Zt- -<( Z Z <( ...J 0.. M W - - >< >< >< >< 0 >< >< en 0 N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - CO CD - >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - ,... CO W - >< - >< >< >< >< >< - 0 CD - W W N - >< >< >< >< - >< in 0 0 ,... >< >< W >< >< >< >< in - 0 CD W - >< >< >< >< >< - >< ~ 0 N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ 10 >< >< >< >< >< W >< - - M 0 10 >< >< >< >< W >< >< - - N 0 10 W - >< >< >< - >< >< >< - 0 - U) W :E~ ..- ..- ('I) C\I 0 0 ('I) 0::0.. ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- W>< - - - - - - - LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ::I: >- - I- W ..J <C ..J W ~ 0:: ED ..J ..J ::I: <C z ~ ..J ~ W U) ::I: Z ::I: :E 0 0 <C ~ ~ ~ i= ~ W ci :E en :E z ...r <C ~ U) u.i I- W 0:: ::I: 0:: W ~ ~ W <C I- W 0.. Z ::I: :E U) U) W 0.. ~ <C jjj <C ~ <C 0:: 0 ..J Z ED W u. ~ 0.. 0.. ~ C) z i= W W :E ..J <C :E 0:: o u. M W - >< >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 ,... Q M >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - M N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - M N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - N N W W W - - >< >< - >< >< - - 0 0 0 - U) W :E~ ..- ..- ('I) C\I 0 0 ('I) 0::0.. ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- W>< - - - - - - - LO LO LO LO LO LO LO I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ::I: >- I- <C ~ W W ..J ~ 0:: ED ..J ..J ::I: <C z <C ..J ~ W U) ::I: Z N ::I: :E 0 0 <C ~ ~ ~ i= ~ W ci :E en en :E z ...r <C ~ u.i I- W 0:: ::I: 0:: W ~ ~ W <C I- W 0.. Z ::I: :E U) U) W 0.. ~ <C jjj <C ~ <C 0:: 0 ..J Z ED W u. ~ 0.. 0.. ~ C) z i= W W :E ..J <C :E 0:: o u. Z E :J .... o :J "00 Q) 0 (/)z .... :J -. Q) u Ol.o Jj.5 E ~Q)Q) c+-,cQ)::E Q) ffi ~ E ctl ~(/).o<(OO .....0 Zz 0..<( II II II II UJ II -.::E ><OOZ ;;..: UJ ~