Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Comp Amend Deerfield MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2003 9A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER OF APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 4.25 ACRES OF THE DEERFIELD AREA (Case File #03.11) Introduction: Deerfield Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a portion of the 60.1 acres of vacant property located east of Fish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street. The proposal includes the following amendments to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations: . Change 4.25 acres from R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R- HO (High Density Residential) . Change 6.14 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to C-CC (General Business) . Change 13.35 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to I-PI (Planned Industrial) The remainder of the site will continue to be designated C-BO (Business Office Park). Backaround: On March 17,2003, the City Council reviewed the proposed amendments. The Council approved the amendments for the 6.14 acres and the 13.35 acres. At the same time, the City Council continued consideration of the proposed amendment to the 4.25 acres in order to obtain additional information from the staff. The information specifically requested by the City Council included: . Information from the Housing Market Demand Analysis for Scott County, Minnesota, prepared by Maxfield Research, Inc. in July, 2002. . The number of building permits issued for single family, townhouses and multifamily dwellings issued in the last 2 years. . The types of multifamily units (senior, market rate, etc.) The City Council also requested additional information from the developer. This included: 1:\03 files\03 comp amend\deerfield industrial p'ark\cc report2.doc P~j 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax \tH~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . Clarification about whether the proposed multifamily building would be rental units or owner-occupied units; although the Council indicated the answer to this question would not, nor can it, be a factor in evaluating the application for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Current Circumstances: Table 1, from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, lists the number of multifamily units in the City as of June, 1995. Table 1 Year . Total NarneofDevelopment Location Built No.. Units Unnamed 16211 Birch Avenue 1961 4 Unnamed 14151 Gravlinq Circle 1969 4 Unnamed 5114 Memorial Trail 1969 6 Parkwood Apartments 5160 160th Street 1971 32 Brooksville Apartments 16829 Toronto Avenue 1975 36 Tower Apartments 4671 Tower Street 1976 51 Highwood Townhomes 4716 Tower Street SE 1980 36 4-Plex 16536 Franklin Trail 1980 4 Prior Manor 16049 Franklin Trail 1981 40 Priorwood 16635 Five Hawks Avenue 1984 48 Unnamed 16554 Franklin Avenue South 1984 4 Unnamed 16556 Franklin Avenue South 1984 4 Hearthwood Apartments 16516 Franklin Trail 1986 24 Tower Hill Apartment East 4680 Tower Street 1986 68 Kestrel Village Apartments 16650, 16704, 16,724, 16720 1995 48 Brunswick Ave. Unnamed 4818 Bluff Heiqhts Trail 1995 3 aINl.Irl1berofU nits 412 *Note that this is not a complete listing of all multiple family units. In 1995, when this survey was completed, the vacancy rate for apartment buildings was 4.4 percent. According to the Maxfield Research study, a 1999 survey of 280 apartment units in Prior Lake found a 1.4% vacancy rate. In 2002, the Maxfield Research study found a vacancy rate of 3.9% for the same units. The majority of development in the City of Prior Lake in the last several years has been for single family dwellings. Traditionally, this development was primarily detached single family homes. Since 2000, the construction of attached single family dwellings, or townhouses, has significantly increased, to the point where building permits for attached single family dwellings exceeded the number of permits for detached single family dwellings in both 2001 and 2002. The construction of multifamily dwelling units also increased dramatically in the last two years, due primarily to the construction of 5 major projects. These projects included Creekside Estates (a 24-unit building and a 54-unit building), Stonegate Apartments (43 units), Keystone Communities (107 units), Lakefront Plaza (80 1:\03 files\03 comp amend\deerfield industrial park\cc report2.doc Page 2 units) and Bluff Heights apartments (49 units). Prior to 2000, the City issued very few permits for multifamily dwellings. Table 2 identifies the number of building permits issued from 1998 to 2002. Table 3 lists the number and types of multifamily units built since 1998. Table 2 UNIT TYPE 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 Detached Single Family 220 172 190 174 157 Attached Single Family 303 216 85 69 50 (Townhouses) Multifamily 290 67 0 4 4 TOTALS 813 455 275 247 211 Table 3 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 Senior Rental 161 0 0 0 0 Senior Owner Occupied 80 24 0 0 0 Market Rental 49 43 0 0 0 Owner Occupied 0 0 0 4 4 Although there was a substantial increase in new multifamily unit construction in the last 2 years, more than 72% of those units were built to meet senior housing demands. There were 2 market rate, general occupancy buildings constructed since 2001 (Stonegate and Bluff Heights). The Stonegate Apartments were completed in 2002, and it has already been decided to convert these units to condominium ownership. Bluff Heights apartments are still under construction. The developer, in a phone conversation with the City Manager, indicated that they would like to retain the flexibility of rental or owner-occupied units for various reasons - primarily related to financing. The Issues: The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which are applicable to the request for the R-HD designation are as follows: GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of suitable housing in a desirable environment. OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality housing. OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality residential environments. OBJECTIVE No.3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents. 1:\03 files\03 comp amend\deerfield industrial park\cc report2.doc Page 3 The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site. However, this area was the subject of a great deal of discussion during the original request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in 1997, and again in 1999. At that time, both the Planning Commission and the City Council determined the area should be designated as R- L/MD. There has been no significant change of circumstances in this area. There is no other land designated for R-HD within this area. Also, in light of the recent adjacent development at low to medium residential densities, the R-HD designation is inconsistent with the adjacent development. It must be noted that there are no services adjacent to this site. Development of this property will require the extension of Adelmann Street to the south and extension of sewer and water. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) may also be required for the development of the site. The need for an EAW would be triggered by the potential amount of floor area of industrial uses permitted on the property. This would be determined with a preliminary plat application. Conclusion: The proposed R-HD designation is inconsistent with the surrounding development of the property. There has been no change that would justify an amendment to the R-HD designation. The Planning Commission and staff therefore recommend denial of the proposed R-HD designation. FISCAL IMPACT: Budaet Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this request. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan as requested. This action requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council. In this case staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings of fact. 2. Find the Comprehensive Plan amendment inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and deny the request and adopt the attached resolution denying the proposed amendment to the R-HD. 3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The staff recommends Alternative #2. The following motion is required: 1. A motion and second adopt a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to desig te the 4.25 acres as High Density Residential (R-HD) is requi d. REVIEWED BY: 1:\03 files\03 comp amend\deerfield industrial park\cc report2.doc Page 4 RESOLUTION 03-XX RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 12, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 22 MOTION BY: SECOND BY: REelT ALS WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake received an application for an amendment to the City of Prior Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the R-UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation for the property legally described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and westerly of Registered Land Survey No. 98, Files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota, and which lies northerly and westerly of Registered Land Survey No. 128, files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota, and which lies easterly of DEERFIELD, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Outlot C, said DEERFIELD; thence South 00 degrees 54 minutes 33 seconds East, along the east line of said Outlot C, a distance of 324.27 feet; thence South 32 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, along the east line of Outlots C and 0, said DEERFIELD, a distance of 182.57 feet; thence North 89 degrees 05 minutes 27 seconds East, along the north line of said Outlot D, a distance of 23.48 feet; thence North 70 degrees 46 minutes 58 seconds East, along the North line of said Outlot D, a distance of 346.13 feet to the northeast corner of said Outlot D; thence North 39 degrees 01 minutes 11 seconds East, a distance of 133.46 feet; thence northerly 288.99 feet, along a nontangential curve to the right, having a radius of 290.16 feet, a central angle of 57 degrees 03 minutes 53 seconds, a chord length of 277.20 feet and a chord bearing of North 22 degrees 26 minutes 52 seconds West, to the north line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 27 minutes 21 seconds West, along said north line, a distance of 374.84 feet to the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 57.51 feet to the point of beginning. and WHEREAS, Legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2003, for those interested in this request to present their views; and 1:\03 files\03 com~ amend\deerfield industrial park\deny res.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WHEREAS, On March 17, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of the above described property to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation and; WHEREAS, On March 17,2003, the City Council continued discussion on the proposed amendment to allow staff and the developer to provide further information; and WHEREAS, On April 7, 2003, the City Council considered the proposed amendment and the information requested by the Council at the previous meeting; and WHEREAS, The City Council received the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and other information; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that: 1. The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above. 2. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: (a) The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the Comprehensive Plan designation is in error and that a change is justified. (b) The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the current Comprehensive Plan designation of R- UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) is inappropriate and that it should be changed. (c) The proposed designation is inconsistent with the existing low to medium density residential development of the surrounding area. (d) There has not been a material change in the area or conditions affecting the site since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1999. 3. The proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied. Passed and adopted this 7th day of April, 2003. YES NO Haugen Haugen Blomberg Blomberg LeMair LeMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 1:\03 files\03 comp amend\deerfield industrial park\deny res.doc Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 10,2003 1. Call to Order: Commi . ner Criego called the March 10, 2003, Planning Co . ion meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. hose present were Commissioners Atwood, Crie , Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Co 'ty Development Director Don Rye, PI ng Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistan ity Engineer Larry Poppler and Reco mg Secretary Connie Carlson. Commissioner Stamson arrived Present Present Present Present Absent 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Min The Minutes from th ission meeting were approved as presented. 5. 4. None C issioner Criego read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. * A. File #03-11 Deerfield Development is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on 4.25 acres from R-L/MD to R- HD, 6.14 acres from C-BO to C-HG, and 13.35 acres from C-BO to I-PIon property located east of the Deerfield development and south ofCSAH 21. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 10,2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Deerfield Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a portion of the 60.1 acres of vacant property located east ofFish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street. The proposal includes the following amendments to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations: L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN031003.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 2003 . Change 4.25 acres from R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-HD (High Density Residential) . Change 6.14 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to C-CC (General Business) . Change 13.35 acres from C-BO (Business Office Park) to I-PI (Planned Industrial) The remainder ofthe site will continue to be designated C-BO (Business Office Park). This property is the easterly portion of the 260 acres ofland, which was annexed by order ofthe Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997. In September of 1997, the owner submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include this land within the MUSA, and to designate the easterly 58 acres for Planned Industrial Uses, 140 acres to the R-HD designation and 62 acres to the R-L/MD designation. On October 6, 1997, the Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan including the entire area within the MUSA. The City Council also approved an amendment to the Land Use Plan designating the 58 acres for Business Park uses, and the remaining acreage for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. The applicant is proposing to develop the Deerfield industrial area in stages. An apartment complex is proposed for the approximately 4.25 acres ofland located on the east side of the Deerfield development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street. The applicant has not identified any specific uses for the remaining area. There are no services adjacent to this site. Development of this property will require the extension of Adelmann Street to the south and extension of sewer and water. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) may also be required for the development of the site. The need for an EA W would be triggered by the potential amount of floor area of industrial uses permitted on the property. This would be determined with a preliminary plat application. The Planning staff recommended approval in part and denial in part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposed R-HD designation is inconsistent with the surrounding development ofthe property. There has been no change that would justify an amendment to the R-HD designation. The staff therefore recommended denial ofthe proposed R-HD designation. The staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the C-CC and I-PI designations. These designations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and are not significantly different from the current C-BO designation. Questions from the Commissioners: Atwood questioned staff on the access to the 4 acres. Kansier said it would depend on what was developed; most likely the access will be through Adelmann Street or through a private cul-de-sac with an easement near the site. It would be more appropriate though Adelmann Street. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN031003.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 2003 Comments from the Public: Harold Jesh, 2055 High Court, Sauk Rapids, spoke on behalf of the property owners. Jesh pointed out the accesses and zone designations. The owners felt there is interest in high density. The proposed housing development would be condo units which would be consistent with the surrounding areas. No building would occur until ample demand is evidenced and then construction would be done in phases. Jesh indicated there would be a housing demand from the business office and industrial park employees. An extension is needed from Adelmann Street for services. Jesh said their proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives. Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court Avenue, adjacent to the proposed development, felt the housing designation should be consistent with the surrounding R-2 area. D.R. Horton told him when he built that this proposed area would never be built on. He hates to see the trees removed. Doesn't see this proposal as bad as the former proposal. Criego asked Kansier to explain the differences between the business office; planned industrial and general business designations. Kansier responded. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Visited the site, read the staff report and heard the developer's perspective but agreed with everything in the staff report. The consistency of the neighboring housing needs to be preserved. . This has been the subject of debates at least twice in the last six years, it's not new. . Recommend denial of the R-HD designation and approve the C-CC and I-PI designations. Lemke: . Asked staffwhy condos could not be built with an R-2 designation. Kansier explained the differences with the density and types of permitted buildings. . Questioned if the line of trees could stay as a buffer. Kansier said it could. . Initially was inclined to agree given the history of the property, but after listening to the developer, condominiums might not be appropriate next to the existing designation. . Supports the C-CC and I-IF designation. Stamson: . This is appropriate as far as commercial designation. The City needs more of a varied commercial base. This does a good job laying out that piece of property. . The high density in the center of an industrial park does not fit. Makes more sense to make the area C-5 rather than high density. . Agreed with the developer the City could use some more high density but not comfortable with the odd site. It's not laid out right - comfortable with it in this L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN031003.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 10. 2003 part of town. It's a donut in the middle ofa commercial area. Hard time seeing this site as residential. Atwood: . Felt this was inconsistent for high density. Disagreed with Stamson that the City needs more high density at this time. Not in favor. . Has reservations based on the staff report with the center area acreage not being discussed. It has not been identified nor the purpose. Hesitant, but not against the change for the industrial and business park. It would be helpful to know the intentions of the adjacent area. . Questioned condos versus apartments. With all the density talk, felt the envelope is being pushed. Kansier explained the types of use. Ownership doesn't matter to the City and explained the use and gave examples of multi-family developments. Criego: . Agreed with staffs recommendation. The Commission has addressed the high density on the 4.25 acres before. The Commissioners concluded leaving it the way it is was best. Not appropriate. . Would like to see the same type of development that is currently west ofthe proposal. . Does not have a problem changing the designations from business office to general purpose or planned industrial. It gives the developer flexibility. Harold Jesh questioned ifthe 4.25 acre is not acceptable to the Planning Commission, would the Planning Commission consent to another location and extend the C-5 to that parcel under discussion. Open Discussion: Criego commented that Deerfield had a large buffer between what is suppose to be C-5 and the current housing. That same buffer separates any commercial activity from residential. It just so happens there is no other buffer. Would not want to see commercial property that close to the residential area. He could see a continuation of medium density, but not commercial or high density: Stamson disagreed with the commercial area being too close. There's a tree line between the properties. There is as much buffer with the homes and the new Norex building. It could go either way. Could easily be C-5. Ringstad questioned the procedure - if the Commissioners accepted any other change other than what was presented tonight, it would have to be republished for another public hearing. Kansier agreed. Atwood felt the tree line isn't much but it is a good buffer between the Keyland building but could favor it under the condition it (buffer) would stay. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN031003.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting March J 0, 2003 Stamson said the unique thing with Keyland is that it existed before the residential area. There would have to be a fairly good buffer. Rye stated ifKeyland were built today, it would have to be another 50 feet away from the property and would have more landscaping. There is a buffer yard requirement and greater setback when the designations are different between residential properties. J esh said at the December meeting there were more residents against the proposal. Tonight there is only one who indicated if the tree line remains and the proposal are condos, he wouldn't be in that much of an opposition. Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, agreed as long as the tree line remains and the rental and condos are not more than four stories over the trees. Basically like an apartment renamed. He would like to see a similar townhome development like the surrounding area and is against the high density. Atwood pointed out the condo's proposed are not the same as the existing townhomes. Criego restated Jesh's question, and said ifhe wanted to move the high density the developer will have to come forward with a new proposal and hearing. Kansier stated if the Commissioners wanted to consider that type of proposal they could table the proposal and republish to go through the hearing again. Or, vote on what has been proposed and send on to the City Council. J esh asked for a vote this evening. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE C-CC AND I-PI DESIGNATIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on April 7, 2003. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN031003.doc 5 Deerfield Property Location Map (.'/'<':~,;;;; I/'j>,~~:~, ~ //~//~,~~,::<::::,~""" ~/--~ ..~ ."'" ... ',", ... L l! /, /).j;".. .'~:~~;l ~ / .'. ",< ?/'" ' I // '.,<:: / "::=~x~>, "",-"".~ ~" "'. 'l~~ 'lo~ w o ~ ~ ~ --7 600 I o 600 1200 Feet I N + ~ z w :E c z w :E <( z <( -J a. w > en z. w %: w a: Q. :E o o c w en o a.. o IX a. ~ _-=- -I--L I _~:L-=:-- iil /.~ / ",:-~ - ,,,. I / .::::-' / . I i!f I /< ..:.....~~;// I ...~.. '_'.~.' I jP I ..:.". I ,,' I I / ...~.,... / I......" . I .~::-' ~ '... I J I-. / ...... / I ...~.:...I / ';';:"v .:; I .~.. 'n..n .... I /:/ / 1...t'l- I.,', I I/?'I 1)'/1 I .?'I I " , " ~: ~ ", ~n \:~ " '.' '. " I I I I' I "- I I .,' " . ' ,:1: " , I:~: ," ." t.. ~ :.. ~ .:,. - z J~t,tili I:d i~l! lil/.lii! ~ ." '~t" ~ ':' ~iJr ~ jf!~!!tf' I: j,-d.~) ~ r;l !~~U~ ~ lj!~~;.i~f :! ItS',- U ~.~~~f.ti '.5~.' ~,~ ~~Al~i}~l h;! II! !ill .! , .j AI 11 .. .. !' ~d ,t< li~ I:l il rl' ~ ,U ! ~ j~ j --~i \ i -;: .I~'1; '~:/" t\ :,;.~ ".:-c~L ~ r- co w W- iJ' \ ,J .,'::J ~ ,",:, , "-- ':: : l U-~ . \ t'L . .: ,,' .... ~ I., ;, .OO'l99 M.'Z.".DS f-. ..................... : .~ l __.h..... _... .._....-.... ..- ..... ..- .... ..-'- .' ... ", f.. ::~ ~ I C,)... f.. '.: . ' .-. =:: ..... -. "...- -- ---':':::":.:~... ,'''' ,'" ,/'C::-':': ~ ____,I - /' , . , ._n ....: ..'" "';~ -;:. j:.~.::~>f::" : ...... \ ...-".- \ ,.....-... , " (......:.....::~::::n... \, ( ,'. . /, ,: ... \ \ ',", ',' .' //" " /~..:\~.\ ,\(.,i.~.....,..:.~,.\...~; ":.\. \.,;t~~\,' _~;:' _ _":::::' ... ' /I! ...i.,'" ,f _ \(,l,J ......... \ ,_._..--::>>~~::.:~~j' , , , , \ , , Deerfield Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment Q) > .- en c: Q) ..c Q) ~ c. E o () Q) ~ a:s ...J L- e -- L- a.. \f- e ~ ....., -- () Q) c: en CO :::::>0: "'C c: CO ....J I!]>: U) ~ i i~~ ~ IS ::> ~ tg~ ~~! !J -g E~ -l8 ea~ lea!- ~ I ~.~ uf ig; ~ 8 u1_ ~~ j ~ 'Oi~:2~ '8:'8:Gi~8 ~ uO/liQ' a>~.iil~.c o1!oc~ lc:s: ~ J ij 0.2' ~ (/)~ Gl'fij 31 1"tJ .Q~ w c...J:I: 1: 0_ Gl Gl liu c: _cc C5iii'ii~1i.!: c j;!Gl.,l. 0 O)UIUIUIU ii -_~~U) Iii .-.cGlC '0 I ~ !L~ 1 d! ~ ~ r dl 11 li: a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JODI J 11111111 i 1011 o o o N -.::t ..... .... a> .0 E a> c.. a> CI) '" z~oo C) c -- c o N CD ~ CO .....I L- a -- L- 0... \f.- a ~ I · -- o c.. co ~ 12 n;_ c '" .. -2l - Iii C iij 'e ~~i~~~lll c~-a::B!5~Ill~ _ .Qllllllz.lll()"iii~ .~ .!!!a::a::'iiia::~".- ~ln .2: ECZ. m~'-..:l ~u~"m~ z.m~~u _~ <:.0 ~.- 0 C .- m C .... ~~m~EmB5~~llli ~~ .g1i!O~~':!~~~'~~'~~ >!~ Ql"~O .!2'm82tm!lm mo <{a::.......... :I:Z cnCJmCJu:;: O::l o ,wcn~ cn~N"'"'f~N"''t1O :EO~ <l;d:d:d:d:a::OOO()u::!:(/)d:.J .OOI..O......O~~ c: o +i ~ o ...J ~ z.~ ~ +-' I:: Q) EN ~o coo a.N Q) - OM N 0)>. .~ co 1:::::2: I:: co a..