Loading...
GINKEL CONSTRUCTION . ( l April 22, 1983 Case No: 83-13 Applicant: Ginkel Construction Inc. Location: N & S of Hiawatha Avenue, West of existing apartments Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct 101 unit, two building, apartment complex. STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Norris - Kerrigan 1. Applicent is proposing to construct one 75 unit and one 26 unit (Building A on the north site, Building B on the south site) structure on Hiawatha Avenue. The property is presently vacant, zoned R-4, and the northeastern corner of the lot is located in the Minnehaha Creek Flood Plain. Applicant has received pennit approval for eanstruction of this project from the Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District. 2. According to Ordinance 427.31 the minimum lot size is 20,000 sq. ft.; the north site has 128,425 sq. ft. and the south site has 35,750 sq. ft. 3. The density requirement is 1600 sq. ft. per family unit; however, there is a 300 sq. ft. credit per unit for each space of underground parking supplied. Using this credit for the south site, both proposed structures meet the density requirement. 4. Required parking in an R-4 distriet is 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The north building needs 113 parking spaces. 113 spaces(3 handicapped) are provided; 67 spaces are to be surface parking and 46 spaces are to be under- ground. The south building is required to have 39 parking spaces. The plans show 16 spaces (1 handi~apped) to be surface parking and the remaining 23 to be located in the underground garage. 5. The building on the north site is proposed to be 4 stores, permissible in an R-4 district. Proposed are 75 units; 16 efficiencies, 43 - one bedroom units (including 3 handicapped equipped units), and 16 - two bedroom units. Efficiencies have 540 sq. ft. of floor area, one bedrooms have 762 sq. ft., and two bedrooms have from 945 sq. ft. to 1050 sq. ft. in accordance with 427.31. The building on the south site is to be three stories with 26 units. The breakdown of these units is 3 effieiencies, 13 - one bedroom units (including 1 handicapped equipped unit), 9 - two bedroom units and 1 - three bedroom unit. The efficiencies have 712 sq. ft., the one bedrooms range from 712 sq. ft. to 825 sq. ft., the two bedroom units have from 945 sq. ft. to 1095 sq. ft., and the three bedroom unit has 1425 sq. ft.; all units in accordance with Ordinance 427.31. 6. The north building has the following yard requirements: front - 30 feet, side - 24 feet, rear - 25 feet. The plan shows a front yard of 35 feet, si~e yards of 25 or more feet, and a rear yard of 150 feet. The south building requires a front yard to be 30 feet, side yards to be 15 feet, and the rear yard to be 25 feet. The plans show the front yard to be 30 feet, side yards to be 15 feet or more, and the rear yard to be 30 feet. Both buildings comply with Ordinance 427.31. 7. According to the Zoning Ordinance there is a maximum building coverage of 30%. The north site has building coverage of 13% and the south site has building coverage of 24%. . ( c Case No: 83-13 Page 2 8. The landscape plan shows various trees to be scattered along the perimeters of both lots with some shrubbery to be placed along the front and sides of both buildings. The remaining yard area is to be sodded. The north building is to have a facade of brick and stucco and the south building is to have a facade of brick and wood. 9. The garbage containers are to be located in the underground garages in both buildings. 10. Access to the north building is from Hiawatha Avenue. Access to the south build~ ing is from both Lake Street N.E. and Hiawatha Avenue. Applicant has stated that the majority of the traffic is expected to use Lake Street for access. 11. Utilities for both buildings are from Hiawatha Avenue. 12. In May 1982, applicant presented the plan to the Zoning and Planning Commission for Concept Review. . ( ) ... ./ -- / / 01 . I g L ~ - . ~ t .> I T- - ~ m'" ~ c:)C O. ;:iii " o ~ 0 Z i ~ '" "" ~ g :z: ~ -- '\ ~ .-/ , m / / m ./ (J) "- ../--" . I ,- / / (l) 0 Q N/ .. '" ", / ... 0 ~ 1ft ~ ~ :z: . ~ ~, 7 ". ~ . i- PI ~ ~.J.- .. 0 " 0 . . ~ 1ft ~ g r ~ , 1 1--' \ \ l m>-..a,." c -" en \,N r=> r o::CC 0 z~~ r'\ (;)m-4 ~I Z -4 l> (J) o o ! J" , ,{ I I . I ~_ ~___1 .,"~ ,....--- ~ ".. 0"'. . r- :- -. . " ~ ".V ,g :z: ~ \ \ \ , "~~ o 1ft o o ~ m>'" OJ C-"cn r -> r-:DC: 0 2-4zr'\ Z,.-~I (;)"m-4 ~ OJ 'cU - ~ ~ ~ .8< G {3;'g G ~ .~. 'I : t ~ I .. o. " o r- Ift HIA W A THA AVENUE ".. 00. 'G' ;-- G" o ~ ,> .,.. 0 ~" . " o .~. . fOOOO:Q.OO I' . !.: ~~. ~ : . JF~ " I'i I . :z: ""~ er' ,J . F~ '. . LAKE STREET NORTHEASl ~ . ALTERNATIVE FOR TRAFFIC FLOW ON HIAWATHA AVENUE The attached map shows the site of a proposed multi-family development to be known as Creek Point and to be constructed by Ginkel Construction, Inc. A total of 101 units are proposed, with 75 north of Hiawatha and 26 units south of Hia- watha. At the Conditional Use Permit hearing before the Zoning and Planning Commission on April 26, 1983, residents of the area and the owners of existing apartments on Hiawatha Avenue expressed concern over potential increased traffic on Hiawatha and future traffic problems at the intersection of Blake Road and Hiawatha Avenue. The Commission continued the hearing to May 31, 1983 so that the City Engineer could prepare a report on alternatives for traffic flow on Hiawatha Avenue. ( The site plan shows the existing residential units in the immediate area and planned additional units encircled in red. The only units that would have any significant impact on Hiawatha Avenue are the proposed 101 Creek Point units and the possible 20 units on the north end of Hiawatha Avenue. In addition, other traffic seeking shortcuts can at times add to nonmal traffic volumes. Currently County Road 18 is under construction as a freeway. Consequently Blake Road is carrying a higher volume of vehicles than would be expected since Blake Road is a detour for part of the traffic that formerly used County Road 18. At the P.M. peak hours of 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. traffic for northbound Bla~e Road backs up at times as far as Excelsior Avenue. It is possible that a small amount of traffic north bound on Blake Road could use Hiawatha to get to Cambridge Street where an existing traffic signal would make it easier to proceed east or west on Highway 7. With the completion of County Road 18, the P.M. backup conditions on Blake Road should lessen the chances that such a movement would be any advantage. ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC FLOW ON HIAWATHA AVENUE Hiawatha Avenue west of Creek Point is a single family residential area. The street is blacktopped with a width of 21 feet and has several curves and a high point at the north end which decreases sight distance. There are no street lights or sidewalks between Cambridge and Blake Road. Therefore the street is not desir-_ able for carrying high volumes of traffic. East of Creek Point the street is 28 feet wide with curb and gutter. Parking is not prohibited on any seciton of Hia- watha but the width is such that parking even on one side would cause additional problems. ALTERNATIVE I - CLOSE HIAWATHA AT CAMBRIDGE STREET (NORTH END) This plan would eliminate the through traffic by creating a dead-end condition. This would mean that at present all traffic would have to enter and exit at Blake Road or use the private N-S driveway at the west end of the Creek Point project. Traffic volumes due to residential trips and for services such as deliveries and mail could actually be greater than if the street had a second entrance-exit, as all vehicles are forced to pass a given point twice. If the road is open at the north end, some vehiclescould exit without the need to turn around in private drive- ways. Emergency services such as police and fire and snow plowing and sweeping . ( . (2) would be more difficult. Until a signal is installed at Blake Road and Lake Street traffic would be forced to use non traffic signal controlled intersections or use longer routes to signals at Cambridge and Second Street N.E. ALTERNATIVE II - CLOSE HIAWATHA AVENUE AT CAMBRIDGE STREET AND BLAKE ROAD This plan would mean that all traffic for Hiawatha Avenue would have to use the N-S road at the west end of the Creek Point Project. At present this is proposed to be a private driveway. The driveway would have to be designated as a public road and the road widened to 30 feet. The other negative points listed in Alter- native I would also apply. ALTERNATIVE III - CLOSE HIAWATHA AVENUE AT WEST END OF CREEK POINT - TWO OPTIONS (A) Cul-de-Sac Hiawatha This plan would create two distinct sections of Hiawatha. The _single family residential traffic would have to enter or exit at Cambridge Street. In addition to the problems from being restricted to one access, listed in Alternative I and II, the grade at the north end could present problems during ice and snow conditions. (B) Close Hiawatha for Westbound at the West end of the Creek Point Project This plan would require posting a DO NOT ENTER sign at the above designated point. Traffic from the single family residential section on Hiawatha and others entering Hiawatha at Cambridge would be permitted to go eastbound on Hiawatha, but woulCl not be able to "legally" enter to go westbound. This 00 NOT ENTER would not prevent emergency vehicles or city maintenance for snow plowing, etc. from making the westbound movement. However, it would create a great inconvenience for the single family residents by forcing them at times to use a out of the way route. It would cause confusion for people not aware of the traffic control such as deliveries, visitors, etc. Garbage collection and mail delivery would be hampered. In reality the result probably would be a general ignoring of the DO NOT ENTER sign. ALTERNATIVE IV - INSTALL NO TRAFFIC CONTROLS OR RESTRICTIONS This option would permit the free flow of traffic. This could result in additional trips through the single family seciton of Hiawatha but could benefit the single family residents by providing an alternative acess by way of the N-S private street. This plan would result in the least confusion for persons not familiar with the area and for mail, garbage pickup and other services. RECOMt4ENDA TI ONS The constru~tion of the Creek Point project will not be completed until at least 1984. By that time, County Road 18 will be completed which will probably decrease the traffic on Blake Road. The developer has indicated he will cooperate in every way to minimize any adverse traffic impact on the westerly section of Hiwatha. This is evidenced by his letter of May 11, 1983 to the Commission. The developer has engaged the services of a traffic consultant and I have discussed his analysis with . ( . " (3) him. His report which will be either sent to your directly before the May 31st meeting or included with your agenda will include other possible traffic controls. In addition, the developer will inform new residents and by a newsletter, remind the residents of the apartments to use the routes which will not cause traffic problems for the single family residents. Since it is impossible to predict the actual result of the traffic patterns from the proposed apartment construction especially in the light of the County Road 18 completion, it would not be advisable to create any traffic controls until the effects are observed under these future conditions. It may not be necessary to place any restrictions on the traffic flow in the future. If it proves necessary, the City could without great delay, take measures such as the DO NOT ENTER option. The price to be paid should in any event be carefully judged against the benefit that is gained by any of the aforementioned options. The future may also show the need for a traffic signal at Blake Road and Lake Street N.E. This control would probably be a great benefit not only to Hiawatha Avenue but to all the developments in the vicinity. The existence of the N-S road at the west side of Creek Point would be a convenient access for all of the residents of Hiawatha Avenue especially to a traffic controlled intersection and to downtown Hopkins. John J. Strojan City Engineer 5/25/83 C' . ---"'. - _ ?Co -I...:.- - :- - .--- - ..... .. .....- -- NO 1 --=:::.- ~ 1\ 0: 3 Ii'o"T70' ~ ~: '0'0' , '_'_''''0 0000000 . .. / . ( ~ May 11, 1983 Members of Planning Commission City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Re: Creek Point - Case No. 83-13 Commissioners: I was pleased to get the opportunity to present our proposed apartment development, Creek Point, to you for your review at the last Planning Commission meeting. Much effort over the past year has produced what we feel is a good design and will be a very worthwhile housing product for the City of Hopkins and its residents. We have completed our architectural, mech- anical, and structural drawings for Creek Point. We have, as w presented, a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dis- triet. Our financing is approved. We are excited about Creek Point. We think we have combined as much of the good as we could from our previous projects. We anticipate this to be our best product yet and we look forward to commencing con- struction as soon as possible. In your next meeting on May 31, 1983, you will be continuing the review process of Creek Point. The matter of traffic flow and the possibilities for its control will be reviewed at that time. John Strojan, eity Engineer, is to make suggestions to your body in this matter. I would simply like to take this opportunity to reiterate my comments and state our views as developers, builders, and owners. Our first concern naturally is that all future residents of Creek Point enjoy a geod traffic flow. We feel that we have properly addressed that concern with our plan and in so doing have not added any extra burden to ad- jacent property owners. To address this traffic situation and arrive at a workable solution, we feel, should be no problem. Our traffic is designed to and . ( ( . . we feel will in actuality flow in a north south direction to and from Lake street Northeast. Residents of the larger build- ing (northern most parcel) can have ingress and egress off Lake Street Northeast across the smaller site (southern most par- cel) as I have presented in our plan to you. I have stated that we can tolerate traffic generated from residents of Creek Point as well as traffic generated from residents along Hia- watha Avenue in this manner. Concerns were registered about traffic from Creek Point going down Hiawatha Avenue past the single family homes. I also stated that possibly a sign on Hiawatha Avenue stating "Do Not Enter" would effectively re- strict traffic from east to west. This sign would be located on eur west property line. It could possibly be placed in the north (east to west) travel lane. This sign perhaps with anether sign indicating an arrow pointing to the left (south) would direct all east to west traffic across our smaller par- cel ana south to Lake Street Northeast. -Further, a sign at the entrance to Hiawatha Avenue off Blake Road stating "No 0utlet" weuld indicate to all incoming traffic that in deed they eould not travel down Hiawatha Avenue all the way to C~ bridge Street. Signs indicating "No Left Turn" and "No Right TurR-' appropriately placed on our property would also alert all traffic that no east to west travel down Hiawatha Avenue is permitted. This plan does not account for tr.ffic going from east to west on Hiawatha Avenue. That traffic problem we think is of little eonsequence. Congestion problems on Blake Road initiate the increased travel down Hiawatha Avenue at this time. People are looking for the"short cut" off Blake Road. Completion of County Road 18 next Spring should do much to help the traffic flow problems in this whole area. I would like to caution against any hasty actions of a permaReRt nature in this regard, because we as developers do feel the problem of traffic may not develop. Restrictions with the use of these signs may restrict all Hiawatha Avenue residents in a way that impedes their travel and hence life style. It may not in deed even be necessary. Signs as we have discussed can be installed at any time. Some merit may exist in waiting to see the extent of the problem if one does, in fact, develop. Finally, with the new project of Centurion Co. south and west of the existing Ramsgate apartments, with the presense of Knoll- wood Towers West and Knollwood Towers East, and with the additional . ( . \ . . units in Creek Point, we feel that it is time for the City of Hopkins to take steps to request that a signal light be in- stalled on Blake Road at Lake Street Northeast. Hennepin County should be more receptive to such a proposal because of this new construction. Thank you for taking the time to read this review of matters involving our Creek Point Conditional Use Permit request. Study of this situation shows any number of good ways to proceed. We do ask that you undertake this study and re- view and arrive at a workable solution in your next meeting on May 31st. We are most eager to proceed to the City Coun- cil for their review and approval. Timely approval for us is desirable so that we can begin as quickly as possible. Thank you once again for your time and considerations. Sincerely, ~~~..p E.K. Ginkel, President Ginkel Construction, Inc. cc Jeanne Eddy Nelson Berg Martha Tickle James Folk Paul Janke David Kirscht Ellen Lavin John Strojan Jim Kerrigan/Ann Norris ^~ May 27, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission City of Hopkins 1010 First street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Re: CREEK POINT Commissioners: Attached are two letters that might prove helpful in your dis- cussions regarding traffic and traffic control for Creek Point. The first is a memorandum from James A. Benshoof, traffic con- sultant, voicing his opinion about traffic conditions concern- ing the proposed Creek Point development. The second is a let- ter from Bruce D. Malkerson, a well respected municipal attor- ney, who comments on the issue of an easement across our prop- erty. Both letters address good points and should aid you in studying the traffic generated by Creek Point. r Also included is a site plan %educed to 8~ X 11 for your use. I have shown the locations of the two signs that Mr. Benshoof mentions in his recommendations. I look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday, May 31, 1983, to discuss this traffic issue and any other concerns you may have in your review of our request for a conditional use per- mit. Sincerely, ~~ ~e E.K. Ginkel, President Ginkel Construction, Inc. w - BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 / EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/ (612) 944-7590 May 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM REFER TO FILE 83-24- 20 TO: LK. Ginkel, Ginkel Construction, Inc. FROM: James A. Benshoof ~~ SUBJ: Traffic Review of Proposed Creek Point Development PURPOSE . Per your request, we have reviewed your proposed Creek Point development regarding its potential traffic implications. The specific purpose of our review was twofold: . To assess whether the proposed development would cause any adverse effects on Hiawatha Avenue to the west of the site. r . To determine whether any signage, or other measures should be taken to protect the residential character and safety of Hiawatha Avenue west of the site. ANALYSIS As we understand, your proposed Creek Point plan involves two apartment buildings: . Building A with 75 dwelling units which would have access to/from Hiawatha Avenue. . Building B with 26 dwelling units, which would have a driveway connecting Hiawatha Avenue and Lake Street, providing access to/from both streets. Based on traffic studies at similar types of developments, as reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.l it is expected that the proposed Creek Point d~velopment (both buildings) would generate a total of 330 vehicle trip ends 1 "Trip Generation," Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979 Ginkel Construction, Inc. - 2 - May 24, 1983 . per day (165 entering and 165 exiting). During the a.m. peak hour (about 7:30 to 8:30 a.m.). it is expected that 27 vehicle trips would exit the development and 14 trips would enter. During the p.m. peak hour (about 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.), the movements would be reversed, with about 27 trips entering the development and 14 trips exiting. Of these total trips, the only trips that might consider using Hiawatha Avenue to the west would be trips exiting the development to proceed northbound on Blake Road. All other trips to/from the development would be expected to use Hiawatha Avenue east of the site or Lake Street. The propor- tion of development trips that would proceed northbound on Blake Road is estimated to be a maximum of 2/3 the total traffic exiting from the development. Applying this propor- tion to the trip generation projection previously presented. this movement would involve 110 vehicle trips on a daily , basis, with the peak hour being from about 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. during which about 18 vehicle trips would be expected. This volume amounts to less than one vehicle every three minutes. The most direct route for these trips exiting from the development would be to proceed to Blake Road via Hiawatha Avenue or lake Street and then to turn left onto Blake Road. If. during certain times of the day. it is difficult for motorists to make this left turn maneuver due to the traffic volumes on Blake load, some of these motorists may seek alternative routes, such as using Hiawatha Avenue west of the site. CONCLUSIONS When the Creek Point development is completed. the likelihood of development traffic using Hiawatha Avenue to the west will be less than if it were completed today. because County Highway 18 will be open to traffic prior to occupancy of the Creek Point development. With completion of County Highway 18, traffic volumes will diminish on Blake Road. improving the opportunity for traffic to enter Blake Road from Hiawatha Avenue or Lake Street. Another future potential improvement that will enhance access to Blake Road is a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Blake Road and Lake Street. Considering the additional traffic to/from the Creek Point development and to/from the two future developments by the Centurion Company located to the west on lake Street, it is considered quite likely that a traffic signal will be warranted in the future at the Blake Road/lake Street inter- section. Traffic to/from Creek Point Building B would have direct access to this intersection. Traffic to/from Building A also would have convenient access to this intersection via the connecting driveway through the Building B site. , Ginkel Construction, Inc. - 3 - May 24, 1983 To further reduce the likelihood that Creek Point traffic would impact Hiawatha Avenue to the west, the following four recommendations are made: . Install a uno right turnM sign at the exit from Building A to restrict this exiting traffic from turning right onto Hiawatha Avenue. . . Install a uno left turnM sign at the exit to Hiawatha Avenue from- Building B to restrict this exiting traffic from turning left onto Hiawatha Avenue. . Inform all new residents of Creek Point, e.g. via your MWelcome Folder," about appropriate traffic patterns t including: _ Residents of Building A should use the connecting driveway on the Building B site if they encounter difficulty turning onto Blake Road from Hiawatha Avenue. _ Residents of Buildings A and B should avoid usage of Hiawatha Avenue to the west. . Communicate any appropriate updated information on traffic conditions and pertinent requests via your news- letter for residents. With these four actions, together with the completion of County Highway 18 and the potential future traffic signal control at Lake Street and Blake Road, it is expected that traffic generated by the Creek Point development will not have any adverse effects on Hiawatha Avenue west of the site. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. 4344 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE AtltD TCLECOPIE.R 612-333-4 00 WAYNE G POPHAM RAYMOND A MAIK ROOER W SCHNOBRICH DENVER KAU,.MAN DAVIO SOOTY ROBERT A MINISH ROL"E A WOROEN o MARC WHITEHEAO BRUCE 0 WILLIS ,.REOERICK S RICHAROS o ROBERT JOHNSON GARY R "'ACO"'BER ROBERT S BURK HUGH V PLUNKETT m ,.REOERICK C BROWN THO"'AS K BERO BRUCE D "'ALKERSON JAMES R STEILEN JAMES B LOCKHART ALLEN W HINOERAKER CLI,....ORO... GREENE D WILLIA... KAU,.....AN DESYL L PCTCRSON ...,CHACL 0 "'REEMAN THOMAS C O'AOUILA LARRY 0 CSPEL JANIC S "'AYCRON OAVID A JONCS LCC E SHEEHY LESLIC GILLETTC ""CHAEL T NILAN ROBERT C "'OILANEN DAVIO J EOOUIST CATHCRINE A POLASKY STEVCN G HEIKENS THOMAS J RAOIO KATHLEEN ... MARTIN JOHN C CHILOS THERESE AMBRUSKO OOUGLAS P SEATON GARY 0 BLACK"'ORO SCOTT C RICHTER Z15150 PETRO-LEWIS TOWCR 717 SEVCNTEENTH STRCET OENVER, COLORAooe0202 TE.LEPHONE AND TELECO~IE" 303-eZS-Ze150 SUITC eOZ-2000 L STREET N w. WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20036 TELePHONE AND TEL.I:CQPIEA Z02-ee7-SI S 4 Ma y 25, 198 3 t Mr. woody Ginkel Central Park Manor 1510 Excelsior Avenue West Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Creek point Development Dear Mr. Ginkel: In response to ~our inquiry about the possibility of having a public easement or roadway across the parking lot for Building B, between Hiawatha Avenue and Lake Street Northeast, I have the following concerns: 1. The existence of that public easement and public traffic thereon would expose the owner of the adjacent and underlying property to claims for damages to vehicular and pedestrian traffic using the easement and adjacent parking lot. 2. Such an easement may cause title problems with the lot because the easement will separate the building and a portion of the parking lot from the remainder of the parking lot; there may be problems concerning the transfer of open space, parking and other zoning requirements from one side to thE other. 3. The existence and use of such an easement may create future problems with the City concerning maintenance, repair, snow removal, and reconstruction when necessary. e May 25, 1983 page 2 As a municipal attorney, I ~oul~ be surprised if the City of Hopkins wanted to own, maintain and be liable for such an easement acrOSb private property. If there are potential concerns about traffic, they are better addressed through standard traffic control procedures such as those suggested in Mr. Benshoof's letter of May 24, 1983. Please call if you have any questions. very truly yours, ~Do (Yt~t Bruce D. Malkerson BDM/jf Enclosures 2527j "~~~[ E3~~ wvu.. )( ~ " .... ! III III ' ~ " . " 'Il . '~ P.. \....:..0 . 1= ~ I,~' L EB ...~ .""" A'" L ......~.... .' ... .." . . . ,.. . I . ~ ..... lJallwt'ltII1 . SJJ~w iUJ . SI:lal'L4JI" 'OUI S8IepOSS\f adod Y.1093NM 'SNI>ldOH I .1NIOd )l33U~ ~ .:J \- '2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ..9 &' [) :z o ~ __.___.L~ ~. 1lIY1~_..----I:::.Jt ;-::. _ .~:;;~- ;;'11<., ~;~ -:_:;~~ ~-_:. - .:;-~ .. --- I- G G z 0 ~ If < S I ~!U a.. 0 en , , w \ z z ~ - ~ \ \ I.&J \ .. \ \ en I.&J z \ " \\ - \ c::: ~ '. a. \ U 0 \ \ J: \ \ I \ ...... \ ,\ \ \ \ \ , '\ "- " " I~ra -t Q] dd 9~9 CD~CD ~ Z <( ...J a. LU I- -" cn~