The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-08-26 CDRB PacketAGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 24, 2014 5. Design Review: a. Approval of Design Plans for a Proposed Retail Building at 3094 White Bear Avenue 6. New Business: a. Approval of the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Lamers called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Boardmember, Leo Burger Absent Boardmember, Bill Kempe Present Boardmember, Jason Lamers Present Chairperson, Matt Ledvina Absent Boardmember, Ananth Shankar Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar Seconded by Boardmember Kempe. Ayes — All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Shankar Seconded by Acting Chair Lamers. Ayes — Acting Chair Lamers, Boardmember Shankar Abstention — Boardmember Kempe The motion passed. 5. NEW BUSINESS None 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. Approval of Design Plans to Convert Day's Inn Building into Senior Housing, 3030 Southlawn Drive i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. Architect, Ben Delwicke, Kaas Wilson Architect, 2104 4th Ave S, Ste B, Minneapolis, addressed and answered questions of the board. June 24, 2014 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 7. 8. Boardmember Kempe moved approval of a parking waiver for fewer parking spaces than code requires, allowing 73 spaces. This proposal for 115 units of senior housing would require 230 parking spaces. The city finds that the proposed reduction to 73 parking spaces would be sufficient for this assisted -living and memory -care seniors housing facility since senior housing facilities do not require the amount of parking needed for typical multi -family housing needs. Should a parking shortage develop in the future, the applicant shall revise the plan to provide enough to meet their needs, subject to staff approval. Boardmember Kempe moved approval of the plans date-stamped June 2, 2014, for the Days Inn Hotel Conversion to senior housing. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun construction within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve minor changes to these plans. 2. The applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for the proposed housing facility in a BC (business commercial) zoning district. 3. The applicant shall complete the site improvements as proposed in the plans. This includes all landscaping, trash enclosure upgrades, retaining wall repair, building painting and parking lot and driveway changes and improvements. 4. After its removal, the old parking lot surface shall be restored to lawn and kept maintained and mowed. 5. The applicant shall comply with dated June 4, 2014. 6. The applicant shall com chief and health officer. 7. The applicant shall obtai this project. in the engineering report by Jon Jarosch ents of the city's building official, assistant fire I of a parking waiver from the city council before beginning 8. The applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping, before betting a building permit. Seconded by Boardmember Shankar. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council July 14, 2014. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None BOARD PRESENTATIONS None Ayes — All June 24, 2014 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Acting Chairperson Lamers at 6:33 p.m. June 24, 2014 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes p11air seL was senL fry CCI kl,a;'i" mendoers oebre fhe July i'needing which was canceled due Lo lack of quoruim MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner DATE: July 15, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of Design Plans for a Proposed Retail Building at 3094 White Bear Avenue Introduction Matt Worthley, of Thomas English Retail Real Estate, is proposing to remove the existing building and build a new retail building at 3094 White Bear Avenue. In addition to the new building, Mr. Worthley is proposing updates to the parking lot, landscaping and signage. Background This existing building was most recently used as a Mr. BBQ restaurant and has had a history of past restaurants and other businesses. The property is guided by the city's comprehensive plan as Commercial and zoned Business Commercial, which retail is a permitted use. Discussion Building Design The proposed structure will largely be attractive as designed. The proposed materials include cement board siding, metal cladding and multiple EIFS surfaces. Staff's one concern is in regards to the north elevation of the building. As proposed it is a large, unbroken, gray wall. Staff feels more architectural detail, such as windows or additional materials need to be added to this elevation to improve the aesthetics of the building. The rear elevation is where the trash enclosure is proposed to be located but is no shown on the elevations. Staff would recommend a condition of approval be added that elevations of the elevations of the trash enclosure be submitted for staff approval. Landscaping The applicant's landscape plan proposes shrubs and perennials on the northwest corner of the site and behind the building. The plan also shows the removal of 6 significant trees (equaling 102 diameter inches). The City's tree mitigation calculation determining the number of replacement trees equals 51.54 caliper inches. The landscape plan shows 16 new trees planted on the site (equaling 36 caliper inches). In order to meet the City's tree preservation ordinance, the applicant must add 15.54 caliper inches of new trees to the site, or pay into the City's tree fund at a rate of $60 per replacement caliper inch that is not planted on the site ($932.40). Refer to Shann Finwall's environmental report, attached to this memo, for more information regarding the tree replacement requirements. East of this site is a residential complex which code requires to be screened. The applicant must submit plans for staff approval showing how it will meet the code requirements for screening along the east property line. Signs The applicant is proposing to modify the existing pylon sign. The modified sign would be 140 square feet in a area and cannot be more than 20 feet tall — due to ordinance requirements. Tenant signs on the building will be on the west elevation. Signage is not part of this review, but they appear to comply with the code. The applicant should apply for sign permits to staff for the sign installations. Parking Lot The building is proposed to be 3,600 square feet which would require 18 parking spaces. The plans show 25 spaces. The plans also show two driveway connections to the parcel to the north. Staff feels this will help with accessing the site and circulation. Before any permits are pulled a copy of the executed cross access easement agreement must be filed with the city. The applicant's plans do not show the locations of any handicap spaces. The plan also shows the portions of the driveway not being setback five feet as required by code. The drive aisle also needs to be 24 feet wide. Before a building permit is issued, the applicant will have to submit revised plans showing the setbacks and drive aisle width requirements are being met and the required amount of handicap spaces are in place. Department Comments Building Official Nick Carver, building official, commented the applicant is required to follow all state and local codes and all permit requirements when constructing the new building. Assistant Fire Chief Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief, commented the applicant is required to follow all state and local fire codes and all permit requirements when constructing the new building. Engineer Refer to the engineering report from Jon Jarosch, staff engineer. The applicant would need to comply with Mr. Jarosch's conditions as stated in his report. Police Chief Paul Schnell has no issues with the proposal. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Approve the plans date-stamped July 8, 2014 for the proposed building, site and landscaping plans for 3094 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun construction within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve minor changes to these plans. 2. The applicant shall comply with the conditions noted in the engineering report by Jon Jarosch dated July 11, 2014. 3. The applicant shall comply with the conditions noted in the environmental report by Shann Finwall dated June 18, 2014. 4. Submit to staff a copy of the executed cross access easement agreement between the applicant and owner of the property to the north of the site. 5. The plans shall be revised to include the following for staff approval: a. Driveway setback five feet from the side and rear property lines. b. Drive aisle is at least 24 feet wide. c. Inclusion of the required handicap -accessible parking spaces. d. Elevations and plans for the trash enclosure e. Revised north elevation adding additional architectural elements. f. Revised landscaping plan which meets the city's tree replacement requirements. g. Plans for meeting the screening requirement along the east property line. 6. The applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping, before getting a building permit. Reference Information Site Description Site size: 0.63 acres Existing land use: The former Mr. BBQ, now vacant Surrounding Land Uses North: Caribou Coffee and auto mall South: Baker's Square West: White Bear Avenue and Maplewood Mall East: Sibley Cove Apartment building Planning Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial) Zoning: BC (business commercial) Application Date The application for this request was considered complete on July 7, 2014. State law requires that the city decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is September 5, 2014. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Letter 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Engineer's Report dated July 11, 2014 6. Environmental Report dated June 11, 2014 7. Plans date-stamped July 8, 2014 (separate attachment) Attachment 2 City of Maplewood Attention: Mr. Michael Martin 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Community Design Review Board Application Narrative Mr. Martin: Thomas English Retail Real Estate ("TERRE") is a national retail developer with twenty-five completed projects over the last ten years. We currently have fourteen projects in development, across the country, with a value exceeding fifty million dollars. TERRE is pursuing a permit to redevelop the property located at 3094 White Bear Avenue. This redevelopment will consist of the demolition of the existing structure and the development of a new 3,600 square foot building. This building will be a free standing, one tenant building, located in almost the exact same position as the current structure. Along with a new and improved structure, we will also be updating the current pole sign and landscaping. Sincerely, Matt Worthley 725 E. 65'h Street, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46220 mworthley@thomasenglish.com I � �, .- � � y 317-574-7448 z ZF** o,Pv.v< �o M z Attachment 3 A o n w oo m A Z D F, PROPOSED p RETAIL BUILDING I ESI FINAL PAVING & IDIMEMNNSIONING PLAN FORISAL James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS oaPEa PE D Z o z N A N THOMAS ENGLISH RETAIL REAL ESTATE 725 EAST 65TH STREET, SUITE 300, INDIANAPOLIS, iN 46220 2500 W, Clr. Rn 42 SLI[ 120, BURNASTE MN 55337 —�� oa�e:�L R=s o. �eass PNONE: (952)890-6044 FAX: (952)890-6244 z ZF** o,Pv.v< �o M z Attachment 3 A o n w oo m A Z w> map F, PROPOSED p RETAIL BUILDING I ESI FINAL PAVING & IDIMEMNNSIONING PLAN FORISAL James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS oaPEa PE Z o N A m THOMAS ENGLISH RETAIL REAL ESTATE 725 EAST 65TH STREET, SUITE 300, INDIANAPOLIS, iN 46220 2500 W, Clr. Rn 42 SLI[ 120, BURNASTE MN 55337 —�� oa�e:�L R=s o. �eass PNONE: (952)890-6044 FAX: (952)890-6244 w 0 4.0 2 m W N m O m c < _ m m 3 r a < r D m 1 O O Z O �, v e Z m m r m D Z n 3 uuumllll 11 0 Attachment 4 n c n I Vuuu m D m r m D O Z m D 70 m r m a O Z Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: 3094 White Bear Avenue PROJECT NO: 14-17 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. — Staff Engineer DATE: 7-11-2014 PLAN SET: Engineering Plans dated 7-1-2014 REPORTS: Storm Calculations — Dated 6-30-2014 The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing building at 3094 White Bear Avenue, along with the existing parking lot, and redevelop the site with a new retail building and parking lot. The amount of disturbance on this site is near the threshold which requires the applicant to meet the City's stormwater management requirements. There is a slight reduction in impervious surfaces proposed on this site. City staff will work with the applicant to meet the intent of the stormwater ordinance based on the final disturbed area. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review, along with ratified agreements, prior to issuing building and grading permits. The following are engineering review comments on the design and act as conditions prior to issuing permits: Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control 1) All slopes shall be 3H:1 V or flatter. 2) Inlet protection devices shall be installed on all existing storm sewer that receives runoff from the site and shall remain in place until the site is stabilized. This includes storm sewer along White Bear Avenue. 3) White Bear Avenue and any other paved area that receives construction related sediments shall be swept as needed to keep the pavement clear of sediment and construction debris. 4) All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 5) A copy of the project SWPPP and NDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Attachment 5 6) A dedicated concrete washout area/method shall be provided. 7) Drainage rates onto neighboring properties shall be equal to or less than existing. 8) The applicant shall work with the City to meet the intent of the City's Stormwater Management Standards. 9) The proposed retaining walls have areas that are four feet or greater in height. As such, an engineered plan is required for these walls and a permit shall be obtained from the building department. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 10) It appears that no modifications to the existing sanitary service are proposed. The applicant shall provide computations for the sanitary sewer service to ensure its adequacy for the buildings intended use. 11) Any proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may have prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City. 12) The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. Other 13) The main entrance to the parking lot would require vehicles to switchback abruptly at the southeast corner of the proposed building. The applicant shall provide documentation that the site is navigable without driving over the curbing. 14) Drive accesses are shown to connect to the property to the north in two locations. A copy of an access agreement signed by the adjacent property owner shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. This access agreement shall also address whether or not additional drainage is being directed towards the neighboring property and how this drainage will be accommodated. 15) The applicant shall submit all necessary permit fees and letter of credit/escrow prior to the issuance of any permits. 16) A Ramsey County right-of-way permit will be required for any work within the right-of- way along White Bear Avenue. 17) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies. Attachment 6 Environmental Review Project: 3094 White Bear Avenue Retail Building Date of Plans: June 3, 2014 Date of Review: June 18, 2014 Location: 3094 White Bear Avenue Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304 or shann.finwall ci.mapiewood.mn.us Background: The project redevelops the site from a restaurant to a new retail building. The project includes the removal of significant trees. Tree Preservation Ordinance: Maplewood's tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed during redevelopment of the site to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree removed versus overall significant trees situated on the property. Tree Removal: The certificate of survey shows 20 trees on the site, 12 of those are defined as significant trees (equaling 190 diameter inches). Redevelopment of the site will result in the removal of 6 significant trees (equaling 102 diameter inches). Tree Replacement: The City's tree mitigation calculation determining the number of replacement trees equals 51.54 caliper inches. The landscape plan shows 9 new trees planted on the site (equaling 25.5 caliper inches). In order to meet the City's tree preservation ordinance, the applicant must add 26.04 caliper inches of new trees to the site, or pay into the City's tree fund at a rate of $60 per replacement caliper inch that is not planted on the site ($1,562.40). Tree Preservation Recommendation: Revised Tree Replacement Worksheet: The landscape plan includes a tree replacement worksheet that is inaccurate. The worksheet states that there are 262 diameter inches of significant trees on the site, with 121 diameter inches removed. The worksheet further states that the required number of replacement trees on the site would be 16.76 caliper inches. Upon review of the species, number, and size of existing trees versus the size of trees removed, City staff has calculated the required tree replacement as 51.56 caliper inches. The applicant should submit a revised tree replacement worksheet which reflects the City's tree replacement calculations accurately. 2. Revised Landscape Plan or Tree Fund Payment: a. The applicant must submit a revised landscape plan which shows a total of 51.56 caliper inches of replacement trees on the site; or b. The applicant must submit a payment to the City's tree fund at a rate of $60 per replacement caliper inch that is not planted on the site. MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner DATE: August 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan Introduction Attached is a memorandum by Gayle Bauman, finance director, concerning the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) draft for review by the community design review board (CDRB). The CIP is quite lengthy with 164 pages. To conserve paper, staff has posted this document on line which can be found by going to the following link on the city's website: http://www.ci.mapiewood.mn.us/DocumentCenterNiew/11256 Discussion The CIP is a budget planning document updated every year. Its purpose is for the city council to plan for major projects, purchases and expenditures. The CDRB must review the CIP and forward a recommendation to the city council. By approving the CIP, the council is not committed to any of these projects or expenditures. The CIP is only a budget planning document. The council must consider each item individually and take specific action to actually commence any of these projects or to commit funds to any proposal. Recommendation Approve the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan, based on the finding that doing so meets the goals of the comprehensive plan by guiding the future growth and development of the city in an orderly and fiscally responsible fashion. Attachments 1. Memorandum from Gayle Bauman, Finance Director, dated August 5, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director DATE: August 5, 2014 SUBJECT: 2015-2019 CIP Plan Review Introduction The Capital Improvement Plan is an annually prepared document that coordinates the planning, financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects. The 2015-2019 CIP document is being released for review by the various Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission meeting on August 19th at 7:00 pm. As part of our paperless efforts, a copy of the CIP is available in electronic format on the City's webpage. Following the receipt of recommendations from all the Commissions, the City Council will be asked to adopt the CIP in September 2014. Adopting the CIP does not commit the council to the proposed projects, nor implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2015 Budget as we continue with its preparation. Each Commission shall review and comment on the impact of the assumptions and recommended projects within the Capital Improvement Plan. A recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial should be made and forwarded to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for their consideration. The Commission should appoint a member to attend the City Council meeting on September 8th, when final adoption of the CIP will be considered. CIP Summary A copy of the draft 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan can be found on the City's website at www.ci.mus. The Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects within the Plan for consideration. The document explains each of the proposed projects, as well as analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed. The staff submits projects based upon goals set at the Council/Management Team retreats. The finance staff analyzes the funds available for capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, as well as management priorities to achieve the attached CIP plan. The attached table shows the changes that were made to the original requests based on the City's financial means and meetings with the various department heads. Community Design Review Board Consideration There are a couple of programs that are important to consider for the Community Design Review Board to make their finding during the 5 -year planning period covered by this CIP as follows: Housing Replacement Program: a. Proposes $80,000 in 2016 and again in 2018. b. The proposal is that the HEDC develop a program for housing rehabilitation or improvement on an every other year basis. c. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for reinvestment into the City's housing stock. 2. Commercial Property Redevelopment a. Proposes expenditures of $1,500,000, including Prior Year investments. b. Revenue from this program comes from the sale of property that has been purchased and redeveloped [$1,200,000 is estimated], plus the annual levy of $89,270. c. The proposal is that the HEDC will be involved in the purchase of redevelopment properties, improve the property and then resell the property for increased tax base. The HEDC would make recommendations to the Economic Development Authority. d. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for business retention and expansion. 3. Gladstone Area Redevelopment a. Proposes $5,425,000 of expenditures over the 5 -year period. b. The proposal calls for use of grant funds to continue needed public improvements and possible acquisition and/or investment into property in accordance with the approved Gladstone Master Plan. Recommendation The Board should review the proposed projects within the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan. A recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial should be made and forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. The Board should appoint a member to attend the City Council meeting on September 8th, when final adoption of the CIP will be considered. r� 00 rn —i r -i r -i s O O O O + O + O + E k.0n 00 c -I c -I c -I \ O O O C N N N O E E E O O O OA > > > > O O O c 2 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O N O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O J O O M M m � c -I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 00 ::F00 M O O Ln Ln 0 00 O O M 0 O^ O O0 O O O 0 00 0 O M LD N Ln Ln Ln N r� lD � O Ln M N 0) Ln � Ol � Ln .... .... m Ln r -j .... .... 4 N O N M In � N N � O O � 0) O O O O O O O C O O 0 O k.0O O O O O O O O O � Ln c�-I M r - N 00 r" O � c -I 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I� O O O O O O O O O � O Ln O 0 O O N O^ O O O Ln O ON n Ln N O O Ln r -i ^�t 00 O O M ^ LD 0 0 0 0 0 O O O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O O O O O O O c^I O O O O O 0 O0 Lrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O N 00� 0 Ln 0) N Ol M c -I . r, ci c -I M OM 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c -I O O O O O O O Ln O O O O O O O LD O Ln Ln O O O O � O O O O O O Ln O O O N O 0 O O O O r- 0 O O O O Ln O Ln 41 M -1 O -1 N0 c -I c -I O Ln L� D I Ln � 0 Ln 0 Ln O -iLn T Ln c -I — O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 O k.0O 0 0 O O O O Ln 0 O O O O O O O l0 Ln M m M O O O O Ln O O O O O O O O O � O k. � k. O Ln Ln 00 M 00 O O O O O O O N 0 � M M '--' Ln I� I� -i 0 -1 O Ln N O � N '--' LI)� Ln r -i J !- C � E a Q" C O Ln Ln u aJ +�+ (6 aJ aJ a) L O O a) T +� N a) OA N + N+ a c d aJ E E .0 E aJ O 'O aJ m Ln LJ Ln OA m � c > u u L d -O (6 + (6 d O aJ O a) L O- a1 OA C Q = C __ aJ L 0' OA W (6 �' OA a) L � E E v to a) O- +� +� `� o to C W C +bn �+ aJ U to to OL to O J W m c 7 L ~O Y L s to aJ o aJ +� to v v 'O c6 s a) E C7 m Q> Q Q aJ c Q U 'O c U > T L aJ ++ OC y N Q O -O +L+ .- S a) Y i = Y 0 0 Li OA E E !_ J z Op = v aJ to .0 O a) c 0\ Q W aJ N m a p Y E v L o �, L 3 E a' 3 a, 3 v 'c a E z u OU E -a E L H a� W 7 7a) ,} to L1 0 (6 O 'O aJ -O N Y i i w m N > cr O J cU U (n 0 (n (n d W W (7 (7 W (n = U W (n m W d W d G O Q a � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O �tO O O O O O O 0 00 O O 1� O l0 O O O l0 O O Ln Ln m (k O l0 N 1, c-1 z O O N Ln N M w N z� O c-1 zi O Ln O O O N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln N O O O 0 Ln 0 O O �t O M O O O l0 O O Ln O n 00 cI M M O O Ln 00 0) O O O O O O O O O E O O O O Ln N O O O O O O 0 O Ln M Ln N N O O c-1 C O O c-1 c-1 M M O O Ln O O Ln N Q O O > CLCL c -I O O O 0 Ln O O O O O M O Ln N O O O 0 c -I O Ln E a° O l0 l0 -i c-1 M O T O O Ln m .... 6 tm 9 .... E j. .... v) Q .... 00 O O O <-S O O Ln O Ln N O O O O O O O O O 0 k.0 N O 00 ,��, a N N� -1 M 00 N O Ln O O 0 k.0 k.0 .... N+L+ N m m .... .... .... Cl O O O v) < O O l0 O O O L O O O Stab ` 0 O In C(6 (6 (6 M O O c-1 +N+ O VI O c-1 c-1 C T N Ln E E v C � O � Q O O > CLCL 0 Ln E a Ln = E a° v O T a O m N 6 tm 9 E j. v) Q <-S m v) c`o E 3 ,��, a c O N� a) E O N+L+ N m m H 3 v) < L L L O Stab ` L LLI C(6 (6 (6 +N+ +N+ O VI 0 00 C T .1 (6 C�..( N N N > C C N O OA L D_ V 0 Q Q Q N U U `" c� Y OW C v v -LL- w LLI 3 v v v -� L L 0 v 2 v v v w Z N U U U C +�+ +�+ �, U C i Y F- v) 2 2 2 LL. Z Z 2 a U 2> d W D �