Loading...
7B - Review Site Review Application for the porposed Northfield Commons & Vojta Farms (formerly NortCITYOrBOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM M~~TING DATE: May 19, 2003 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: May 5, 2003) AGENDA TITLE: Review Site Review Application for the Proposed Northfield Commons and Vojta Farms (formerly Northfield Meadows) Subdivisions REQUESTING DEPARTM~NT: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Jeff Lakey, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Planning and Development Cate Bradley, Planner FISCAL IMPACT: None PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to provide the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members with information on the proposed park sizes, locations and preliminary designs as shown on the Complex Site Review application submitted by the developers of the proposed Vojta Farms (47'h St. and Jay Rd.; formerly called Northfield Meadows) and Northfield Commons (north of Kalmia St.) subdivisions. See Attachment A, Vicinity Map, for locations. Staff will submit comments on the plan as part of the city's development review process. Comments from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will be provided to Planning Board for their review. BACKGROUND The Parks and Recreation Advisoiy Board (PRAB) reviewed conceptual alternatives for new residenrial development in the 47r~'/Jay/Kalmia area at their March 18r~' 2002 meering. At Che July 22"d 2002 meeting, PRAB members reviewed the formal Concept Plan submitted by the developers. Aftachment B, ExcerpC from Draft Minutes, 7uly 22. 2002, summu•izes the Board discussion at that meeting. The PRAB comments were provided to the Planning Board for their considerafion as part of the ConcepC Plan review process. The developers have now prepared a Complex Site Review, Preliminary Plat and Annexation/Initial Zoning submittal for review by city staff and Planning Board. This plan shows the two proposed pocket parks which will be provided by the developers to seive residents of the new neighborhoods. See Attachment C, Northfield Commons and Attachment D, Voita Farm to review the proposed park plans. These will be private, home-owner association managed parks which will supplement the public parks in the area. See Attachment E, Palo Pack Subcommunity Park Service Areas. AGENDA ITEM #VII - B YAGE 1 ANALYSIS The developers are proposing two private homeowner association parks to serve the new residential development, with the potential for residents of adjacent neighborhoods to access the parks if they choose to share responsibility for park maintenance. The parks serving Vojta Farms and Northfield Commons are each one acre in size and the park at Vojta Farms is also designated for use as a stormwater detention area. The preliminary park designs for both locations feature open turf areas, landscaping, and a small play area. The park located at Northfield Commons also includes a half-court basketball court. There is an additional open detendon area located in the Airport Influence Zone west of Pleasant View Fields. A pedestrian/bike path is shown running north from Kalmia between Pleasant View Fields and the homes to the west. If the proposed private homeowner association parks were given a seivice radius based on the Parks and Recreation Department standards, these pocket parks would serve homes within one- quarter mile distance. The service radius from these parks would cover the areas of new residential development and the small remaining underserved area of the Four Mile Creek subdivision. Four Mile Creek residents may or may not choose to participate in maintaining the subdivisions' private parks in exchange for access to the parks. If public access to the private pocket parks is not provided as part of agreements between the homeowner associations, then current service standards for Four Mile Creek will technically remain unmet. During previous discussions, PRAB members expressed interest in the potential dedication of additional public park land fo increase the size of Palo Park East and expand public park services in this area. If a minimum of one acre of the adjacent three-acre parcel owned by the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) were acquired by the Parks and Recreation Department and connected with Palo East Park, this would create a park which meets current neighborhood park standards (five acres or more in size.) The expanded park would also have an expanded service radius of one-half mile, extending the seivice radius to cover areas of new development and existing under-served neighborhoods. However, the opportunity to obtain a portion of the parcel owned by the BVSD adjacent to Palo Park East has not materialized and may or may not occur in the fuYure. The Department has not currently identified any funds in the current Parks and Recreation Department Capital Improvements Projects budget for the purchase of park land in this area. There is also no funding identified for development and maintenance of any additional pocket parks even in the event that the Northfield Commons/Vojta Farms developer would be willing to dedicate the park land to the City at no cost. Staff comments will be provided as part of the Development Review process. Board comments will be forwarded to the Planning Board for their consideration as they review the Site Review submittal. AGENDA ITEM #VII - B PAGE 2 PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS This item is being heard at this public meeting, as advertised in the Daily Camera. STAI+r RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the provision oP two private homeowner association park sites, one located in Vojta Farms and one located at Northfield Commons. The parks should be developed to city design standards by the developers, in order to assure that the parks will adequately serve the subdivision residents. Storm detention should be designed to minimize impacts to the development and use of the park at Vojta Farm. Staff will request thaC the developers meet with Parks and Recreation Planning and Development staff to review the park designs. If desired by the adjacent residents of the Four Mile Creek neighborhood, provisions should be made to allow them access to both park sites, based on a mutually defined agreement between the homeowner associations. Questions for PRAB members: 1. Do you agree with the staff recommendations? 2. Do you have any additional comments regarding park service issues which you would like Planning Board to consider as they review the Site Review application? ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Excerpt from Draft Minutes, July 22, 2002 C. Northfield Commons D. Vojta Farm E. Palo Park Subcommunity Park Service Areas AGENDA IT~M #VII - B PAGE 3 __ ^ I \ I _ i ~ -..__ -- ° _ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~_ Mountain View Cemetery ---- ' .,,--~~~i= = =- ~='= ` Diago L1~gh~~y~ _, ~-_. -- ~ ~ Pleasant View Soccer Fields ~ 4~th ~ Jay Road / ~ Kalmia Properties a ~ ~ ~ a m ~ ~ ~ _ i' ~~ ~~~ -~ _ _ -- _ , Four Mlle Creek~T~ail~ ~.r ~ ~ `'~,~ . . . . . BVSD \ I _ ' PaloPkw ^a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__ _ , ^, - = ~ ro Park 'i ,• cer~`ral/south - ~~ i : ~ ~~ i w ;l ' : ~; _ CfJMMONS . a • . .~, . .... . ._ _... Harper ~ ~ ^ . . . . . . _, . ._ .. __._._ . ----7 ^ ~ ~~'~'~~~.~"~"~". :~ w~ ~ _ _ ~ ~. / ~ ~ ~~ ~!~ ~f ~~`; I~~ ~3oulder ~ I' Pinnnntg 6 Oevelopment 6arvicea InformaClon Peaourcee 303.44 ~ .321 O A y CALVARY '~ w 5L8ke CHURCH ~ ~G _ ~ °~ - ~ ( q~ _... _ ..~ ~~''~~0'~ ~ ~'. ._1"i '~~ - ~ ~~, __ ~ ~O~i _ ~ F~~~. ~,~ ~~~~~~ a: ~~~,~a~~ ~'°~~ ~ ' . . j , . . . ~ • 1 ) 1 i r ~ i ~ 1 I i i :_ _ I i ; ~ I ~ ~ ~' ~ ~% II ~ . _~ ~ . ~ . ~~ % i ~~ ~ .'~ , ~ D ~ ~ D -' ~ C~ ' ~ _ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ Z ~ D A ~ - ,~ ~ . , . ~ , , '~ , Attachment B City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Excerpt Minutes July 22, 2002 A. Review of a concept Plan for the Proposed Northfield Commons and Northfield Meadows Subdivisions (47~~'/Jay/Kalmia properties) Presenters: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Cate Bradley, Planner Mike Randall, City Planner wiCh the Planning Department Bradley said Randall would speak on the context of the current process because the PRAB was reviewing formal concept plans st~bmieted by the dcvelopers that would be going to Planning Board for review in August. Randall said the first process over the past several years included amendments to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which also included looking at the properties that were the subject of this concept plan, review and comment. The second process was having met several times with neighborhood groups to discuss the opportunities, needs, constraints, city policies, and neighborhood desires. Randall explained that plans seen by the PRAB in March were nof plans made by the developer but had been made by an independent contracCor to incorporate community input into the design. He explained tbaY Che ConcepC Plan was an ofPicial application of development to the city of Boulder thaC would eventually lead to development o1'the land. This was an opportunity for everyone (staff, Yhe community, PRAB and Planning Board) to provide input about the plan. Randall added that the comment period would be open until the Planning Board heard the item on August 22. Comments would be accepted in writing or by e-mail as well as during the public comment portion of the Planning Board meeting. At that time Planning Board would not make a decision but would only comment on their views of the developmenC in an effart to guide the daveloper toward the ultimate solution, which would be offered in Site Review. Site Review would be the true development application that would be presented to the Planning Board at a later date for approval. Randall explained that none of the parcels being considered were within city limits and would have to be annexed before being developed. He also spoke about possible conditions of annexation, attachment of zoning and amendment Co the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Board Comments and Questions: • Osborne asked whether the project would come back to the PRAB once past the Concept Plan and when Che final Site Review was received. Brudley responded that it would not normally come hack r~t that point in the process but based on Board commercts and interest in the projecy staff would provide the Board with regular updates on the project. • Osborne said it was important to get feedback from Board members who were absent. AGENDA I1TM # VII-B , PAGE 5 • Sanford asked who prepared the Concept Plan. Bradley replied that it was prepared on behalf of the developer. Geden said it was helpful to understand that the proposal reviewed by the PRAB in March was prepared by a consultant who designed concepts based on what the neighborhood wanted and what staff felt would be appropriate parkland for the development. That information was then given to the developers who came back with the concept plan now under consideration. • Osborne said it was Yroubling to her to use parkland as storm water deYention for the project and asked if there were a precedent. Bradley replied thcat the Holiday site was probably the primary precedent available and thaC site wa.s ,still in process. Bradley said staff had serious concerns about the proposals to detain storrrt water ared provide water quality features on the Holiday site that was to be dedicated to the city. Through conversations ancl the review processes, it was decidetl that the water quality features and the detention woulcl occur on an out lot that would be ret~zined by the Holiday development and become a homeowner association responsibility and the remainder of that park site would be dedicated to the city. That was a little different situation in that they had some unusual water guality features that were cutting edge. Bradley said she was unsure whether this water retention would be similar but she shared the concern and included that concern in the packet memo. She felt it was a significant concern with regard to usability of the park site and placement of facilities. • Osborne spoke about the drawbacks of private parks. Bradley said she had not yet received any feedback from the Four Mile Creek neighborhood about the proposed agreement,for Four Mile Creek Subdivision to share maintenance costs on the Northfield homeowner associaCion parks. Bradley said the Board was in the position of having to review what was on the table at that point. At some f uCUre poir2t Bradley felt it would be helpful to hear fr~om the Four Mile Creek neighhorhood regardircg the proposed agreement. • Bradley said since the school district was not participating in the proposal it was difficult to forecast what might happen with that property. Staff would have to proceed with the assumption that the school district property might never be available to use or obtain as additional park acreage. • Wining said he had the same concern over water retention and park use and expressed disappointment with the reduction in the amount of parkland. • Wining said he would feel more comfortable if the school district land could be incorporated to expand the parkland. • Wining expressed concern thaC the homeowner association might want to give the private parkland [and mainCenance of thaC land] to Parks and Recreation. Geden informed the Boarrl that one-acre park sites sporadically located were more costly to maintain. Because of the dual purpose for this lancl and poterztial for limited use, this was not land the depctrtment would want to own later on. • Sanford said he was most upset by the reduction of parkland this Concept Plan presented considering how underserved thaC part of the city is and concurred with comments Osborne made about the idea of private parks run by homeowner associations. • Sanford also did not like the idea oPwater reCention on park sites, considering the size of the parkland available in this area. AGENDA IT~M # VII-B , PAGF. 6 Sanford expressed serious concern over the increase in density presented in the Concept plan, over that presented in the independent contractor's presentaCion. The Meadows Area Concept Plan added 18 units, going from 129 units to 147 units. He added that while the Commons went from 215 to ] 90 units, 25 percent of the land shown in the independent contractor version was removed in the Concept Plan version. Sanford was concerned about the quality of living environment the Concept Plan presented with such high density of population, poor traffic circulation, cramped parking and inadequate parks. He felt that this Concept Plan was a poor solution that did not blend well with the current neighborhoods and needed to be replaced with one that presented adequate park sizes and reduced living density. Sanford spoke about park size and expressed agreement with Geden's comment that one-acre park sites were very costly to maintain. Sanford said that undersized parks ought to be expanded wherever possible, to achieve an adequate size for the community Yhey serve. He fe1C Chis was almost a lasC opportunity to provide adequate sized parks to an area that has long been underserved. Osborne inquired about the school districC properry and the possibility of getting the school district back in the process. Randall responded that it was known not until a few months ago that the district did not want to put a school on that site. He added that,four of the six property owners were willireg to work together in the annexation I~rocess. He said the school district was an independent property owner and did not want to be in the process at this time. Osborne said it was her opinion that it might be premature to look at Chis annexation until the school districC property was available and enough land for a decent size public park could be secured. Randall r~eplied that Planning would like,for the school district to come along but couldn't compel therrc to do sa Osborne said that from the Parks and Recreation perspecYive the goal was to get a real public park in ChaC area which could be accomplished with the school districYs participation. Osborne suggested buying some land outright from the school district with fees from the Development Excise Tax. Bradley replied that affordable housing units were not assessed fees and the,fees on th.e remaining units would not gerterate a substantial amount of funds. Geden said Board members who were absent from the meeting would be contacted and asked far their comments. Comments from all Board members would then be given to Planning. Osborne said she would be willing to represent the PRAB at the August 22 Planning Board meeting. AGENDA ITEM # VII-B , PAGE 7 Following are comments from a PRAB member who was unable to attend the 7uly 22, 2002 PRAB meeting: Suzanne O'Neill's comments: A healthy tension exists among departments in applying the "community benefit" requirement for developments. Early and periodic communication initiated by those who are working closely with the developer at each sYage will enable timely, collaborative consideraYion of optimal communiYy benefit mix and tradeoffs. Is it too late in the process to initiate a meaningful discussion of private park size, etc.? Or, may inclusion of any of the Parks Department's top priority design standards be negoYiated within the community benefit reyuirement? As the Department is unable to provide additional public parkland in Che area, it is understandable thaC residents explore feasibility of the private parks and enter into negotiations witb the developer if Chey choose to do so. It is advisable for the Department to request and review the storm water detention technical specifications. An offer to provide input into the design of the parks should be renewed [if the Department cannot require inclusion of priority criCeria through negoCiation as mentioned above]. Access between Elks Park and the Palo Park subcommunity via a Greenway Crail connection along Four Mile Creek from 26`~ St. to the existing underpass aC 28`~' St will improve park services in the Palo Park area. The Parks and Recreation Department should coordinate with the Greenways Program on Che development of the trail connection. I would Yhink that conYinuing communication initiated by the Parks DepartmenC to the neighborhoods is impartant to ensure residents understand its willing ness to offer park design assistance to the developer, ascertain whether the residents would value improved access beCween Palo Park East and the park wesC of 30`h Street, etc. AGENDA ITF,M # VII-B , PAGE 8 Following are comments from Edward von Bleichert, PRAB member who was unable fo attend the July 22, 2002 PRAB meeting: General comments/yuestions: 1. Have we determined the details of developmenC excise fees in relation to parkland dedication ? (3/]8/02) 2. Have we determined what land would be available for purchase if the Board decides to go ahead with a purchase rather than park dedication? Is there any potential to acquire land directly South of the Pleasantview complex (East of Mountain View Cemetery)? ...or is this all part of the cemetery? 3. Tom Sanford had asked if it would be possible to use two of the fields at the South end of Pleasantview for practice. Terri Olander responded that this would mean that "some games would have Yo be canceled." In the short term it seems this could be quite disruptive. Is this something that could be accomodated through a change in scheduling over the long run? Should we evalute this further to see if a portion of a field(s) could be used without too much disruption in tournament play? 4. How would we realistically restrict access to new parks from surrounding neighborhoods should they decide not to help in maintenance costs? It seems we should do all we can to come Co an agreement on this shared maintenance as most likely there will be used form other adjacent areas. Northfield Commons (Kalmia): 1: With the BVSD taking the property south of Palo East off the Cable far the cime being, the potential for increased density continues to rise. Regardless of Yhis decision, it seems the density of housing has gone up relative to total park land since we discussed this issue in the Spring. Is t6ere any way to require more park land based on this density change? Would this help us get some soccer practice space? 2. Does the creation of a detention area at the SE corner of the Kalmia property require the removal the stand of mature tree currently on the site? This should be preserved as much as poesible. Northfield Meadows (47th & 7av): Comments: Overall, I think many of us recognize that the proposed developments at both the Meadows and the Commons will be one of, if not the last opportunity for development in this area. Although, the majarity of the Board (including mysel~ is in favor of land being dedicated versus acquisition, I Peel we should be ready to reevaluate this position in the event that dedication does not remain an option. We should remain flexible on this point in order to achieve our goals as best as possible. AGTNDA IT~M # VII-B , PAGF, 9 AddiCional soccer fields (for practice) seemed to be the lowest priority Por the Board overall. This came about in part from the perception that additional fields would be difficult to "negoCiate." A1Chough I agree it might be difficult, I tend to diverge in my opinion on this issue. I feel strongly that every effort be made to at least investigaCe this option. Yes we have similar shortages system wide but that should not be Che reason to accept this deficiency here. In fact it speaks stronly to addressing the problems where we have fhe opportunity to do so. Pleasantview will always be heavily used and the addition of more people in the area will only lead to more cont7ict in the eacisitng parks, if not the new park sites as we1L I am in favor of remedying this situation however possible. Perhaps the acquisition of atleast one practice space (which does not necessarily need to be a full size field....maybe even a few goals and some space to warm up) would allow for smaller (even more so than what is currently proposed) parcels to be used as neighborhood parks. This practice space could no doubt be used for other uses when practices were not taking place. We have made a big effort to deal with some of the conflicCs aC the Pleasantview complex (ie, the new fence) and I believe we should give egual consideration to the conflicts in the surrounding neighborhoods. By not addressing these conflicts, we almost guarantee continued complaints and headaches for both our staff and the community in the future. In assesing the overall situaCion, I feel it is important to recognize that the Elks site will one day be included in the service area analysis (once the underpass is built). We must bear this in mind when deciding how many and how big the new park sites should be. This again may allow us to allocate some land to practice space for soccer. Furthermore, the possible acquisition of land form BVSD south of Palo East may also provide us with more park space in the future. Is it possible to design the new park site in the Commons in a way that it could be converted to a soccer practice area should the BVSD property become available in the future, thereby creating a neighborhood park at Palo East? Cosideration of this may significantly alter where we would locate the new park site. One other benefit of official practice space may be the elimination of the need to redesign sites such as Palo Park EasC to discourage it's use as a pracCice space. Lastly, we should consider that some practice space would not only reduce conflicts in the surrounding area but add to the overall experience of Pleasantview. AGENDA ITEM # VII-B , PAGF. 10 ~~, ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ } i ~tiiititt~ R E ~ ~ 3$ Ff ff '` p~~ ~ R~ ~_~~ ~€9~~ ~ > ~ ) c I , . i i i . > - _~ . ~..o~.,..._.:m...n......_R~ ~ I i , i, ~;~ , ~ i 1 ~ {~ )`:~ .~ r.i ' I ~' , m- _~ ~ ~ 1 I i, - I I i' ~ i i ! ., NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CFSIGN OBJECTIVES 1. ?rovide recreationa! creas for active and possive users. 2 Cf`er gaihering spaces for social enacgement. 3. Preserve exisicing trees on site. - 4. Promote water conservaTion throuch xeriscape technioues ond plant materials apprepriate to local conditions. ~. °reserve anc enhance !he natural environment in e wayj that oi:`ers valuable heoit~t for wildlife- ~ ~- ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ a~ ~~ o ~s ~ ~ m ~ STRE~ TR~E ~ ~~ ~ ~ N~WN $PZE Y/?LE c¢ta+~m~+ u.w~ ue~ rmu:n aum~ uz=ic ~'i Z J L/ sw.w= wwre au~ &IR UV( au~ ~ ^ 9L~ER t11IDEu LX6 Fli ~ C3SUG0 I~G5L AFi INNY.' PJl~IE lSFi /.4 ~ ~ed ~r LPOION WLIEIX¢Y t ~ M}SQN GTAIPA ' ~ XCP XO dbEW ~xnia+• ca~ ~ ~n,~ ~V 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~t ~ ~ :_EG_ND ' ~,o~ ~~I I ~w~ ~~ oAnwEprry r,n.Fs o[aouous swuBs EYeAGPE91 $XRIIBS CR~tIMCCOYFIb (oI1NUPL5. PEFM`lW.S. (SiJUN(b.'c~j 14MMdD NRF ENKW(fD IUiNE iLRF wnuro r.aoow wx NWO YIfiM a~C w~ awcw v~cx;c r°a ~ SRPFMG SfOnE B~IILpF]15 ~ffFf $IX'.M1 FeVC lrcpvrR FROP» SICEWAlI( wcr-w--wnr un_' PRGiRTI IINE KEYMAP ~t m ~~ ~ Markel ° ~'~ Attachment C DOWNII~ICi THORPE ~ ~^ I~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ O ~< v ~~ d ~ ~, w ~~ ~ (~ ~ .~ ~ ~ µ. .-..] Z ~ ww n ~Q ~ ~ Z~ O~ 2 Os-21{G SG:F. I--3G'-0' SJOvll L-1 ~ y ¢ a ~ ~ ~ F-~~ 0 n wj,~ 3JVd '~i~ # W311 dUN3Jb Ca ~ OQV21010~ ?l~n~-nns~ oQG ~ "' C1V021 ~ldV1S HIL b d ~ ° ~ i ~ ~ ~ . ~~j ~llo~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~J ~J ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~ `! 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~g ~ ~ ~;' a~,}~,{~ ~~~~ ~~6~~.II~~ , , ; ~~ w Y W ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~y~ ~ ' y Y W ~ ~3~~ ~m G S~ ~ ~~~ W ~ 0~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ (/) lil ~== ~~ m ~ o~ /~(A ~ ~ ~ _ ~~~~}Y~~ '^ % v =~ c a ~^ -c a ° u~ Q ~ o °1 ° o E ~ ~ N ~> ~- ~ D ~ O W ~ ~' a~ o .~ . Y ~ ~~ s> vw~ m 0 ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ a o aL o ~ '~ ~ ` ~ ~`~ °~ ~ ~ o ~ o` cU ~_ ~ ~ ` o ~~ ~' .n a~ ~ ~ ca m ° o w ~ v o ~ s o u; c m ~u~ ~ N o~ sn o ~~ ~,- ~ ~ rn . a; ai ~ ~~ «. N ~i ~~ ~ ~ 'U ~ o E > ~ i v 3 ~ y m o v u~ ~ o~ v v rn ~ ~~ o > °- 'p v U Ll. QJ O _ ~ ~ ~~ o w' v o~o v~~ a` o a a ~ a; .- N MJ d' U1 ~ i u 1 ~p "__ "' S . _ _ ~~ I _ - A ,~~ _~~= N ~~~~ ~ 0 1 , ~ ~ c~e~~'i~•_ : ~~,- - o ~ ~> <~ ~ ~., ~ n ~ fY_ .;i, Cl_ ~ O C~ 7 ~ O ~ Z (.J W G ~FI-.(S~YPEET " " __ s - -' __ - . __ - - ___ _ ~n~... -;''_"-~-~- "__ - -K" ~' ~ ~ ' " ~_ ' ~~ 1 ~~ ` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~. p ' h'~k _~ ~ u • L~~° ~{-r. ~~ ~k~ ~~~4 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~re'r~ ~ F~ ,~ ~ ~~~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ !' ~ ...~ ~,::~ ~ a ~ U/ , ~ ` ~ \\ ~, 4 R 1 I 1 N q I ~] ~ ~ ~ry `~ ~~ ~ '~ t~~~~ ,, ~~« ~~+ -,r! ~ i° ~ '~~ a r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ s ~`I i ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~L ~Qj' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ \\~ W ~ t 5~"~i ~ ~ ~ ~~ % ` _ // ' ~ ~, f..; \ ~ ~ . ,~ b ai ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ l I ' ,:, ~~ ~ ~ .~, ~ a #1 ~i ~ O ~~~;~I~ Y ~• ~ ~m ~ ,~q@k/'t` y h ~ R ~~ ~. .~ -~ ../ u ~• ~ ~I ' gl ~/ 1: -. !,1~ ~ ~- ~ ~s - ~ a~--~- --~,--~ ; O~ p~ $._PIV1~\~~ ~~ °a o , t_ o g~r ~~ s3°w-! __ ~ g~~ ~ ,, x1. z~ ~ ~ ~d _ __ 1U ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~. . ~~ , ~ , ` - ` ~ ~ u w N 1 I ~ i~ ~ ~~ , . ~~6 ~~ ~i. ~~~~ ~ ~~ h YI ~..~C, ' ~~.._-__ I L U d ' \ > ! ^ ~. ~~\' ~ ___ , x ~ ~~~ `as d~ • Yp~.~- N~~. ,:l I ~ ~ ~ >_ ` ~~ _ p ~ i e, ~ _.^j \\.i~U~`~-~4.~~~-_- __~.-~~ -~^~ - "•jA .,~~ 5~ y~-,-•-_ _ - ~ .{ _ ' _' __ i___- -. ., - - ... . ,~. 4 Z/1S _` - - - _ ~ •- li -.~ ~. -.. <, O 13~ • . __ -- - - ~ 1 - - _ ~ - ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~,~~ ' -- ~ • ..~ ' ~....., 6 ~ 7~ ~ 1 ! \ -~M TCHLINE .. - '~ ~ . ~ .~. MATCNLINE,SE SMEE7' L7_- `. y ~ S E SHEET V 9 ~i~-~~~~, ~~~ ~ilicLat .~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~T ~ ~~~ r ~ ~~Tr ~ ~ ~ r -~ s N~Tf~HLINH SE SHEET L8 • ~ °'.:: - - ~< .~ _ ,:; I~TCNLINE . _ ~ 3@ ,m.r~,+d.~.~.m„~,,,, ~ g 'z.... o..~.,..r.....~M...,..~., ; ~~.: ...,.,,.,, «.,.. ~.„~., •. '. M•+r•w.y+~~~~ww~mM~rrn.nn~~cnxa ~ rn+nMr~y,~+w n~mµ.rmww+~wM~v i ~~Te anwm.m.wrenx.x~wr~v uu.~..~~.e,wuwvv~~...~wpR o.a~mo ~m„vs,~°'°"~.""'.w,.m'e'"a.v: ~w.~ a`°~.. ~.;1. ~'~~'".d :..i°iw' ~nM mw°a ::: '"7'w. r.ww,.m.~~.«~n..o:~p' r I.: ~„ - ... ~ ' 1 - ~Q ~