HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Residential and Lodge.1978 M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: Growth Management Residential and Lodge Allocations - 1978
DATE: April 7, 1978
Please find attached the recommendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding the scoring of the seven residential and two lodge
applications under the 1978 growth management reviews. As you know, Ordin-
ance 48 provides that applicants may appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation to Council , and Council may make changes in individual point
scores which might affect the standing of different projects.
We have contacted the applicants to see how much time each will request be-
fore City Council . In view of the fact that each seemed to feel that at
least fifteen minutes was necessary, we recommend that you set a special
meeting to consider the appeals. You may wish, however, to discuss the
Planning Commission recommendation if there is time Monday night. The eve-
nings of Wednesday, April 12, or April 17 seem to be open without conflic-
ting meetings.
sr
MEMORANDUM •
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (BK)
DATE: March 16, 1978
RE: The Growth Management Plan Score Results from the
March 14 Public Hearing •
•
Due to perserverance, attention to detail, and just some
good old-fashioned hard work in reviewing the applications, we
successfully completed the first Growth Management Plan reviews
of a number of residential and lodging projects within the City.
We at the staff level are most appreciative of this and believe
[/ that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be lauded for
your efforts in completing this process . However, some additional
issues remain to be discussed. Attached t'lease find the chart
listing the scoring results for both the residential and lodging
projects with total number of units, poir,Ls awarded with bonus
and without bonus. We would like to reserve some time on the
agenda of March 21 to discuss six major issues that were raised
by various applicants_ during our public hearing of March 14.
Each of these issues should be thought about by commission
members and discussed at the next meeting. ye believe recommenda-
tions on these points should be provided to he City Council from
the P&Z in the form ,of a resolution that would accompany the
allotment scoring and recommendations. These issues are as follows :
1. The 60% minimum point requirement. Ordinance 48 as
currently drafted requires that an application receive 60%
of the total available points under public facilities , social
facilities and services and housing in order to be considered.
As the ordinance is drafted, it specifically excludes the
possibility--of adding bonus points - to the base score for
purposes of calculating the 60% . In other words, an appli-
cant must have 39 points total (60% of 65) without bonus
points in order to be considered under the ordinance. With
this requirement only two projects are able to be considered;
Top of Mill and Park Central West. Without any practical
experience in implementing or operating this ordinance, we •
debated the 60% and really had no feel for how reasonable
or unreasonable such a requirement may be. It is totally
within the Board ' s capabilities to pass on recommendations
on the allotments with some additional recommendation as to
the 60% . You may agree or disagree with the effect of that
section and should probably make your feelings known to the
City Council. From a staff point of view, this provision
seems overly stringent in that we probably failed to consider
that the entire social facilities and services section really
acted as a bonus section in that very few applicants got
scores of 2 points for any elements in there. Therefore ,
60% of the total available points is very difficult to attain
since so many of the provisions act as almost bonus pro-
visions. At any rate, we should discuss this at next week' s
meeting and come to some resolution.
2. 20% Bonus. Section 24-10. 3 (a) of the Growth Management
Plan ordinance, Ordinance 48, provides for an opportunity
to go over the specific quotas by as much as 20% for the
residential section, 25% for commercial, and 33% for lodge
units. 20% increase over this year' s quota, 54 , would
constitute a total of 65 units. Coincidentally, the three
Memo
March 16, 1978
• Page 2
•
projects that have scored 1, 2 and 3 under the Growth
Management Plan would add up to 65 units. At any rate ,
this is a discretionary matter for the City Council but
the process would benefit by a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Seven Existing Units. On the various projects proposed
within the Growth Management Plan, seven units are currently
in existence that would he removed as a result of any approval
for future development. The question was posed by Lenny Oates
who is representing the Goodnoughs. However, of the seven
units none are on the two top sites that are approved through
the ordinance as of now. The only thing relevant to consider
is the actual units removed as a result of the approvals that
would be given through the Growth Management Plan to adjust
the quota. Since none of the existing units are in projects
that have been approved as of yet, we cannot agree that the
quota should be amended to compensate for these existing
units.
4. Split Between Sites on 925 Durant and 500 South Galena
Project. At our public hearing, criticism was raised about
the prospect of allowing developers to apply for a Growth
Management Plan allotment on two different sites. While
we covered this question in a memo of July 29 , 1977 , there
were a significant number of complaints from various appli-
cants about this position not only in the terms of scoring
such an application but in basic fairness.
5. 33% Bonus in the Lodge Quota. With a quota of 36 units
for this year, a one-third increase would allow another 12
units for a total of 48 . Since only 44 units, 36 at Aspen
Inn and 8 at Mountain Chalet, have been applied for, then
it is possible within the ordinance to approve all the
lodge applications that have been made this year, and, again,
this is a discussion item for the Board.
6. Exemption of Employee Units in the Lodge District.
Both the Mountain Chalet and the Aspen Inn have indicated
in their applications that they would like to construct
employee units. Plans call for 24 units in the Aspen Inn
complex and 8 at the Mountain Chalet. These are exempted as
a matter of ordinance and the action the P&Z takes should
take this into consideration in framing a resolution as
a recommendation to City Council.
We would like to discuss these issues at next week' s meeting,
get some lead and direction from the Board in preparing a resolution
for approval by the Chairman. Again, the staff would like to
thank P&Z for your cooperation and perserverance through a long
and trying meeting, but we feel a lot was accomplished and the
meeting represents a good start in a new legislative land use
process in the City.
BK:mc
•
•
•
RESIDENTIAL SECTION RESULTS
W Bonus W/0 Bonus
1. TOP OF MILL 26 Units ' 49.0 44.8:
2. PARK CENTRAL WEST 10 Units 42.6 39.6
3. 500 S. GALENA, 925 DURANT 29 Units 40.4 38.0
4. ANDRE ULRYCH 6 Studios 39.2 36.8
5. GOODNOUGH APARTMENTS 9 Units 36.2 35.4
6. VAN HORN SUBDIVISION • 12 Units 32.3 31.2
7. COOPER & ORIGINAL 7 Units 25.2 24.6
LODGING SECTION RESULTS
W Bonus W/0 Bonus
1. ASPEN INN 50.6 48.6
2. MOUNTAIN CHALET 41.0 40.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT .
• Lodge Applications
Tally Sheet
•
PROJECT NAME 4gp /MI
Average CC, !F-B . 'NA JS JK , OH DE
44i4 . firth. /fe!/oh ✓c i�G
A. Public Facilities and Services
1. Water 3 . 1 3 e Z •
2. Sewer ( / / / /
3. Storm Drainage 5 Z 3 Z 3 ___
—. 4. Fire Pro';ection 3 / 3 Z 2 __ .
—. 5. Roads 2 3 Z 2- 3
Bonus
B. .Social Facilities and Services
1. Public Transportation 6 5 6 5 6
— 2. Police Protection: 2' /
_ 3. Proximity to 2 ? / ? _
Commercial Support '
•
Bonus — —
C. Quality of Design •
1. Architectural 3 ? 3 2 3
Design
--- 2. Site Design 3 3 3 Z
3. Energy 3 2 3 3 3
4. Amenities 2 3 3 3 2 _ —
5. Visual Impact Z 3 Z 2 3
Bonus ____ __
//// /// /// /// ///
D. Services Provided for GUe/Ls /// /// /// ///
• Bonus E. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals • 3 3 3
1. Reduction of tour-
ist rental space
• below max. internal
FAR •
2. Provision of bonus 6 6 6 6 6
employee housing
3. Auto disincentive 3 3 . 3 3 3
Bonus •
•
TOTAL POINTS • 7 24 '
53 44 ,50 4 50 = s =4g t-
et r%/t� /4
• _ 6 �hoJ ?� �.6
56 i X50 47. 5
•
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Lodge Applications
n '/ Tally Sheet
PROJECT NAME JOV/1/ ti vrl ar
Average CC F M J awie2 OH DE
riani.A. Public Facilities and Services - �J
1. Water / 3 3 2
— 2. Sewer / / / 3
3. Storm Drainage 3 Z 3 3 / ___
—_ 4. Fire Protection 2 3 a_ 3 Z
-- 5. Roads Z 2 2 Z 3 —
Bonus
B. .Social Facilities and Services
--- 1. Public Transportation 4 6 4 4 4
2 / - 1 / /
— 2. Police Protection_ ---.. — _
3. Proximity to 2 '2 2 _ _
Commercial Support
Bonus — — — —
C. Quality of Design
1. Architectural ? 2 / / 2 __. —
Design
2. Site Design 2 2 1 2 /
3. Energy 2 2
_ 4. Amenities —_
5. Visual Impact ?' ? / 2 2 ___
Bonus
/// /11 /00 III HI
D. Services Provided for Gue1/t/s /// D// /// ///
Bonus
E. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals 3 3 .3
1. Reduction of tour- —
ist rental space
below max: internal
•
FAR
2. Provision of bonus 6 6 (O 6 ¢
employee housing
3. Auto disincentive / /
Bonus
cal r
TOTAL POINTS
. D/ 41 43 34 43 39 = s s,� 6
Bows pls 1 Z keno&
46 43 34 43 51 = = 4!
• 1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
•
Project Name: net +Op'QINN
Average L1� }- ,/ / /
Points A. Public Facilities CC .FB WA JS JK OH DE
•
1. Water Service • A I I 0
,7 ' 2. Sewer Service -___I a i _J
22- 3. Storm Drainage a a
/ 4. Fire Protection :2.9- 5. Parking Design / / /3
6. Roads
•
All . ' 7. energy r9 !, 3
0.4 BONUS
/ ;s
B. Social Facilities and Services
CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
!. 1. Public
�, . a Transportation I 9 a c2 a
2. Police Protection _I / / / / -
3. Childcare
b,v • Facilities 0 / / /
/• % 4 . Bicycle Paths / / f.) / /
/ 5. Recycling Facilities / / / / /
6. Eandicapped Design
b0 Features / / / /
. 7. Commercial Support
�. �i Proximity 1 a ti. 1 9
oaf BONUS /
C. Housing . CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Middle 1,
2. Moderate
3.. Low
BONUS
;J"-, TOTAL POINTS %3 o) /.,..,_ j?
• a, " Yom o :a j)i/a
•
- ) . .
•
(;r/ J(
•
•
•
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: WI tAcw . / V
Average t/ ,V .
Points A. Public Facilities CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
,9 1. . Water Service ,,fJ j'
jig (p 2. Sewer Service ' .-( / 0,, / /
3. Storm Drainage / -i / ')-
4. Fire Protection 1 /
,�j 5. Parking Design ? .
b lj 6. Roads / J ,
b 14 7.A Energy , . -. .
•
BONUS
B. Social Facilities and Services
CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
hi1. Public
0 Transportation / / / / /
/ 2. Police Protection / / / /
3. Childcare
/',</ . 21 Facilities /. J, / / ''`
/; „a' 4 . Bicycle Paths / /
t , `/ ,Z 5. Recycling -Facilities / I
(/ 6. i'_andicapped Design
,' b ..)-- N Features ( /- / I Ci
7. Commercial Support
/ Proximity /' !
tlii: BONUS /
C. Housing . CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Middle
A 2. Moderate .
hA l 3. Low s:—. ..•-, / /;-, 1 !
.
Of ? BONUS l .' /
,A,ry1 V VvIk'H . i : ' , 7 r -% w, /
�� ^ TOTAL POINTS , v`; i i1 /,- - *-
•
c� l e,� " C(ud
h& .
•
•
•
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
•
Project Name: C i-VITAL W r
Average ./ ✓ ✓ ✓
Points A. Public Facilities CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. ' Water Service
.3 3 3 3 J
2. Sewer Service 4 3 ✓ ,2
3. Storm Drainage _!
` J 4. Fire Protection q 2 ! 3
5. Parking Design ". ?.
6. Roads if 3 ,
nl, 2 7. Energy h J .1. e"?,
c2 c;{. BONUS 3 > / be
B. Social Facilities and Services
CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Public
1. a
f>,.)/ Transportation / a
/, eiR. 2. Police Protection I . / / '1 /
3. Childcare
0, g'
Facilities I O / / /
4 . Bicycle Paths / / / / /
•
5. Recycling Facilities / / = /
• 6. Handicapped Design
Features I;
7. Commercial Support r 1
Proximity
4, BONUS / 1
. C. Housing CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1 . Middle
2. Moderate
3. Low q
BONUS
TOTAL POINTS 147 / 7 4//q` 410
•
• 31. w � 0 GUS
g
•
•
•
•
. .
s -,..,
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: 550,o 5 , Cy&L A ) 906. 00 IY
Average ✓ '/
Points A. Public Facilities . CC FB WA JS JK ' OH DE
//g. 1. Water Service / a 92 02
2. Sewer Service / / /
,-)4 ,57 .'.r 3. Storm Drainage 3 a 3 2 _
4. Fire Protection ,O / 3 3
5. Parking Design 2, ,9. 3 ,2 ,2
6. Roads h s, 3 3
„'r • U 7. Energy r 1. ' �, .3
ii*. $ BONUS / I
B. Social Facilities and Services
CC FB WA • JS JK OH DE
1. Public
/ Transportation / / / / I
/, ,,&. 2. Police Protection / / / _, /
3. Childcare
4, • Facilities :Q D c'/ / 9--
___IL 4 . Bicycle Paths / 1 /
/, I 5. Recycling Facilities / /
6. i_andicapped Design
Features 4 / r 02
7. Commercial Support
h Y Proximity _ c-s / rC / /
6, 67 BONUS / , ..
C. Housing CC FB WA JS JK OH DE .
•
' 1. Middle •
2. Moderate•/�.. 3. Low • [. /Q A /.=: /,1 _
/ --- 1 BONUS 1 /• ; 1 ''. )/ /,10r.<-,•�I0'I 2 TOTAL POINTS /� %�1 Y 3? �7
32. o (y/o r=ti:c c �.,
qU . • f i.
•
•
t (19
•
•
•
•
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: OLTC}{' — 'o csmolo Amt.
Average
Points A. Public Facilities CC FE WA JS JK OH DE
•
1. Water Service - 3 3 3 3
/ .2,- (/) 2. Sewer Service
7,Y 2 (z/ 3. Storm Drainage
4. Fire Protection
p _ . Parkin Desin
( 2) 6. Roads 7. Dnergy
/ ,Z BONUS I �3
B. Social Facilities and Services
CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Public
Transportation 2 02 72 / of
/ • & 2. Police Protection '1 i
3. Childcare
Facilities / 6 / /
/ 4 . Bicycle Paths
5. Recycling Facilities ? i
6. iandicapped Design
Features / / p
7 . Commercial Support
Proximity 2 / � a
�j•Sj BONUS 2 a
C. Housing CC FB :WA JS JK OH DE
1. Middle
/0 2. Moderate /7 _/9 /re, /0
3. Low
r.,"/ BONUS (C) • /
31•Z TOTAL POINTS - 4 6 �� f73
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT . RESIDENTIAL
•
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: DNOOciH i ( / / •
Average • -
Points A. Public Facilities CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
(> 1. Water Service a r9 a o, 1
16 2. Sewer Service / !i, A- 6 I .
1. 0 3. Storm Drainage 3 % ?> ,3 3
9* 4. Fire Protection % ` 7 i ,? -9
a9,LJ 5. Parking Design ) 6 .? 2 -
, ' 6. Roads (1 crA 37 .0.
<i 7. Energy a IL J.
4 d
BONUS !,( I
B. Social Facilities and Services
CC FB WA JS JK OH . DE
1. Public
0. 6 Transportation V r9, a 9 a
/ • C 2. Police Protection / / / / /
3. Childcare
1. 6 Facilities / D / /
/, 4 . Bicycle Paths / / 9 / / _ •
/, (-, 5. Recycling Facilities / / �, 4
• 6. Handicapped Design
/ D Features /_ / / _/ /
7. Commercial Support
71, Proximity di 0 %, 11 / .-
A BONUS . r /
• C. Housing ' CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Middle •
/0 _ 2. Moderate 0 / 7,2 /0 /.•'
3 . Low _
BONUS
7 TOTAL POINTS �, m'6 '/ .<
'. /_.
36
•
(::::T5H2) 60,0?1 ,"4--- r--Y. •
36 -a . F i `
.T ti
•
• el2i a
2 Gtr`
•
•
•
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL •
• TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: TO? pE Ill-A_ ,
Average •
Points A. Public Facilities CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
3 1. Water Service 7j J .7 7
3
/,n^ 2. Sewer Service / / / • /
,g. 3. Storm Drainage >, , : . -7 1 , .
4. Fire Protection A / / 2J
5. Parking Design %, i; c::
6. Roads 2
■3 7. Energy -
BONUS ::fr, r=< ∎i I . _
B. Social Facilities and Services -
CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Public
`/' /-/— Transportation / = ri I ''
�_ 2. Police Protection /
3. Childcare
cx Facilities
/ . 4 . Bicycle Paths - J / / / /
/, b 5. Recycling Facilities I /
6. Handicapped Design
/. A Features . S / , / -.
7 . Commercial Support •
Proximity / I / __
/ /
. C. Housing . CC FB WA JS JK OH DE
1. Middle / f
r 2. Moderate it if- 7 .-'"
gC 3. Low , '-: 1 / /1. _
/, ', BONUS • t_
11
411
TOTAL POINTS tAte /th I r� / :: .-
•
y� G .- (t - C1 :
•
•
•
•
7/:
4m
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Aspen City Council
FROM: Sandy Stuller4
RE: Growth Management rdinance
DATE: November 9, 1977
Lady and Gentlemen:
There has been prepared for your consideration on November
14th a final draft of the growth management permit allocation
ordinance incorporating all requested changes to date. For
your convenience, let me identify those changes that have been
made since the last reading of the ordinance:
1. Section 24-10. 2 has been changed in that it (a) now
exempts the (maximum) 20 employee units that may
be approved through any employee housing approval
process you may adopt (b) makes clear that only
lots haveing received subdivision approval as of
the effective date of this ordinance are exempt
from the allocation system and (c) specifically
excludes employee housing as coming within the
"essential governmental projects" exception.
2. The ordinance now permits you to establish different
application dates for both 1977 and 1978 for all types
of developments (this to accommodate the later than
anticipated date of adoption) and waives the require-
ment for prior HPC approval for both 1977 and 1978
allotment applications for the same reason.
3. The procedural deadlines for commercial, office and
lodge applications have been reestablished so as to
require (a) application prior to September 1 (b) P
and Z recommendations prior to November 1 and (c)
final allocation of the allotments by the City Council
prior to December 1st. Reports from the Building
Inspector are now due on or before October 15th. to
accommodate the new application deadlines.
4 . Section 24-10 . 10 reflects your decision to allow an
additional 20 employee housing units, depending on
employee housing needs and buildout on previously
approved subdivided lots.
5. Finally, the last section requires that a commission
other than the P and Z be appointed to process appli-
cations and advise as to desirable changes. You may
want to reconsider that such a lay board be established
for the review of the 1978 applications given the
time constraints imposed by the late enactment of the
ordinance.
41L7
6711
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Mick Mahoney, City Manager
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Time Table for Growth Management Plan
DATE: November 1 , 1977
In anticipation of Council action on November 14th to adopt Ordinance
No. 48 (G.M.P. ) we have worked up a recommended timetable for appli-
cations for both 77 and 78 allotments under the ordinance. In short,
we recommend a double allotment for 1978, with the normal offset for
residential and a double allotment for lodging with application deadlines
of February 1st, 1978. However, for commercial we recommend two seperate
allotments; one for 1977 with an application deadline of December 15th
for a total of 24,000 sq.ft. and a second 1978 allotment of 24,000
sq.ft. with application deadline of February 1st, 1978.
We feel that there should be a seperate consideration for 1977 commer-
cial applications in that:
1 . 1977 applicants have been delayed by the administrative
delay.
2. The 1977 applicants are ready to apply and to lump them
in with 1978, February 1st applicants would create an
additional 3 month delay.
3. 77 applicants would have to compete against more recently
conceived projects and run the risk of being out competed
by an applicant who has only waited 2 months while they
have waited 1 year.
The following is a recommended timetable for applications and review
under the G.M.P. for 1977 and 1978 assuming Council action on November
14, 1977: (Please see attached sheet)
cc: Dorothy Nuttall , City Attorney
Sandra M. Stuller, County Attorney
,t _ -J r+ Y * * ,t -
o
7"O N 71' VD 4.0
m 3 CO 0 oY V V tO
(0
V Of OD f) CD -, (0 V Co V
-1 --t r+ 0 -1 tO V
N ID -h C m V R•
r+ r+ J. Z 0) 3 a+ V
J.7 .-4 N tT 10
t< O W -I m -0 4• t0
m 7 CO fD 'S V
0 N 03
•S O 7 0, -S --•n to
• to -tI o 0 cn a V
rt -$ t< •. 7 CO
ID r+ fD r+
X 7-• -1 a+ --• to
'O m tO N CO
ID Z V V •h
-S ID V TV O 70 r 0 0
J• to. tO m 'S m 0 0 0
3 VO 3 -S I .Ni . Gam) 3 3
o a c w to o .4 m m
CD Of 7 0 -I V m Z 70 70 0 0
f aro+ two '� V H c)
� n a 10-4 >
r+ �Y c N7 0 D r r
m CO 3 N 7 -S
m co 3 CO CD r)
-'C -h V--• J. O) CO N N)
U1 •-•0 0 CO • • w a all a a
t< 0 o. -S to
to rt c C • 0
-a rt 3 r+ 0.0 Z Z O 0
CD CD r to •--• C •-• 0 0
3 7 m V CD O -I -I .O
• rt CO rt CO N N N C
co -I, ar 0) .0 _0 0
I -s I • E -h -h n
3 N) -t J• rt rt
o Of a -
-S r+ 0 -'
a. C 0) 0
3 o Z c c-
os 7 rt m
-I
t< -I N T T -n O
O CO -S m m m m v
CO•-h E to • • co 0
.• C a >
r+ c --• c o v -.
-. > r .-.
tom � J 0 • ,. • cr) C r 3
V rt m o •-I m
Co n m m a -J r n '-1
• J. O to tO t0 to LD J I-1 D
rt C 7 rt V V V to Z - CD
r+ O O O CO CO V m I-.t r r
-IN it V 0 m
rm 0 0)-t• <^
--I•7 7 -h
N J• 0<
In co m m
Z 0. T -n T L
a.70 7 2 m m m
-' m t0 rt • CO W Z In
-a< O -I
J• m m n • •• n
-0 m 0n N Na N -IT
"S E 0) t< • N) N) N) 0 O T
O • • •
n 2 3 vm _ _ _ -o xi
a.o '< < a= m
0. 3 al to CO t0 to N
m 3 t< • V V V O
'--' V 0
C CO CO OD V .'D
W N o a d H
N 7 7 rt
Cr J• 0. 7 o
Of o -• -
CA.a 7 cc CI to 7 3n a n m
vi C -o a, 7a 7a 70 CO
7 -• O 7 --I
-h et CD -h 0_ O IX
0 J• X -h N N N) N
•S J J. to J J J • n
r 0 0 • • • _ 070
-S CO O m 0 _ _ C m
CD -h rt • 'S 1.0 Z
< rt N to I.0 to V 0 O
--I.CD 7 V V V CO H70
Z 'S X 0 i 03 CO OD r -I
r+ CD C v
Of 7" 3 7 j
-4,m LS 0 •
et it -,•O 3 3 3 3 T
m m -' -s > > > nm
-s d 3 rt < 1 -< 0 CO n o o n
co O N 03 =
• N l-4 Z
O O n
-' w r+ Z F-4
to to to • 7- r
V V V
CO CO 03 •--• 0
VD '1
V
V