Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Silvia, Lightfoot, Parker, Gribou, and Rife. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Development Coordinator Volk, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 18, 1997. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 18, 1997 as t- ~.--v:~itten. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request of approximately 37 acres in the proposed Westfield Addition located along the south side of Graham Road near the future extension of Victoria Avenue and Consideration of a Master Plan and Preliminary Plat of the entire Westfield Addition, 52 acres divided into 171 single family lots, 1 C-N reserve tract and 3 reserve tracts. (98-100 & 98-300) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the Commission heard the request at the December 4, 1997 meeting where denial was recommended due to several unanswered questions dealing with the Master Plan. The applicant pulled the item before it proceeded onto Council. The original concerns regarding the master plan were the piecemeal zoning, whether the phasing would support major infrastructure items, how drainagewould be handled, the floodplain was not identified, how the project would be sewered had not been determined, concern with oversize participation (impact studies were not presented), and parkland dedication was unknown. Ms. Morgan explained that the applicant had submitted a revised master plan but it only addressed a few of the previous concerns. As a concept, the master plan appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances even though there are still several unanswered questions. • She explained that there were still concerns about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the development to support the infrastructure requirements. The developer's intention is to build single family residences on the property with possible neighborhood commercial at the Victoria/Graham P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 1 of 8 i~ • • intersection. Ms. Morgan stated that the previous plan and the revised master plan show the majority of the residential lots being built before the thoroughfare plan infrastructure is addressed. The Victoria extension and the east/west collector are not addressed until phases 3 and 4. Staff expressed concern about the phasing plan which stems from the ability for these phases to support such large pieces of infrastructure. Ms. Morgan explained that engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing of any final plats. The applicant gave staff the estimates five minutes before the meeting began, and staff did not have ample time to review the estimates before reporting to the Commission. Staff would request time to review before giving recommendation to this item. The Commission can clarify in the motion to have staffs comments relating to the estimates come back to the Commission with a recommendation or have staff review and have a recommendation prior to going to Council. , Ms. Morgan stated that the previous concerns about the internal street layout have been addressed by showing secondary access to Graham in Phase 2. On the revised plan, only 58 lots will be built with Phase 1 prior to a secondary access. Previously there were 107 lots built with single access. Ms. Morgan said that there is also a street connection made across the creek to the east/west collector providing access to and visibility to the creek area. Staff has not seen drainage plans for this development. The developer will submit the plans with the final plats, at which time staff will determine if the drainage will be adequately handled. Ms. Morgan explained that the developer has not confirmed if floodplain and floodway exist on the property. CSISD is proposing development on adjacent tract and they have determined that floodplain does exist on their property. The location of the floodplain on the CSISD tract may have an impact on some of the lots that back up to the creek on the presented plan. Ms. Morgan explained that with the location unknown, the suitability for development of these lots is also unknown. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined on this property. The developer has discussed the ability for this property to sewer toward the south rather than participating in the Graham Road Impact Fee Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. Mr. Szabuniewicz has discussed with staff a request to amend the existing impact fee area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line and pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. Ms. Morgan explained that a portion of the line has already been constructed, and is existing in the Springbrook Subdivision and would continue west to and through this development. The developer would be requesting oversize participation in this new sewer line. The developer would have the responsibility for demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area. City Council must approve any changes to the impact fee area. Staffwould recommend that no final plats be processed until the sewer determination is made. Ms. Morgan said that it is required that impact studies be presented when oversize participation is being requested. An incomplete impact study was submitted for sewer oversize for Phase 1. She explained that if the developer does not complete the impact studies prior to construction he will lose the ability to request oversize at all. Staff would recommend that General Note #6 be revised to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with oversize Participation requests to the City.„ This change would make it clear that the participation is a request to the City, not by the City. Ms. Morgan stated that the Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension of Victoria along the western boundary of the 14.8 acre tract located to the west of the two tracts submitted for rezoning. The Plan P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 2 of 8 also shows the extension of Southern Plantation through the southern portion of the subject tracts and through the southern portion of the adjacent 14.8 acre tract. Staff did invite all owners of undeveloped • land in this area to a meeting to discuss thoroughfare plan implementation options for this part of town. As a result of the meeting and subsequent meetings with the developer, it has been determined that Southern Plantation Drive will "T" into the east/west collector which will extend through the southern portion of the subject property. The final location and alignment of the east/west collector will not be determined until the floodplain limits are established. In discussion with staff the developer indicated that he would construct, at his expense, with a request for Oversize Participation, all of Victoria Avenue in phases 3 and 4. If the developer is unable to acquire right-of--way from the adjacent property owners (Carroll tract) he will have to shift Victoria completely on to his (the developer's) property as it runs adjacent to the Carroll tract. Right-of--way from the Fry tract will have to be acquired to avoid an off- set intersection at Grahamor some acceptable alternative presented. Condemnation may be necessary if the developer cannot negotiate acquisition on the Fry tract or another alternative found (ie: off-set intersection). The alignment shown as Victoria moves southward, requires right-of--way from the Bald Prairie Subdivision. Staff strongly recommended against alignment. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision, thereby preserving the integrity of an established neighborhood. Ms. Morgan said that the revised master plan shows a residential street crossing the creek area, which would provide some access and visibility into the area. This would also result in some lots being oriented with a side to the creek rather than a back yard. The end of the cul-de-sac in Phase 1 also extends into this area, but it is unclear whether this will be the final design until the floodplain location is determined. Ms. Morgan explained that the developer did meet with the Parks Board to discuss parkland dedication. The Board moved to recommend accepting the land dedication show depending • on the floodplain study and to allow future credit Mr. Szabuniewicz adjacent development. The developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development. This should be considered when evaluating oversize request for streets, sewer and water. Ms. Morgan said that the master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek. She said that staff has encouraged the developer to address how the creek area will work with this planned development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area is noted on the master plan as Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not desire to purchase this area to provide a linkage, as addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, then the developer may incorporate this area into his lots. Staff recommended the developer to revise Note #9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for op ssible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots." Ms. Morgan explained that until all of the information is presented by the applicant, staff cannot process any final plats for any part of the development. Staff does support the master plan in concept with the conditions mentioned. Staff recommended approval of the master plan and preliminary plat of phase 1 with the following conditions: 1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing any final plats. • 2. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined. P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 3 of 8 3. No final plats can be processed until a determination is made as to how the property will be sewered. • 4. Revise not #6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with oversize participation requests to the Cites" 5. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision. 6. Revise note #9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for op ssible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots.". Ms. Morgan said that the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The developer has a request to rezone a portion of the property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 is in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommended approval of the presented zoning request. The applicant has advised staff that he proposes to submit a rezoning request for the remainder of the property (R-I and some C-3) before the next deadline. This would avoid a piecemeal approach to zoning and establishes commercial zoning prior to lot sales in the adjacent development. This puts future owners on notice of nearby commercial development and avoids possible opposition and confrontation before the Commission and Council at future rezoning hearings. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. John Szabuniewicz, Developer of the property, said that he is agreement with staff s recommendations • and will meet all of staff's concerns. He explained that he has met with CSISD regarding the drainage study. Mr. Savage (CSISD) went to Dallas to see if the study was complete. Mr. Szabuniewicz explained that he is coordinating the drainage with the school because it is the same channel. He explained that his anticipated the drainage study for Phase 1 could be completed within two weeks. Lawrence Link, owner of the property south of the property in question (Fry tract). He explained that his property is where the proposed Victoria will run, which would take away approximately 20% of his parking for the existing building on this tract. All of this parking is currently being utilized and taking of this area will create a parking problem. Mr. Szabuniewicz explained that taking this property is the only way to extend Victoria without having an offset at the intersection. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Chairman Massey stated that the Commission would consider each item individually in the motion Chairman Massey expressed concerns about the apparent "loose ends" with this plan. He expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts to review the plan with such detail especially taking into consideration the potential for growth in the area with the new school being proposed also. He stated that he had hoped most of staff s concerns would have been addressed before presenting this item to the Commission and that this is not something that will continue to happen. P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 4 oj8 Commissioner Rife moved to approve the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat with all of staff conditions. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed (5-2). Chairman Massey and Commissioner • Lightfoot voted in opposition to the motion. Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the rezoning request. Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Rock Prairie Plaza, 8.127 acres located on the east side of State Highway 6 East Bypass between the intersection of the Rock Prairie Road overpass and Rock Prairie Road East. Property is currently zoned C-1 Commercial. (98-301) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is platting this property as the first step in developing it as a commercial retail center. Currently Lot 1 is proposed to be a gas station with a convenience center and fast food restaurant. Lot 2 is proposed as general retail and Lot 3 as another fast food business. The site currently has most of its frontage along the Highway 6 Bypass and some frontage on the existing Rock Prairie Road. Eventually Rock Prairie Road will continue across the existing overpass and connect up to the existing Rock Prairie Road (shown on Thoroughfare Plan) which some of the right-of--way has been acquired. The first connection of the extension for Rock Prairie Road will be developed with this site along the northern property line. Staff reviewed the plat on December 29, 1997. The developer conducted a traffic impact analysis for this property and has determined that only a minor collector street cross section is necessary. The applicant is applying for oversize participation to recover the difference in construction costs between these two cross sections. • Staff recommended approval with all staff comments. The most critical comment would be to relocate an existing street light for the realignment of Rock Prairie Road. Commissioner Rife expressed concern about the Frontage Road becoming one-way in the future. Transportation Planner Hard explained that an overpass at Barron Road is a long range plan and the Frontage Road will not be changed until the new overpass is built. Ms. McCully explained that plans in these areas will be reviewed under existing conditions. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the preliminary plat for Rock Prairie Plaza with staff comments. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (7-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Final Replat for Blocks C & D of Ashford Square, a resubdivision of 5.82 acres on the south side of Southwest Parkway, west of the Dartmouth/Southwest Parkway intersection which includes 19 duplez lots. (98-201) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that this site is located on the rear portion of the Ashford Square Center. This site was recently rezoned from A-P Administrative Professional to R-2 Duplex Residential. Council approved the rezoning at their December 11, 1997 meeting. Conditions placed on the rezoning were that a replat be submitted, approved and provide the following: • 1. New access drives must meet current City paving standards. P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page S of 8 I~ • 2. That the access drives meet standards for adequate fire lanes and City vehicle turnarounds/radii. That the access drives have no connection with the commercial access drives that currently exist to the west. 4. That the duplex lots be oriented away from the commercial lots. 5. That there be an impenetrable screen installed along the western boundary of the duplex lots and that the screen is not easily mountable. 6. That all access roads be dedicated as public streets. variance given the circumstances associated with the property. Ms. Morgan explained that in response to condition number 6, the applicant has attempted to meet this requirement. In trying to do so, they have met the pavement cross-section and width requirements but cannot meet the right-of--way width requirements, as stated in the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is proposing a 40' right-of--way, in order to meet the minimum lot dimensions. The applicant has therefore requested a variance to the right-of--way width. To compensate for the substandard width, the applicant will dedicate a 12' public utility easement along the fronts of the lots. This gives the City enough room to work on the roadway facility and any utilities within that area. Staff would support this Staff recommended approval of the final replat with the variance to the right-of--way width on Ashford Drive and Ashford West Drive, with staff comments as stated in the Staff Review Report. Staff also requested renaming Ashford West Drive for 911 purposes. The drainage variance request was withdrawn by the applicant and they will comply with the City's Drainage Ordinance. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one to speak in favor of or in opposition to this request, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final replat with staff recommendations and comments. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). Raintree Subdivision. Property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. (98-302) AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Master Plan for Horse Haven Estates, 119 acres located on the east side of State Highway 6 East Bypass between Switch Station Road and Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the entire 118 acres were under a single ownership at one time, but over the years the applicant has sold off portions of the original tract without platting the property. There have been several mobile homes placed on various parts of the property which is allowed in that zoning district. The applicant proposes now to sell the 25 acres in Tract 2, where the driving range is located, to an individual who wants to reorient and redevelop the driving range. This redevelopment will require various building and other permits which cannot be issued without the property being platted and developed in accordance with the City's Subdivision and Zoning regulations. Ms. McCully explained that the master plan shows 4 tracts that reflect current property divisions. It is a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations that the original parent tract be P&Z Minutes January I S, 1998 Page 6 of 8 included in any master plan. The purpose of this plan is to be able to submit a preliminary plat and final plat of the 25 acre tract so that it can be sold and developed. The driving range is a permitted use in the A-O Agricultural Open zone so there will be no rezoning request at this time. Staff contacted the • Windwood Homeowner's Association to notify them of this pending redevelopment. Appomattox is shown to extend into the property, but it is not being proposed to be dedicated or developed when the 25 acre tract is final platted. Ms. McCully asked the Commission to recall that Council's direction in the Comprehensive Plan was to extend Appomattox into the Hermann property to serve any future residential development, but not to make a connection to the East By Pass or to allow any commercial development to access it. The ultimate plan of the property owner is for some commercial development on the frontage and the remainder as rural residential lots. Presently there are just scattered residences. Until this situation changes and more residential development is proposed there is no need to extend Appomattox into this area. As long as the density is as low as it is, there is no need for Appomattox. The City would be maintaining a road with extremely little use. Ms. McCully explained that in order to not lose the opportunity to get Appomattox right-of--way dedicated and ultimately built by the property owner, there will be a need for a development agreement at the time of the final platting Staff recommended approval of the master plan with all staff notes and the condition that the development agreement is executed with the final plat. Ms. McCully explained that during research there was question about the zoning shown on the area map. Staffwill continue researching this area to locate the exact zoning lines within the property. Burt Hermann, owner of the property, explained that the property had never been rezoned to R-1, all of the property should be zoned Agricultural. • Mr. Wilford Gardner, President Windwood Homeowners Association, presented a letter and area map of the location to the Commission. He explained that the Windwood Homeowners Association is concerned with the presented plan because this is the first time he had seen that Appomattox would be extended beyond the Windwood neighborhood. He said that the HOA was under the impression that the extension of Appomattox would come from Raintree not Windwood; but, the proposed master plan shows that it would cross Switch Station Road which is currently closed to the public. He added that it would be illogical to put gates on both sides of the proposed Appomattox extension since the heavy city power trucks would have to stop to get through three gates along Switch Station Road which would mean that the trucks would come through Windwood or the city would just open up Switch Station Road and have a gate only on the east side of the proposed Appomattox extension. He said that extending Appomattox would open the neighborhood to cut-through traffic. Mr. Gardner expressed that the other possibility regarding the opening of Windwood to the East Bypass is that there is only 25 feet between the end of the proposed Appomattox cul-de-sac and the adjacent street (Horse Haven Lane). The HOA strongly opposes this possibility because there would not be enough land on which to build anything but a road. He expressed two other concerns, which are the potential for increased traffic within Windwood past the neighborhood park, where small children play; and, the number of cars trying to get out of Windwood. He explained that with the development of Sam's, the movie theater and the conversion of the East Bypass access roads to one-way has greatly increased the flow of traffic on Highway 30 past the Windwood entrance. He explained that the HOA does not wish to deny the Hermann's the right to develop their land, but they ask that they continue to be good neighbors and develop it in a such as way as to minimize the impact on Windwood. P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 7 of 8 • • • Commissioner Rife felt that Mr. Gardner brought up some valid concerns regarding trucks using the subdivision to get to the Switch Station. Commissioner Gribou agreed and felt Mr. Gardner's concerns should be addressed before approving the master plan. Mr. Hermann clarified that he doesn't want the extension of Appomattox but staff has told him that it was a Council direction. Commissioner Lightfoot agreed with Mr. Hermann and said that Council expressed a strong position regarding Appomattox and the integrity of the neighborhood. He said that in the staff report, it stated that there was no proposal or intent to dedicate or develop the questioned portion of the property and Council has already established that Appomattox could be extended through the Hermann property in the future. Appomattox is shown as a cul-de-sac that will not connect with the East Bypass. Commissioner Lightfoot encouraged the Commission to approve the plan. Chairman Massey asked staff if Appomattox location reflects the Council's direction. City Planner Kee said the representation of Appomattox does reflect Council's direction and intent for the street to go into this tract and not connect with the East Bypass. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the master plan with staff conditions. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Commissioner Silvia moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 8 of 8 Registration Form a (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Sa,[n , (5 , l 4 q g Agenda Item No. S Name ~~i ~~'o~^ ~ ~a ~-Ql h e ~ Address 6 `F~~ w~~/c.~.oo-d ~7 ~. G .S If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: -~} ,Pwoo.~ ~e~'g~16oHN oe.~ l-~-ssoc~'Q~~Q~ Speaker's official capacity: Pr ts~` el ekf Subject on which person wishes to speak: cS Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. ~' b ... w° w ~~ A' • U • Windwood Neighborhood Association College Station, Texas Memorandum To: College Station Planning and Zoning Board From: Wilford D. Gardner, President ~,~~ Subject: Horse Haven Estates January 15, 1998 Burt and Virginia Hermann have presented a platting of a tract of land along the east bypass between Windwood and Raintree subdivisions to gain approval from the city of College Station to sell a parcel of land they own in that area. They have sold off portions of the land they owned there, but have been required by the City to plat the land before selling more of it. No rezoning is being requested at this time. The Windwood Neighborhood Association is concerned with the plan for several reasons. First, this is the first time we have seen that Appomattox is to be extended beyond its present termination in Windwood. We thought that our pleas and arguments to the City over the past several years to maintain the peaceful integrity of our neighborhood had been heard and that Appomattox would not be extended. Looking back through the records we find that Council directed Staff to extend Appomattox into this property in the comprehensive plan, but it was only this week that we realized the extension was to come from Windwood and not Raintree. Even though it is not being proposed to be built at this time, we are gravely concerned about this Appomattox extension. We have repeatedly stated that we do not want another entrance to Windwood, but the proposed plan opens that possibility again for two reasons. The proposed extension would cross Switch Station Road (SSR), which is presently closed to the public. It is illogical to put gates on both sides of the proposed Appomattox extension since the heavy city power trucks would have to stop to get through three gates along SSR, so trucks would come through Windwood or the city would just open up SSR and have a gate only on the east side of the proposed Appomattox extension. This opens up our community to fast cut- through traffic. Hermanns have already proposed to move the gate on SSR east to use part of that road to access the re-oriented golf range. We are concerned that SSR may eventually be opened further. • The other possibility regarding the opening of Windwood to the east bypass is that there is only 25 ft. between the end of the proposed Appomattox cul- de-sac and the adjacent street -Horse Haven Lane. This is not enough land on which to build anything but aroad -something we strongly oppose. It makes much more sense, therefore, to connect Horse Haven Lane to the proposed Appomattox road, but to terminate this road within Horse Haven Estates with a cul-de-sac (See attached map). This alleviates two other concerns, which are the potential for increased traffic within Windwood past our neighborhood park, where small children play, and of the number of cars trying to get out of Windwood. The development of Sam's, Hollywood 16, and the conversion of the East Bypass access roads to one-way has greatly increased the flow of traffic on highway 30 past the Windwood entrance. A surprising number of cars are coming on Hwy 30 from the Bryan subdivisions of Copperfield and Wheeler Ridge and this is only going to increase as Boonville Rd. (State Hwy 158) is widened to a 4-lane road from Briarcrest to Hwy 30. Adding any more cars to those trying to exit Windwood by adding more residences at the end of Appomattox will just make the situation worse. Traffic on the east bypass where the Hermanns show Horse Haven Lane connecting is • relatively light, so entrance to that road would cause less congestion. A final question arises about the plan presented here. It is our understanding that the Hermanns no longer own tracts 1 and 4 of Horse Haven Estates, and they are proposing to sell tract 2. The plan shows roads into tracts 2 and 4. Do the Hermanns have approval of the other owners for this plat plan? We urge that these questions be answered and that this platting not be approved without changes to the proposed roads. We do not wish to deny the Hermanns the right to develop their land, but we ask that they continue to be good neighbors and develop it in such a way as to minimize the impact on our neighborhood. Their project can and should be self- contained. It encompasses far more land than the entire Windwood subdivision. • • • • ~Cannin~ ~' ZoninB Commission Guest .7~,eBister • 7. 8. 9. Date ,--- ~ ~ ~~ 7' ~ ~C,~ ~~jL~~ ~-'~ ~~J ~ ( (_: 2l~fii s ~- ~-~ 0 ~~~~'/i.~ ~S 01111 10.E ~//~.~c'~,-~~~. L,~~1 c. C` 11. 12. 13. 14. 1S. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. zs ~~ -, ~G~ ~ ~ J ~ r L!<i- ~ ~= 1 ~S~ - L ~J ~ ~, 5. ~~ ~ ~v..L y~c~ 6. ~:~ ,-~-,~-'i