Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 16, 1998 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Maloney, Parker, and Mooney. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Rife and Kaiser. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Planning Intern Mixon, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Senior Planner McCully, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Director of Development Services Callaway, Assistant City Attorney Robinson. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on July 2, 1998. Commissioner Garner moved to approve the minutes from the workshop and regular meeting of July 2, 1998 with the presented changes. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). Commissioner Mooney amended the motion to include grammatical corrections in Item No. 2 of the Regular Meeting. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration of rezoning approximately 11.46 acres located 1/2 mile south of Green's Prairie Road on the west side of the Highway 6 service road, from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial. (98-111). Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the applicant would like to determine whether the property could eventually be sold to a commercial user. There is no specific use proposed at this time. The tract is located along the southern edge of the city. The City limits form the southern and western boundaries with approximately 800 feet of frontage along Highway 6. The existing land uses in the area include the property to the north, which is vacant and zoned interim A-O Agricultural Open; property to the south is a rural commerciaUindustrial use. Most of the property immediately abutting the tract to the west is developed as a large tract rural subdivision. The area is outside the City limits and is therefore not zoned. The official notification area did not extend outside of the city limits. • Despite the fact that the residential subdivision is outside the City, our development policies would still discourage commercial zoning immediately adjacent to residential. The area across Highway 6 is zoned P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 1 of 8 Planned Industrial and is currently developing as the City's Business Center which allows research and development, light industrial, and office uses but excludes typical retail commercial uses. • The Land Use Plan shows most of the area as medium density single family, with the exception of some retail commercial at the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and the Highway 6 Bypass. The Land Use Plan is in line with the City's adopted Development Policies relating to locating commercial uses, which basically limit large commercial developments to intersections of major roadways. The City has developed with these policies and has repeatedly rejected strip commercial development. While the idea of using only commercial development along all major roadways may not necessarily be a bad one if it's done correctly, such an approach is not in line with the current policies adopted by Council. Issues such as traffic and noise can be mitigated using other means of buffering. Ms. McCully explained that while the request for commercial zoning may be similar to the existing uses to the south toward South Oaks Drive, it does not further the future plan to have the entire area develop as residential. Staff notified 3 property owners within the 200 foot notification range and within the city limits. One call was received from a property owner in the residential area expressing opposition of the request. Staff recommended denial of the requested C-1 zoning because the request is not in compliance with the development policies as reflected in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and because the requested zoning would be incompatible with the future land uses in the immediate area. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Maria Polites, applicant, representing the property owner, stated that there is commercial property to • the south. Property owners to the north of the tract are in support of the request. She explained that her background is in real estate and felt that the property along Highway 6 is difficult to development as residential because of the noise even with the buffers. She said that for example, in Cypress Meadows, the properties closer to Highway 6 stay on the market approximately 6 months and the properties further away from the Highway are generally on the market just over 2 months. She stated that she felt sure the City would require adequate buffers for the property owners in the South Oaks Subdivision. The potential use for the property would probably be one large user. Strip center development is not being considered, at this time. Mike Downey, 4508 Texas Avenue South, owner of two tracts north of the subject property stated that he was in favor of the commercial zoning because he does not feel the area is conducive to residential development with the substation located in the area. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maloney stated that he felt the request is completely contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. With the history of commercial development along Highway 6, the objective was to try to smooth it out and only develop commercial property at major intersections in the future. Maybe in the future a change from residential to neighborhood businesses may be developed. Mr. Maloney felt that since the City invested heavily in the Comprehensive Plan decisions should be based upon the plan. Commissioner Garner felt the same way but she also added that she did not feel the City would want • residential development too close to the Highway. She said that the City should use the Comp Plan to base their decisions. P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 2 oj8 Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend denial of the request based on staffs recommendation. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Establishment of parking requirement for a new location for Signs Now at 305 Marion Pugh. (98-810) Senior Planner McCully explained that the site location came before the Commission as the site of the proposed Traditions Night Club in the past. Signs Now will use this building for selling and manufacturing/assembly of signs. She stated that at the last Commission meeting, parking guidelines for manufacturing were established at one space per employee. Signs Now plans to initially have 10 employees. There is also 1575 square feet of office space in the building. The Zoning Ordinance requirement for office space is 1 per 250 square feet. This office area would therefore be required 6 parking spaces. Combining these numbers the requirement would be 16 parking spaces for the business. Only one handicap space would be required. The Commission discussed whether the total parking would be enough for the proposed uses, especially if retail is also added. City Planner Kee replied that this office area could be retail as well because the parking requirement is the same. Ms. McCully responded that any increase in employees could be handled through code enforcement if needed. Commissioner Garner moved to set the requirement for this request at 16 spaces. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Final Plat (Replat) for the Lacour Subdivision ,Lot 1 located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Harvey Road and George Bush Drive East. (98-222) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the final plat for this subdivision was approved in early 1996. This plat contained a single lot, Lot 1, along with a reserve tract, a small portion of future Kyle Street right-of--way dedication and a Wolf Pen Creek dedication area. This particular lot is located on Harvey Road near Taco Bell. The portion of George Bush Drive East extension is located within the access easement that was dedicated with this plat. The purpose of the replat is to take this single lot and subdivide it into 2 lots approximately 2 acres each. Lot lA currently contains the Office Max development and Lot 2A is currently undeveloped. With this replat, there are some discrepancies as to the correct location of the floodway line. The original survey and the survey done with this replat do not agree on the floodway location. Staff worked with the original surveyor and the replat surveyor to understand the differences between the two interpretations. It was discovered that the original surveyor based his information on the 1988 Nathan D. Maier Study which was done for the City as part of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Study. The line shown on the replat is based on the 1992 FEMA FIRM maps which are the regulatory maps. The item has not been resolved yet but they are getting close to a resolution. Ms. Morgan explained that in the 1992 FIRM maps, FEMA noted that they had used the Nathan D. Maier Study to prepare the maps. The assumption was made that the floodway line in the NDM study was actually on the FIRM • maps which is not the case. Staff has reason to believe that there may be an error in the FIRM maps for this particular location. This error may be caused by a graphical misinterpretation. Staff has contacted FEMA regarding this issue. FEMA said that this replat could be approved from the floodplain P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 3 oj8 management standpoint with the floodway line that runs through Office Max (as shown on the original plat). Staff would have to make sure that if this building is ever expanded or if any substantial damage • occurred to it for any reason (fire, flood, or wind), mitigation efforts would have to correct any area of the building within the floodway. Staff felt certain that this would not happen. Ms. Morgan said that she believes this is a result from a graphical discrepancy on the FEMA map. The Developer will prepare and Staff will forward a letter of map amendment to FEMA to correct this situation, if this is what is found to be creating the problem. Staff recommended approval of the replat with the condition that all necessary paperwork be forwarded to FEMA for a Letter of Map Amendment and this issue resolved prior to filing the replat. Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the replat with staff conditions. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Final Plat of the Devonshire Phase 1-A Subdivision, consisting of 0.5023 acres, being subdivided into 7non-buildable parcels. (98-226) Road. Graduate Engineer Kaspar presented the staff report and stated that the City Council recently approved the abandonment of North Graham Road right-of--way from Wellborn to Victoria Avenue. That abandonment action merely abandoned the roadway and its use as a public roadway but did not express who would now own the property that was abandoned. For the most part the property will be properly platted with subsequent phases of the Edelweiss Subdivision, however this small portion of North Graham right-of--way adjacent to the Devonshire Subdivision would have been left as a remainder for • the adjacent property owners to survey and own by metes and bounds. With this plat this property is "cleanly" subdivided and recorded to aid in the review and retrieval of property information. Each of these lot owners in Devonshire will now own a lot and a corresponding parcel, (i.e. Lot 1 and Parcel lA). Because these parcels do not meet the minimum lot dimensions, have public access, or utilities, they cannot be sold off as individual stand alone lots. As such they are noted as non-buildable lots on the plat. This plat also retains the necessary easements for those pieces of infrastructure that are existing and used to be contained within the North Graham Road right-of--way. Staff recommended approval of the plat as submitted. Commissioner Maloney moved to approve the plat as submitted. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Reconsideration of a Master Development Plan for the Steeplechase Subdivision to be located along the east side of Wellborn Road, South of FM 2818 and adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 & 24D. (98-311) City Planner Kee explained that the proposed subdivision is located along the east side of Wellborn Road, south of FM 2818 and adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. This would be infill development containing 64 acres. The applicant is proposing 80 single family lots, 125 duplex lots, a small reserve tract for future residential development, 3 acres of commercial development fronting • Wellborn Road, 7.23 acres of common space devoted partially to storm water management on the north side of the development and a small area for detention of the east side. P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 4 of 8 The Parks Board considered the parkland dedication for this master plan on June 9, 1998 and discussed the options of accepting a monetary dedication (approximately $75,000) or a land dedication r ximatel 2.5 acres . It was recommended b the Board that the moneta dedication be taken at a o rY (pP Y ) Y • this time. The Master Plan was presented to the Commission on June 18, 1998 where the Commission recommended denial of the plan. The concerns the Commission had were the density, the parkland, traffic impacts, and homeowners association maintenance. The Plan went on to Council July 9, 1998 and was sent back to the Commission on a 4-3 vote. Councilman Esmond made the motion stating that he felt uncomfortable acting on the plan with such a strong unanimous statement from the Commission and moved to send it back for reconsideration. The implication was that the developer would try to address some of the issues. Ms. Kee explained that the Land Use Plan reflects the area for high density single family development. The applicant's intent is for a mix of single family and duplex development. Staff felt comfortable with the duplex portion of the proposal because of the adjacent existing duplex development to the east. A rezoning request will have to be considered and any approval of this plan conditioned upon receiving zoning approval. The property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The gross density is approximately 5 units per acre. There area 331 dwelling units proposed. The density would increase to 6 units per acre if the acreage designated for storm water management and open space and the reserved commercial acreage is deleted. The density is less than that shown on the land use plan even though the housing type is not all single family. The density of only the single family • lots in this subdivision would be 4.6 units per acre. When the plan was presented to the Commission in June, the Commission felt that the two existing neighborhood parks in this zone are too far from this development to be useable and were not comfortable with using the 40' drainage/utility easement for access. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and utility right-of--way that separates the larger existing lots in Southwood Valley 24D from these proposed lots in Steeplechase. The Commission felt that the land dedication rather than the monetary fee would be more appropriate. The Subdivision Regulations require a vote of 5 Commissioners to overturn a Parks Board recommendation. The Commission had only 4 members voting on this item. So it went on to Council with the Parks Board recommendations to take the money. Council did not give specific direction relative to this issue. Ms. Kee explained that after the Council meeting, staff, developer and engineer discussed various options. At that point, the developer felt comfortable with giving up 5 lots (approximately 1 acre) and dedicating this along with the 7.2 acres of floodplain and detention area for parkland. The plan was for Parks Director Beachy and City Planner Kee to meet with Chairman Massey, the Parks Board Chairman and the one remaining parks board member to get feedback regarding the dedication. This meeting took place and the consensus of the 3 members of those 2 advisory bodies was that the ordinance calls for a dedication of 2.5 acres and the ordinance also states that generally this land should be out of the floodplain. They did not feel comfortable accepting more than half of the land dedication as floodplain. The direction was to talk to the developer about dedicating all 9 lots for parkland and the City would take over the maintenance of the detention facility and floodplain. This land dedication would be about • 1.8 acres. Mr. Beachy and Ms. Kee spoke with the developer. The developer was not amenable to dedicating any more land than that which is presently out of the floodplain. He did ask whether a P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page S of 8 I~ CJ dedication that included some filled floodplain would be acceptable. This suggestion would have to be approved by the Parks Board. Ms. Kee said that the Commission was also concerned about the amount of traffic generated from this development. They felt that secondary access to Wellborn should be considered before the third phase of the development. The Developer was willing to extend access to Wellborn Road within the second phase. The Thoroughfare plan shows no major roadways needing to be extended through this property. West Ridge and Navarro Drive will be extended into the property to provide circulation and connection between subdivisions as well as provide access to Wellborn Road and to Welsh for good traffic distribution. Transportation Planner Hard explained that studies show that approximately 3200 trips would be made with this development. This meaning that 1600 coming into the development and 1600 leaving the development. This number would be distributed among the streets in the subdivision (not entirely on one street). Navarro would generally handle about 2/3 of the traffic generated with the development just by virtue of where Navarro is located in the development (approximately 2000 cars). Adding this number to the existing through traffic it would not exceed the expected number for the street to carry. The streets in the subdivision are residential collectors (39 feet wide). He felt it would be important for Navarro to have a connect to Wellborn Road for good traffic distribution. Currently all traffic would be forced onto Welsh Avenue which is close to capacity. Staff recommended approval with the shown density and land uses and the additional 1.8 acres for parkland, and distribution of traffic to Wellborn via connection with Navarro, and to have Navarro continuous through the development. June Cooper, 900 Val Verde, expressed concern with drainage from the new development. Her home backs up to the creek which is where the new development would drain. She did not have problems with high water in her yard until the development upstream was built. The water elevations in her back yard have been very high. Since the City modified the creek downstream, the spread of the water is only 5' wider than normal after a heavy rain. There is much water flow and erosion in the creek currently. She suggested that the holding area for the new development should be designed larger for the additional water flow. She asked if the size of the development determined the size of the holding area. Ms. Morgan explained that the drainage ordinance requires the development to show that the increased run-off from the development can be handled by the downstream system. If the downstream system is currently experiencing problems, the development would have to mitigate on site, normally through detention ponds. The properties downstream should not experience higher water surface elevations. Ms. Morgan explained that the City can guarantee through our drainage ordinance that this development would not cause any additional adverse impacts to Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper explained that she is also concerned with traffic impacts. She said that during peak times the traffic is already tremendous in both directions on Rio Grande. She felt that there would be problems directing the traffic beyond Welsh on Navarro. Another consideration would be to extend West Ridge through to Welsh. With Navarro extending through to Rio Grande there will be problems turning onto the street. Mike McClure, Engineer for the project, emphasized that no driveways would access the proposed • through street. He consulted with experts in the traffic field, Dr. Virgil Stover and Dr. Joseph Blaschke, and they both stated that this choice of extension would be in the best interest of both the public and the development. He also stated that the development is beyond the limits of the federally regulated P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 6 of 8 r C7 • floodplain. The floodplain line has been projected in accordance with the Stormwater Management plan. He felt that this development is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. John Duncum, Global Change property investor, explained that the economics of a project like this differs because of the size. This is a relatively small residential development. He explained that they want to work with the City. After meeting with staff after the Council presentation he thought there was agreement to dedicate additional park land instead of the fee. The amount of property wanted by the City is 5% of the total lots in the subdivision. He felt that giving this much land is costing the development more than paying the monetary amount. He wanted to have some compromise in this issue. Commissioner Maloney explained that the Parks Board, Council and P&Z all agree that there should be a park included with the development but there are different views on the size of the park. Staff is recommending additional property to be dedicated and he was under the impression that the park needs were going to be met with the floodplain and the additional lots. Mr. Duncum explained that he was willing to dedicate the property even though it would be costing the developers more than giving the monetary dedication. Ms. Kee explained that the dedication is based upon the number of dwelling units not the number of total lots. The amount would be $225 per dwelling unit. The Parks Board was looking at what the ordinance requires (1 acre per 133 dwelling units). They felt that accepting less than 2.5 acres for the 330 dwelling units and willing to take on the maintenance of the detention and floodplain area, that they should require additional parkland dedication assessed against the lots in phase four at the time of development. There are many combinations of dedications. The ordinance gives discretion to the Parks Board to eliminate small acreage parks around the City. Chairman Massey explained that the reason this item is back is to have a park in the area to serve the future residents. He said that from the subcommittee meeting with the Parks Board, he felt that even with the additional 5 lots there still would not be enough land to develop a significant park. The benefit seemed to be a good trade-off because the developers would not want to do any developing in the floodplain. This area would be more of an observational wild area rather than a usable area. Acquiring the additional lots, in the Parks Board view ,was an improvement for the subdivision. The Parks Board feels that parks are an important asset to the community and the subdivision. Mr. Duncum felt that it was for the City's judgement to determine how to use the 8 acres of dedicated land, whether as a wildlife park or if it should contain park equipment (ball fields, playground equipment, etc.). Commissioner Maloney suggested accepting the 1.8 acres (at the top) plus the floodplain area as the parkland dedication and allowing phase four to be considered at the time of development. This would leave the bottom lots for development. Glen Thomas, builder and developer, said that he was asked if he would be interested in building in the subdivision if developed. In view of the drainage issues, he felt that the engineers and staff would work out the perceived problems. In the development of Clovis Court, in which he developed, he had to dedicate and build a detention pond. He understands that the developer is responsible for maintaining and controlling the drainage of the development so that it does not adversely affect the downstream subdivisions. He said that he could not see this development working without having the street P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 7 of 8 extension to Wellborn Road. Most developers want to work with the parkland dedications. This type of development would require the property to be ready at the right time (i.e. A&M Semester • beginnings). Mr. Duncum said that they would dedicate the lots along West Ridge m lieu of the monetary dedication for this land. They will also ask the City for oversize participation in West Ridge. There may also be a sewer line extension during the second phase but this has not been determined. • • Commissioner Maloney moved to recommend approval of the Master Plan with the change that the entire floodplain area is dedicated as park area to include all 9 lots fronting on West Ridge and the dedication will include credit for the future 8 acres in phase 4; that the City participates in oversized participation for the construction of West Ridge, and that Navarro extend through to Wellborn with phase two. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Presentation of future growth scenarios for College Station including Thoroughfare planning in the Graham Road area.) This item was deferred to a future meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other Business. Commissioner Garner asked for an updated Land Use Plan. Staff will provide all Commissioners with this plan. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8. Adjourn. Commissioner Maloney moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). TTEST: ,. Staff Assistant, Debra haranza APPROV~D: ,-. `1. Chairman,oJames~' ssey ~ , P&Z Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 8 of8 PCanninB ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~,eBister '~ ; ~ _ Date ~ ~ ~, ~~ L t ~ ~V~ { ~'''~ ~ ~ ''~ ; ~~ , J ame ~ . ~ 2l cfrfress ~ 1 ~1 ~. .~ C.__ , .. ~ ~ ~ i ~~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22a 23. • 24. 2.~ -~ ° ' -~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ rn . ~ ~ ~ x ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ i FJ -.i ~ ~, .~ O ~ ~ ~"' U U an ~ w ..'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C •~, ~ ~ ~ ~ J` . 1~---1 i-.~ N ~_ CCS ~ U bA U U U a~ ~„ by f~, ~= ~ O ~ ~ `n O ' C a a~ ~ > ~ Q (1 ~' j N O O . ~ `'" cd ~ ''d ~ o ~ U ~ U -~ v O U "~ c ~, U +, ~ y: •~ w O tin ~ ~ c > ~ ~ C b p ¢' U L~ ~'i ~ U U C ~ U ~ ~. a. ° ~ v r.i ~ Q~ Q~ 71 '1. 1 ~ i !: ii~Ml .~ 4r .~ a-~ -ti ~ U ~ Q) '-F1 ~ N U 'C7 ( ~ O > O ~ ~ • N U ~ C cd [~ .~ ~. ~ J~ U °>,,~ .° o H .~ ~., .b ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bq `.~ ~ U ~ a~ cn U s . CJ w '~ ~ ~ '~ ~j ~ ~ .~ cL N ~, O b E-' ~ ~ o U Z Q ~, ,~, ~~ i •J :7 ~~, ~' I` V ~ q~ 4~ .i .,, r ~~ r G " O U ~.. a~ U G O U U .~ CL O U C 0 or T .~ O an c .~ 3 .~ 0 a N c~i U ai 0 a> ..d O 3 U C are b ~ b o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ c ~ ~ x o ~ ~ pa° ~3`~a ti'r? o ~. .r ~ .~0 ,~ ~ ~ . U i t.. QJ c ~ .- O ~ c~i ~ ~ V U N Vr .~ +r `n ~ .~ . cd , .. ~ p ~ '~ j ~ ¢' ~i a U ~ Q> dj :~ p ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~_ a ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ o ~ a _ o `~ ~ ~, . cd +--+ G ' ~ ~ ~ a ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C ~ .~"~, ~ U ~ ~ `. O ~ p S O ~~ ~ ~v ~ U ~ ~ ~..d ~ ~, ~ v -b `~ U ~• ~ o • a~ O ~. N ~ ~ p N OV ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ O E-~ o on .~ ~ o ' n _. ~ ,~ '~ 'a.~ n. ~ 'b ~ y nq V ~ Q~ i~-~ ' (n ~ .~S p L'+ ~ ~ in Gp . `~ Q~ Q~ U te ~ ~ N p E { J i a ., N ~ ~ S~ .~ ~ ~ 'b ~ ~-- vi C oq • bA C a~ a~ U .,.r .Q .'~ Csr W b i~ C~ U a~ 0 O .., C G N ... U 'd ~ 'b O ai ~ N ~ ~ U ~ X U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"' U U an ~ a: ° ~ >' o '~ ~ c ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ai y c~ ~ ~U U U O ~ -~ ,_. U ~ ~.. ~ °' ~ U ~ '~ ~ '"' ' U ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U '~ ~ ~ v .~ y.. 4-. ot~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ C~ ~--, .b p p. U ~ U U ~ o ~ ~ o a. ° ~ U •~ ~ ~ ~_ -v ~-d `~U a~ ~ o ~~ ~, > o ~ a o > .. ~ .~ c o ~ ~ -~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~, ,~_ .b O ~° oA ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ a~ -d ~~ ~ U ~ ~ U w ~ U ~ E-^ ~ ~ o N F-' 0 .~ a~ bq U O U Q i O Q a ~~ U U 'L3 z¢ c a c C s, a~ U c 0 U GL >, O ..~ U C O >-, 0 bU C .~ 3 .~ c 0 a~ O 0 3 vi U C b!) C/]