Loading...
05/02/2006 - City Council Regular (2)AGENDA EAGAN WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE EAGAN ROOM AT EAGAN CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2006 4:30 P.M. I. WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER II. NOTES FROM APRII.18, 2006 MEETING III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS AND ISSUES IV. ALTERNATIVES FOR RESOLUTION V. COMMUNICATION OF TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS/AMENDED WINDOW SIGN CODE VI. INFORMATION AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE MEETINGS - If necessary VII. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE - If necessary VIII. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. Please contact City Administration at 651-675-5001 with requests. WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING APRIL 18, 2006 In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Ruthe Batulis, Jack Johnson, Dave Perrier, John Curlee, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City Administrator Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, and City Planner Ridley. - Jon Hohenstein provided brief opening remarks. - Councilmember Maguire proposed the following: 1. Agree on a percentage for window signage. 2. Arrive at a conclusion on grandfathering most, if not all, existing signs. 3. Discuss permits and explicit information about enforcement and interpretation, i.e. product placement. - Jack Johnson agreed and stated there are four issues business owners and Ruthe Batulis had discussed at a meeting since the Task Force last met: o Grandfather existing signage. o Nix a permit fee for existing signs, although the group had not decided whether a permit or fee should be charged for new (currently not existing) tenant signage. o Interpretations -The group believed interpretation and enforcement need to be better defined. o Percentage of window signage -Their group would like no restriction on percentage, but understood that a percentage between 25-100% needs to be established. - Mike Maguire asked Dave Perrier if he operates with slotting fees regarding vendors and their signage. Dave responded that he did not. - Cyndee Fields asked if grandfathering would cover all painted and poster type signage currently in place. There was no consensus reached on that. 1 - John Curlee opined that if all business owners in town were surveyed, 99% would question why window signage would be regulated at all. - Cyndee Fields responded that there are regulations for many things and the purpose of this group is to strike a balance. As an example, she stated the City regulates the number of pets people can have. - John Curlee stated that it was his assertion that very few business owners would utilize 100% of their window for signage and that most, if not all, signage would be tasteful. - Jon Hohenstein requested clarification that the discussion was based on the 4-6' clear-zone being removed from consideration. The group stated that was affirmative. - Jack Johnson mentioned that with all of the people in businesses he spoke to, the predominant amount of window signage necessary, in their minds, is at least 50% or greater. - Jon Hohenstein offered photos ranging from: 1) existing signs that do not appear to meet the present 25% requirement, 2) a group that appears to meet the 25% requirement although not the 4-6' clear zone, and 3) those that appear to meet all current window sign standards. - An audience member clarified issues on slotting and advertising for convenience gas stores and that there are slotting fees for tobacco sales, as far as he knew, in every convenience gas operation. - Ted Gladhill shared photos he had taken and spoke about equity and the impact of varying amounts of window signs on neighboring business within the same strip center. 2 - Ted stated he believes every business would like to maximize signage capacity, (he referenced portable trailer signage) but also believes there needs to be a limit. He stated he understands the grandfather clause argument, but that just because signage currently exists, that does not mean it is appropriate signage. - Ted went on to say that he didn't believe the grandfathering clause would be fair to a new business being subject to stricter standards than a competitor just because the existing business had pre-existing signage. - John Curlee explained that the group was just talking about window signage and not portable trailer signage, etc. He went on to state that if his tenant space was next to a space that utilized 100% of its window signage, it wouldn't make a difference. He stated traffic is the key and that the two critical issues to any business are aesthetics and location/space. - Mike Maguire stated that while aesthetics are part of this discussion, the public safety factor is still relevant. - Ruthe Batulis stated that public safety could be a voluntary compliance issue. She gave an example of a retail operation experiencing a crime of some sort, a follow up with that business owner after the fact could encourage voluntary compliance where visibility in and out, would be an option. - Mike Maguire stated that he would rather be proactive on public safety, provided it is balanced. - Mike and Cyndee both stated that the 4-6' clear zone is impractical. - John Curlee stated that he has issues with Piccolo's and the Italian Pie Shoppe in that both retailers have very attractive and appropriate signage that might not 3 meet the 25% coverage standard and certainly doesn't meet the 4-6' clear zone even though in both cases the signs are see-through to a point and don't block view in and out. - Dave Perrier questioned why are we even doing this? He stated he understands the 100% on certain garage doors or any other "over the top" type signage, but is concerned that with most of the pictures shown, you can't see the signs or what they say unless you are 30' from the space and, therefore, wouldn't be visible to the public passing by on a public right-of--way. - Mike Maguire stated that he believes the group has the issues boiled down to the right ones. - Ted Gladhill stated that window blockage vs. signage is different. - John Curlee stated that he would like clarification on aesthetics in that he believes aesthetics is a slippery slope and he can't think of a business that would put up questionable signage. - Mike Maguire stated the 50% window coverage is very high compared to other the communities surveyed and provided on a matrix to the group. - Cyndee Fields clarified that whatever direction this group goes, she and Mike are only two of afive-member City Council, which includes the Mayor. - Jon Hohenstein stated that the hour was getting late and explained what he understood the City Council wanted and gave direction back in 2004. Fields & Maguire concurred. - Cyndee Fields stated that she would prefer to exclude permanent wall signage from this discussion and focus on window signage and the percentage of same. 4 - Ted Gladhill commented that Tires Plus, with numerous large garage doors vs. a business with a window or two and a door, presents an unfair advertising opportunity. - Jack Johnson stated that windows don't drive a business decision; it is traffic in the door that matters, and he wants to use the window space only in a reasonable fashion. - Cyndee Fields asked if the group is simply down to window percentage at this point? - John Curlee stated percentage and permits. - Mike Maguire added grandfathering. - Cyndee Fields suggested a no-fee permit. - Mike Maguire remarked that incorporation of the permits was a way to assist City staff in tracking signage throughout the community. - Maguire stated that he was pleased with the outcome and ground covered in this meeting and suggested that for the next meeting, business representatives come back with a proposed percentage of window signage between the 25 and 100%. He requested that staff prepare information relative to enforcement and interpretation. - Ruthe Batulis suggested that from the grandfathering standpoint, people who have already spent money to install window signage should not have to incur a cost by replacing that signage. 5 - Jon Hohenstein clarified that permanent wall signage was excluded from this discussion and the focus was merely on window signage and the appropriate percentage in addition to the grandfathering discussion earlier. The group concurred. - Jon proposed that the next meeting be at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2nd. The group agreed. CD/Jon HohensteinlSignage/Meeting Notes/Meeting of 4-18-06 6 One and All, This is to confirm that the next Eagan Window Sign Task Force meeting will be on Tuesday, May 2 at 4:30 p.m. in the Eagan Room at Eagan City Hall. An agenda and background materials will be emailed to you by the end of the week. Progress was made at the last meeting in narrowing some of the issues. Councilmembers indicated a willingness to remove the 4-6' exclusion from the ordinance and an openness to grandfathering of existing signs in some form. They restated their interest in a percentage approach to regulating window signs for new signs or as signs need to change over time. Members expressed an interest in attempting to have a draft conclusion on key points at this meeting. To that end, the City Councilmembers asked that business representatives give consideration to a percentage for window signage that would still permit promotion, branding and flexibility for businesses and serve the City's interests in uniform standards, public safety and esthetics/limitation of visual clutter. At the Councilmember'sdlrection, staff is preparing a memo outlining implementation issues that would need to be addressed with a simplified ordinance - how to manage grandfathering, clarification of general interpretations, etc. We will include that information together with the agenda and meeting notes with the packet distribution. As always, if you have questions, please contact Mike Ridley or me. Thanks. Jon Jon Hohenstein Community Development Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 651-675-5660 Fax 651-675-5694 jhohenstein(a.cityofeagan.com City of Ea~au demo To: Mike Ridley, City Planner Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director From: Mary Granley, Senior Code Enforcement Technician Date: April 28, 2006 Subject: Issues with Implementation and Enforcement of Window Signage As with any new Code adoption, the devil is in the details when it comes to application. The following points hopefully will help frame interpretation and enforcement. Permit Apalication Issues We understand the need for the ordinance and its interpretation to be as simple as possible; basic percentages of azea aze the easiest for staffto calculate, communicate and enforce. We also understand that businesses have expressed concern about the new permit form's length and complexity. Information provided by the applicant on permit forms is used to verify compliance with several variables inherent in the window sign code. While lengthy, the window sign permit application was condensed to require the minimum amount of information needed in order to determine if the applicant's request meets the 2005 Code amendment standards. Regardless of the percentages that arise out of the Task Force work, a simplified code would still require square footage information be submitted on the application. However, building square footage, window square footage, and sign square footage are the basic information needed to process an application on a code that is based on square footage requirements. Notwithstanding the debate on pernut fee, we have found the most effective way to efficiently track (and enforce) signs of all kinds is via a Sign Permit. Other approaches, such ascase-by-case enforcement of standazds, are feasible, but present challenges of their own, in terms of establishing a baseline and other issues discussed below. Measuring Sign Area Since the ordinance should generally be content neutral, it is important to have a common understanding of how the size of a sign or the message part of a sign's area is calculated. According to sign code requirements as listed in Sec. 11.70, Subd. 28.A.3.(k), sign area is defined as "the gross area, exclusive of supportive frame, which contains copy or identifying features such as a logo, character or identifying figure. The gross area shall be calculated as an enclosed area bounded by no more than 12 straight lines." A simple sign design that can be enclosed within a square or rectangle will be calculated by drawing 4 lines around the azea and calculating the size. Amore complex design that may have text and pictorial graphics of a complicated design would be enclosed by a series of lines not to exceed 12 in number. While the idea of 121ine enclosure seems complicated, it actually permits greater coverage for complex designs than a strict use of a square or rectangular area. A simplified code would not need to change the way in signs are measured for area. Grandfatherin~ Ezisting Suns To grandfather existing signs, it will be necessary to establish a baseline of current signs in the City. The way I understand the idea of grandfathering in the existing signs, any change to any sign on or within the window area, (once a baseline is established) would require all window signage for that business to become compliant with code requirements regarding window signage. If we do not have a permit process and choose to grandfather existing signs, we will need a way to create a baseline of the current signage for future changes. Again, staff would submit that permitting is the most feasible way to efficiently establish a baseline. That may be done by having businesses get permits (with or without a fee) for existing signs including any variance from new standards. In order to establish a baseline of the existing current signage to be grandfathered in, without a permit, a site visit by staff would be required to obtain the current site conditions by way of inspection, documentation and measurements to determine what size the existing signs are. By whatever means grandfathering would occur, it would be important to clarify whether there would be a timeline within which non-conforming signs would need to come into compliance or whether compliance would need to occur at the time that the sign is changed because of deterioration, business decision or business change. Seven of the City's 24 strip malls were visited by staff thus far. Photo documentation of existing window signage was obtained for each tenant space at the 7 malls, which accounted for 66 businesses recorded. A letter regazding window and temporary signage along with permit forms was given to each of the 66 businesses; however, measurements of the existing window signage were not made. A simplified code regarding grandfathering in existing signs would require staff obtain measurements of the existing signage for the 24 malls and any other retail buildings, including those already visited, as well as obtaining photo documentation of the properties not yet visited. Consideration would need to be made for those businesses that have already paid for and obtained window sign permits. What Defines a Window Simon? Whatever percentage or regulation is determined, it will be important to determine whether it would apply to anything other than signs applied immediately on the window. (The following information does not apply to the exemptions 2 square feet for store hours and open/closed status, exemption for safety, security, or general information signs, and exemption for civic or Chamber of Commerce signs. You may note that exemptions do make reference to content. This deviates from the general effort to focus on physical dimension and not content, but this approach is primarily to benefit the property owner/business and to minimize the need for interpretation.) The City Code defines signage as follows: • A sign "means any surface, facing or object upon which there is printed, painted or artistic matter, design or lighting". • A business sign "means any sign upon which there is any name or designation that has as its purpose business, professional or commercial identification and which is related directly to the use of the premises upon which the signs is located". • A product sign "means any sign upon which there is any brand name, trademark, logo, distinctive symbol, designation or advertising which has as its purpose the promotion of any business, product, goods, activity or service". Several questions have come up regarding specific, unique placement of sign banners or placement of product at or near windows, and what would be considered signage and what would not. This becomes a matter of determining whether the placement of the sign or product is clearly visible from the traveled portion of the site (sidewalk or pazking lot) and whether the placement meets the definition of a sign, business sign, or product sign. On the basis of the definitions and visibility factor, as staff began its informational . discussions with businesses, the following interpretations were used in an attempt to be equitable in the application of the new code: • Signs applied directly to the window surface would be subject to the code requirements. • Other signs located immediately inside, but not applied to the window (neon signs, placards, etc.) would be subject to the code. Generally, such signs are placed within 18 inches of the window surface. • A banner hanging within the tenant space, parallel to the window, and on or in the window and clearly visible from the pazking lot, was determined to be subject to the regulations of the sign code. But a banner hanging 36" from a window (clear aisle walking space according to building and fire code) would not be subject to the sign code. If the direction is to continue to apply the window sign code to objects not applied directly to the window, it would be appropriate to define the distance from the window within which the code would apply. • A banner hanging in the window, but perpendicular to the window would not be subject to the sign code, as it is not clearly visible from the parking lot. • Whether products displayed in windows constitute a sign is perhaps one of the most challenging interpretations to make. Staff s interpretation to date is not intended to interfere with product display or the general ability of businesses to manage stock and lay out their store. The determination that was made was that stacks of product placed at or neaz a window and cleazly visible from the parking lot, with a specific, identifiable product name or logo, which would tend to make a reasonable person conclude the product placement is meant to attract attention as to the brand of product offered, was determined to be subject to the regulations of the sign code. The bright line between general display and display intended to act as a sign is difficult to draw. One cleaz example of product used as signage is when alternating colors of packages are used to spell out a message in the stock stored by a window. On the other hand, the mere fact that product stocked by a window displays the name of the product on the package, may not be considered a sign. The input of the Task Force to help draw a cleaz distinction in this regard will be helpful. A simplified code regazding distance setbacks for signs or product in window azeas would help staff and businesses make a determination where signs or product within window areas could be before they aze classified as window signage. Conclusion It appears that simplification of the window sign code may simplify some matters of the application for both businesses and City staff, but basic square footage information on the building, the windows, and the signage would still be required. The method of measuring the sign azea would not need to change with code simplification. Grandfathering existing window signs via free or paid Sign Permit would be the most efficient means to document what is currently at each site, as well as to process permit fee returns to those businesses that have already paid for window sign permits. Any code simplification would benefit both staff and businesses if it clarified sign or product placement on or within the window, and where sign and product placement is allowed without a sign permit. 0 0 0 N L U (0 C N .~ ~ ~ a~ ~_ oU U ~ rn~ m °' c ~ rn UJ c ~ p d ~' ~ C y a! (9 ~ O p •C fA ~ V L m . 'C O ~' O ~ p~ m .C "' ~' 3 a~ ~ fA N V d w t m r0. fA C L O ~ O U ~ +L.. O 3 °~ c ~ :a ~ ~ v c m ea rn a ~ ~ > c ~ ~ ~ ~ w N Q W .m :a ~ O a N O V •~ C O L N ~ ~ E c o c °' ~ o 'a ~ R = •9 ~° a~ ~ m ~ 0 0 o c " o f a m ~ ° ` ~ ° o o ~ ~ X ° c c c F v ~ N •p ~ \ O ~ O m 0 O ` O c d N +..• ~ ~ O •~ O N 3 p m w m N O c d o '° ; ~ c .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ry ~ " ~ Cf O L ._ 3 C Q. to ~ 'a A ,~ QI V N l0 (0 ~ ~ V '? w ' 3 m m R O ta = O X O N ~ _ 'v N ~ ~' v C L y O a~ a ~ r vi 3 C = - r+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ O C C U ~ ~ ... ~ C ~ ~ C ~ C ~ _~ L ~ ~ O `'- a ~ ~ l0 Ri ~ p la C m = ~ c R ~ N ~. ~ N L ~ N Q Y ~ C C N 0 , ~. G ~ L ~ ~- ~ C Q ' d t V ~ C ; ~ ' u ~ YI ~ y ~ ~ ~ C ~ 0 ~ T ~ _ •~ _ fl. v, o ~ ~ y fp ~ a L t +~ ~. ~ d ~ y c O ~-- O ,~ O m N _ U ~ ~ N c .~ c f0 3 o N ~ -p U C ~ i •~ ,a C A W c •~ O ~ ~p ~ ` ~ ~, ~ ~ N ~ E 3 C O ~ N O C C - m ev e eo . o Of . ~ 3 'a 0 c 0 L mo w. o ~ o ~ -°o ° ~' - w 3 rn • m :° 30 l0 ~ -d ~ y O m o~ C d C~ d C N .._ .C ~ O L Q O N O N Q ~ aQ+ ; O O O Q O N •C O U U ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ w Q o a 3 c ~ a~ n ~ c ~ 3 ~ •~ 0 2 .3 0 c o ~ L N N o O ~ fl t . Y 3 o ~ ~ ~' .~ L o E o o c ~. ~ _o c c > 3 ,~ v ~ T • ~ ~ N ~ C U fn ~ U U O (~ .- .a ~ 3 O O O a $ N (~ ~ O O C C_ d `_' C ~ ~ N • C (U Q p • ~j R{ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ N p ~ U •'_ =1 ~ 'd ~ ~' . N ~ C Q ~ O C ~ C L= C1 • N ~ > ~ ~ U N V ~ O C 'C O N ~ O > C O C K •- r + X ~ Q Z Q ~ to vi 3 N _N O .-. ~ ~ ~ c • C N ~ ~' Gf Q- O U W Q m co O O N L U (6 C m E N .~ m ~ ~ v •`-' o U U ~ a~ a~ m °~ C ~ rn O .a C 7 (O ~ w 3 L 3 L > C s o ~ ° o 0 c L ~ o m d ui ° m ° c o ~ ~ `° ~ ~ ~ c : ~ o ~ . N C _ ~ o m ~ ~ a i D o s 'C ~ ~ c c ~ > ai v •> ai -C m f° ~ m ~ 3 Y o O v N L O C O Y N C ~ N ~ Y ~ C 'd :_. o U 'O N ~ ~ L Y `~ C C 'O C ~ C w ~ C ~ N ~ ' O Q ~ ~ \ p w-' ~ C O t0 7 N U ~ O O y f0 E E ` O O ~ N O ~ O N p ~ Q U C Q Y ~ ~ X . C Y Y N ~ a~ ~ ~ coi n p ~ c v c ~ °' ~ c ~ ~ c `o a ~ v .o c s o N 0 0 0 ~ o a~ ~ ~ c x N ~ _ O c . _ 0 ~ 0 `a Q O E O ~ o c `_ c9 j c ~ c O N L.. N L v o v y n. 3 ~ ,~ . ~ ,~ o c 3 m ~n >, o -a •~ c O ~ 'a (~ N o > N ~ N t6 Y Q ~ ~ ~R •y Y O ~ ~ n 'O lp N ' N lp M ' C Y ~ Q N U N fa O -C w . O ~ w - - ' N O O V N d O ?~ U > ~ ~, Q ~ ' p O N C , , fl O O N L • p N p ~ ` ~ ~ N N O ~ ~ t0 N ~ ~. N t0 7 o O c .0 X ~ - ~ . X U ~ - C • X N N X ~ U ~ ~ o c i c ~ • ~ ~ 3 a i .~ y c coi rn 3 ~ ~ ~ `m °~ p OC ~ c O c O m iv °- ~ -a o O o rn O aai C •co C m •- ~ N X O c •o ~- m m •N e ' 'N N ~ O c ~ rn O c a N O c -a m - m aj N ~ 'm - m > .~ v~ Y 3 p C c f0 ~ ~ o Q L Y ~ c U o N L ,..., ~ c 3 N ~ 3 o o - (9 tll • - tB L - ~ L o L N > - (O 'C N o O N ~ O `~ N O U L N L O • C "~ Q ~ N C 'd O t0 ~ C L to ~ L N L U L N ~ p o L (A C 'D w L C rn Y ai w m "- m ` a~ O 5 c m O ~ C . c 3 o ~c, rn ~ o m ~ m N -a ~ ca N a v~ • c U O 'U ~ U O c c rn c +-~ ~ O ~ rn 3 ~ A ~ ~ ~ m Z' N c L c 3 c ~ c o c ~ rn • a~ 3 U x `t rn •N rn •N C : rn •N ~ . + N L to o m N L Y c co ~ Ol • U ~ rn . c •- rn • O D1 'V +•' m ~ •- v y o O °~ ~ N o . ~ 0 Y 3 'a ~ o .... m m a ~ o c ~ m 3 N td ~ l c Vl o 3 O v 3 0 3 0 ~ 3 O 0 0 0 ? o c c0 . 0 a N 3 O 3 O 0 3 O s 3 O 3 O ~ -c ca C •- (A ~n N ~n v ~ v .O N :D ~ ~ N "~ E 3 E m v ~ v .O v U ~ ~ _ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ca _m c_ c_ >, c •c c ._ c ~ N Y •- 3 L c ~ w ~ ~ o ~ X _c ~ _c ~ c_ o ~ C •~ C a~ ~ . c~ Q . °' °' ~ ~ . `° ~ . 3 ~ . O ¢ . Y ~ o a . ~ ¢ o ~ `° ~ . 3 ~ . ca ~ . ~ ~ . N O p m N ~ N v a~ o °~ - m 3 ° c o ~ 3 N ~ o L LO O ~.. H C O N_ ~ > ~ y ~ ~ _ C C U C (B N tq O ~ ~ O N 7 O !_' ~ 7 Q" O Q N ~ ~ > ~ 7 N ~ ~ N C O L C •- ~ C L Y C ~ ~ 'N O C (0 "' ~ "~ C C p U ~ ~ O O O C N O ~ ~ N ' O N ~ m O O N p p O N C O O O fl 't ~ _ O O O L ' :~' !_' ~' . 7 O L }' O) N ~ ` O C C C C M O I"' C ~' ~ E - v a v •N V v .~ -oa ~ o •~ a~ ~ ~ (II v V~ v V~ v ~. ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ L O ~ ~ O ~ O ~ - N U U U ~ C N L ~p Q _ (~ - U E ~ C ~ C U C ~ (B Q N ~. N d N N E .. r C ~ N N '- " Q m ~ •3 .3 rn a ~ •N ~ O o o 0 o g o O C o ¢ m m c N z z z a ~ ¢ rn o z N O .` C N ~ " Q t0 ~ O ~ N Q > N ~ a N c •> m c c m U W W l~ ~ ~ N m 0 0 N L U f9 -~ ~~+ c a~ E N .~ a' a' N a~ ~_ o U U ~ m m m °~ c ~ rrn VJ O C J >+ \° o .r N 2 C (0 (E -p ch N w- L 0 .., N ~ cv N a d 3 a~ -a ui N ai . Oc ~ ui o _ ~ c0 ~ ~ c ~ U U ~- -Op ~ m « ~ v, o a~ o ~ o 3 •N a ~ o N o uvi a~i '° rn ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ °' E p o a~ ° o X N ~ ~ O N O S O to ~ d C . . M O "'' OO N N ~ ..p E «6 -p j 0 0 0 N O N N ~ C O '~ ~ N ~ C ~ N . O V ~ O U N ~ ~ ~ .Q a+ N - V .N m ~ O ~ C °o ` ~ c ap d y t6 axi c~i `o ~ c ~ °- aci p M axi o .° L ~ -a • v ~ : ~ ~' +L-' •~ t~ > m t0 n N O c ~ c rn p c o ~ O ~ O cn 7 ~ ~ ~ (n N 3 N o ~ 'm 3 ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ~. c : ca a~ rn ~ c~ ,., 3 ~ ~° E rn . ° c ' ui .. o ~ rn 3 . ~ ... o c m m ~ ~ ~ .x ~ m v C . ~ ~ C O .N C ~ C r N ~ ~ .N O fl- ~ ~ ~ o O ~ ~ ~-. m O ~ N e 3 _ ~ 3 ` 3 m 3 a~ ~ o c O a~ •.. 3 ~ -a c o >, o :a O O ~a t ~ 3 > o o >, co 0 3 o o ~ c o rn >, x a~ m ~ v ~ c ~ • a~ ~ ' _ `° ~ c ~ ° y ~ L N ~ 3 rn w Q- m ~ y ao ~ ~ n o c o c a 3 o a~i o -p ' c o N C .c ~ ~ o ~ v a> N m c6 -a ~ ~ .... N o o c o a~ o f t N . ~ ~, O ~ c c ~_ 3 s m ~ ~ 3 O ca _ ~ ~ ~ _ 3 .., m ~ O m m ~ E m e ~ 3 m o c o o m m 3 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ,,-' ` O- O cn c a O L D m y ~a ~ ~ ,~ C o N x D N p 3 ~ t •~ U ~ ~ .... ° ~` C ~- ~, c •~ ~ c rn ~ o cn c ~ ~ w o .S o co O -a c a~ o c.~ ~c m -° ~° rn = ~ v c rn 3 c ~ 3 _rn N rn C co ° 'u~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'D c ~ o ` ° 3 w m T rn C a~ 'v~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ N V M f4 N 7 V O f0 N `' M m , O ~ •~= Q (~j N ~ ~ ~ ~ O C N L L l0 N C 3 a C ~ ~ L +f6+ a0+ U X O C H O C `~ S O N ~'' 3 '~ ~ N '~ N ~ C O ~ ~ C C w . O w N O z . ~ . ~- . n ~ . co Q . s ~ . o O .,- O z . C O . v, m ~ . "' O " O z O a . ~ . w o w a . o ~ 0 L F p O ~ C • ~ ~ C ,~ U O ~-' O O .C ~ U ~ . p L ~ ~ C C C C +.. ~ O O _ O O c ~ . Q ~. C . : C ~ C ~. C O ~ 'd c N t a ~ v -te N X 3 0 a U U w U ~ U w Q C N O N fl. Q Q Q 'y "-' ~ O m m m to >. Z Z Z Z Q Ofl.. ~ ~ N a z. yp o c ~ ~ i a c n c ~ Q a' ° ~ ~ ~ a i ~ o ~ ch