The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-17-1991 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission ., MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1991 Members Present: Chairman Inge Browder, Commissioners Wayne Anderson, Eugene Edmonds, Lola Phillips, Doug Martin, Paul Schaider, Betty Waters. Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Chief Building Official Ervin Griffith, City Inspector Mark Lewis, Community Development Secretary Peggy Lee. 1) CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Inge Browder at 7:00 PM. 2) APPROVE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING A motion was made by Doug Martin and seconded by Wayne Anderson to approve the minutes as submitted. All were in favor and the motion passed. Due to absence from the previous meeting, Betty Waters abstained from voting. 3) CALL PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER Chairman Browder declared the Public Meeting open and at that time, Mark Lewis gave a short overview of the proposed rezonings of property along 26th Street from Neighborhood Commercial (N.C.) to General Commercial (G.C.). Mr. Lewis followed with a summary of the rezonings proposed for the Main Street area explaining which properties had been proposed for rezonings from N.C. to G.C. and which from G.c. to R-l. A. Public input regarding proposed rezonings of properties located in the West Main Street and 26th Street (Sens Road) areas. Page 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1991 Speakers in Opposition to the Proposed Rezoning of the Main Street Area Mark Follis Immogen Pulleine Marilyn Kelley Chacko Thomas Jim Morman Frank Sly Joyce Brooks Sly Jesse Garcia Larry Zabrowski Jim Christie Ken Withers Mike Woods Elsa Blakely Jack Jackson R.E. Thibodeaux Mary Browning Lynnwood Anderson Mark McBride J.J. Meza Brent Hickendorn Dianne Thomas Kathleen Lemon Judy Nieuwenhuis Charles Boyle Lisa Honeycutt Shirley Cox Tommy Mosier Speakers in Favor of the Proposed Rezoning of the 26th Street Area Dean Wyman At this time Mr. Lewis presented a summary of the following proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. L ARTICLE FOUR - General Provisions: Section 4-400 Zoning of Newly Annexed Property II. ARTICLE FIVE - Residential District Regulations A. Section 5-700, Table B, Residential: Residential Setbacks Adjacent to Utility Easements B. Section 5-800: Parking Lot Screening III. ARTICLE SIX - Commercial District Regulations: (Table A) A. S.LC 473, Arrangements for Transport of Freight and Cargo as a "Permitted with Conditions" G.e. Use B. Dog Grooming as a "Permitted with Conditions" G.e. Use e. S.Le. 5932, Antique and Used Merchandise Stores as a Permitted N.e. Use Page 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1991 IV. ARTICLE TEN - Special Regulations A. Section 10-200 1. 10-200.5, Accessory Building Setbacks on Large Lot Residential Homesites 2. 10-204.2, Update Code References Pertaining to Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs 3. 10-401, Creation of a New Paragraph Dealing with Allowable Front Yard Encroachments (Car Ports) 4. 10-500, Fencing Requirements in Commercial Use Zones 5. Section 10-1000, Prohibit Encroachment of Signs into Utility Easements B. Public input regarding proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance 1501. Speakers in Favor of the Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Sid Grant (in favor of front yard carports) 4) CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 PM - Chairman Browder closes the Public Hearing 8:00 - 8:25 Break Page 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1991 5) CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CI1Y COUNCIL REGARDING: A. Proposed Rezoning A motion was made by Betty Waters to deny the recommendation to Council for the rezoning of the Main Street area. The motion was seconded by Lola Phillips. All were in favor and the motion passed. Chairman Browder opened the floor to entertain a motion regarding the rezoning of the 26th Street area. Betty Waters left the Council Chambers due to a conflict of interest. A motion was made by Doug Martin to send to Council the proposed recommendations for the rezoning of the 26th Street area. The motion was seconded by Wayne Anderson. Ayes - Wayne Anderson, Eugene Edmonds, Paul Schaider, and Doug Martin. Nays - Lola Phillips The motion passed. At this time Betty Waters returned to the Council Chambers. B. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Chairman Browder opened the floor to entertain a motion regarding the proposed Ordinance amendments. A motion was made by Betty Waters to recommend to Council the proposed Ordinance amendments. The motion was seconded by Doug Martin. Ayes - Betty Waters, Wayne Anderson, Eugene Edmonds, Doug Martin Nays - Lola Phillips Abstained - Paul Schaider The motion passed. Page 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1991 6) ADJOURN A motion was made by Betty Waters to adjourn and was seconded by Doug Martin. All were in favor and the motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM. The next meeting will be November 21, 1991. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee Community Development Secretary Approved this 21st day of November, 1991 lnge Browder Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman z o N I N G OUT REV L I N E I .E w I. II. I I I. IV. V. VI. VII. 1991 ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW Regular Ordinance Review Items (as provided for by Ordinance Section 11-504). Main Street Review. Comprehensive Plan Review. Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. City Council Workshop review of above listed items. City Council Public Hearing. Adoption of Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance (and/or Zoning Map) to reflect review items. 1991 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW OUTLINE TOPIC DATE DISCUSSED 1. Section 5-700; Table B, Residential Setbacks Adjacent to utility Easement 2. Section 6-400; Table B, Commercial A. Dog Grooming B. SIC 473: Arrangement for freight transport 3 . Section 10-300.5; (Accessory Buildings) Accessory buildings on large lot Residential Tracts 4. Section 10-304.2; (Swimming pools, spas and hot tubs) Update code references 5. Section 10.500; (Fencing and Landscaping) Clarify intent of fencing restrictions 6. Section 7-600; Industrial Table B Request to reduce BI setbacks 7. Section 6-400; Table A Commercial A. Dog Grooming B. SIC 473; Arrangements for shipping and transport 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 04/18/91 04/18/91 COMMISSION DIRECTION Agreed to suggested change Research further Research further Agreed to suggested change Agreed to suggested change Agreed to suggested change Research further Agreed to suggested change Agreed to suggested change Page 2 TOPIC 8. Section 7-600; Table B Industrial Business Industrial Setbacks 9. Section 6-200; Neighborhood Commercial 10. Front Yard Carports 11. Front Yard Fences 12. Section 5-500; Parking lot screening 13. Section 10-1000; Sign regulation 14. Section 11-300; Zoning Permits A. Revocation B. Additional requirements 15. Residential Uses in Commercial Zonesl on 26th Street 16. Front Yard Carports 17. Zoning Permit Requirements 18. Section 4-400 DATE DISCUSSED COMMISSION DIRECTION 04/18/91 Let current regulations stand 04/18/91 Research Residential Uses in NCIIGC Research NC zoning on 26th Street 04118/91 Research further 04/18/91 Let current regulations stand 04/18/91 Agreed to suggested change 04/18/91 Agreed to suggested change 04/18/91 Agreed to suggested change 04/18/91 Research further 06-27-91 Consider 26th St. area for rezone to G. C. 06-27-91 Prepare Ordinance language to permit front yard carports 07-18-91 Agreed to suggested change Page 3 TOPIC 19. Front Yard Carports 20. Main street Zoning Regulations 21. Front Yard Carports 22. Sign Regulation 23. Main street Zoning Regulations 24. Main street Zoning Regulations 25. Sign Regulations DATE DISCUSSED COMMISSION DIRECTION 07-18-91 Table further discussion until full Commission is present. 07-18-91 Continue dis- cussion at next meeting. Focus on goals and allowable uses. 08-01-91 Consider in Public Hearing 08-01-91 Took public input. No Commission action or directives. 08-01-91 Set special meeting date ( 8-8-91) for purpose of taking walking tour of Main Street. Continue and attempt to con- clude discussion at next P & Z meeting. 09-05-91 Rezone a portion of Main street to N. C. Broaden N. C. uses to include Antique Shops. 09-05-91 Let regulations stand as currently written. No amendment to portable and off- premise sign regulations. Page 4 26. Comprehensive Plan Updates A. Thoroughfare Plan B. Open Space and Pedestrian System Plan C. Community Facilities Plan D. Beautification and Conservation Plan 09-05-91 No amendment or update necessary except regarding Main Street. Reaffirm plan in Public Hearing. . STAFF REPORT . 1991 ANNUAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission has, over the course of six meetings, conducted a review of Zoning Ordinance 1501. Several Zoning Ordinance amendments have been proposed and will be considered in public hearing. These amendments, which have been prepared in ordinance form, comprise the majority of this report. Also to be considered in public hearing are proposed rezonings in the Main Street and 26th Street (Sens Rd.) areas, and an update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the hearing is to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to take public comment on the proposed rezoning and amendments. After the hearing has been closed, the Commission will consider a formal recommendation to City Council regarding the matters covered in review. Council will, in turn, consider the Commission's recommendation in its own public hearing. The amendments and rezonings which Council deems appropriate for passage, will be approved by adoption of an amending ordinance for Zoning Ordinance 1501. 26th street: There are presently, two Neighborhood Commercial (N.C.) Zones located along the west side of 26th Street (Sens Road.) These zones occupy an area located between North "H" Street and the northern boundary of the Pine Grove Valley Subdivision. The Pecan Villa Mobile Home Park (M. H. Zone) separates the two N. C. zones (See Exhibit A). The Commission is proposing to rezone these areas Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. The descriptions of the tracts being considered are as follows: from legal Page 2 2b 7H'sf From Neighborhood Commercial (N. C.) to General Commercial (G. C.): La Porte Outlots 241; 261; 280; Tr. 260A out of Outlot 260 Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 1; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 2; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; 34-37; Block 3; Pine Grove Valley Lots 1-5; Block 4; Pine Grove Valley This rezoning has been proposed in response to the concern that Neighborhood Commercial is not the most viable zoning designation for these tracts. There are, as illustrated by Exhibit A, relatively large and undeveloped G. C. zones located to both the north and south of the N. C. tracts. Due to the broader ranges of uses allowed in G. C. zones, the N. C. property is, by comparison, not as attractive for development. The rezoning is a way to rectify this inequity. For a detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to the staff report from the June 27, 1991 Planning and Zoning agenda packet. Main street: A series of rezonings considered for the Main street vicinity (See Exhibit B). A zone change from General Commercial G~.to R-1, Low Density Residential is being proposed for the following properties. Lots 7-28, Block 40; Town of La Porte Lots 7-26, Block 41; Town of La Porte Lots 7-26, Block 42; Town of La Porte Lots 7-26, Block 43; Town of La Porte Lots 17-26, Block 44; Town of La Porte Lots 24-33, Block 53; Town of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 54; Town of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 55; Town of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 56; Town of La Porte Lots 1-9, 24-34, Block 57; Town of La Porte e Page 3 A majority of the properties described above are developed with single family homes. There are however, several business establishments in this area as well. Existing businesses in this area would be rendered nonconforming by this zone change. New businesses as well would be prohibited from locating on any of these properties. On balance however, approving this zone change would eliminate more nonconforming uses than it would create. For a detailed discussion of this topic, please refer to the staff report from the September 5, 1991 Planning and Zoning agenda packet. A zone change from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial is being proposed for the following properties: Lots 1-32, Block 37; Town of La Porte G-(, Lots 1-31, Block 38; Town of La Porte Lots 1-31, Block 39; Town of La Porte 10 Lots 1-6 and 29-33, Block 40; Town of La Porte Ie Lots 11-23, Block 57; Town of La Porte ~ Lots 1-34, Block 58; Town of La Porte Lots 1-34, Block 59; Town of La Porte Lots 1-33, Block 60; Town of La Porte Lots 1-26, Block 181; Town of La Porte Lots 1-26, Block 198; Town of La Porte Lots 1-9, Block 199; Town of La Porte As discussed by the Commission during its September 5, 1991 meeting, a rezoning of the properties listed above, in conjunction with a new Comprehensive Plan appendix and some minor amendments to the N. C. use tables, is a means to provide a degree of zoning protection to the "old" portion of Main Street. The "protection" would be provided by the more restrictive nature of N. C. Zoning, especially the prohibitions against outside sales and storage. D Page 4 Due to factors such as small property sizes, zero front building setbacks and limited off street parking, many General Commercial uses which rely on outdoor sales and storage areas, do not function well in the old Main street area. The more restrictive Neighborhood Commercial zoning, with its prohibition of outside sales and storage appears to be a means to address this problem while still maintaining as "Permitted" uses the majority of established retail uses in the area. Again, for a detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to the September 5, 1991, Planning and Zoning agenda packet. \ ' ~\~. ::::::OUR : se<:t;ron,~,..~~i a<",IlJ ltg: of JIin~it';d ~r<>per:t;y:,J All territory annexed hereafter to the City of La Porte shall be temporarily classified as R-1 Low Density residential, only until permanently zoned by the La Porte City Council. Immediately after the annexation of any territory to the City of La Porte, the City Planning and Zoning Commission shall commence any action necessary to recommend to the City Council a permanent zoning classification. The procedure for making permanent such classifications shall be the same as is provided by law for the adoption of the original zoning regulations, and shall take place within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of annexation. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS COMMENTARY: The above paragraph presently reads "all property ! annexed hereafter... may be temporarily classified as R-l, Low ~si_tx Residential. . . ." The word "may" allows property to be annexed into the City ----- ._.._--_._~_._--_..,._-_._, '- -- ~_.,,~ _.._,.,~~.__...._..._.~-~~ wit:hout any zoning classification. . "'fhis can leacfY6 -C-6-iffUsTon~ well as a variety of complications, legal and otherwise. Substituting the word "shall" will eliminate this problem and satisfy the Zoning Ordinance's intent that newly annexed property be held in the City's most restrictive zoning classification until permanent zoning is assigned. . VE: \ \ \ .. \ \ \ \ ~ } Y'f" \~Vf (If r,t V' L; ) Page 5 ,.,-" , he mInImum setback ",~' ny u Ility easement iii'ilocated in a rear yard. shall be three feet (3'). No "portion of any buildinq includinq orojections of any nature shall encroach ~"into any utility easement or vertical orojection of the easement ';f~; boundary. !;f~~1'1*J"" COMMENTARY: The above footnote presently reads "the mInImum setback adjacent to any utility easement shall be three feet (3')." The intent of this footnote is to preserve a minimum setback between structures and the utility easements commonly located in rear yards. There are additionally in the side yards of certain lots, smaller utility easements. Due to the width of the typical lots involved, it was often necessary for the Board of Adjustment to grant setback relief so these lots could be developed as homesites. This amendment would allow greater flexibility in developing these lots while still providing protection against encroachments into utility Easements. i~_a.<l.r .~..:~/:S~~_,#,&'1i!f~.a.';,5 '~:"_:':~e~;~~,..~,. ..' ~~4~"?lr9Jt ii- ~ . ; ,:-. "- '~.""', : ~. ~: " . . - ,;'. '_ -; r' ,/"" A. ~;t'_. Landscape Buffers (Required screening): 1) A landscape buffer planted with grass or evergreen ground cover and also planted with trees shall be ~ provided. No buildings or refuse containers shall \\ (p , be placed in such areas'v\L Standards V'\" v' a. Minimum width of planting str ip - four feet , \ }:. ( 4 ' ) . lO j;J' 2 ) b. A planting plan specifying the location and species of trees to be planted as well as the type of grass or ground cover to be utilized shall be submitted for approval of the Director of Community Development or his duly authorized representative. 'J \ \ \" ~ IV t ;,SI / ; , / .. :;--, ~ Page 6 COMMENTARY: Section 5-800 presently requires a solid landscape screen to completely block parking lots from the view of neighboring residential zones. A solid screen which results in a secluded parking lot would cause obvious safety and security problems. Landscape buffers, as proposed would soften the visual impact of parking lots on adjoining residential zones while still providing a high enough degree of visibility to increase safety for parking lot users. \ /1 \ U '8i~~~ CR O V . q~,~ .,,',c&~;~~:._~ ;i~t~l~~ J ..~,p"H~~l'1; '",1'" \ \J .. pj/ (~) GC Uses SIC Code Antique and Used Merchandise Stores (5932) Arrangement for Shipping and Transport (473) * Dog Grooming * P{H} ~~I.:'~~_~i~:f'W.e:: '~Ii!ifi_ritie~"Standa'rds : :r..........,.,..."._..._._,..'.. "';'-" .,..,0..'.... .... ......,..."..t.... _ H. There shall be no overnight boarding of animals. All areas used for holding animals shall be located within the same building in which grooming activities take place. \ J I. These facilities shall be limited to office activities only. No warehousing or handling of freight shall take place at these facilities. No trucks, other than light trucks (as defined by this Ordinance) shall be allowed on premises occupied by these facilities. ~ C , \- ,'> \ Jl, , } \ '\'"' \\' '. ..,1(/' V-, {V iVCI \ I . Page 7 I ,'1 (\ ' li,l \ ,'\.--'\ I' V \, ~ (/1 \ '0. ,(\t JI c . /1 l.ili~~ .lP~jQ~Q.~ ~~ -:nf.il.il\l~"I~I"\.l ,'.s' '~~:';~"'. ~ . "" ~~j;%;q,,>F, ~Af~ll'~~~~~'""~\~a;~.t"-'j:."YY1,, 1: ~~f\~ ,) , (Second paragraph) Large Lot Residential Only: cces ry buildings in Single Family Residential Large Lots may not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. ~~ccessorv buildinqs with a floor area in excess of one thousand ~~(1.000) SQuare feet must be located at least thirty (30) feet ~~from any property line and thirty (30) feet behind the rear of primary structure. COMMENTARY: The proposed amendment noted above is intended to clarify rather than change present ordinance requirements. Residential accessory buildings of up to 1,000 square feet must be located at least three feet from any side or rear property line. A residential accessory building may only exceed 1,000 square feet if it is located on a homesite of an acre or more in size. The wording change proposed for this paragraph simply states in clearer fashion that only the larger (over 1,000 square feet) accessory buildings are subject to the more stringent ) setbacks. )1'- I lr" f\ VI / ,V(I /,,/ (,/C/ _Jr:i'ljl:t~..Il!~w\~";fi:j;'_i;,~~j;_t'1W_ ~'~ " Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall beJ'enclosed wi th a fence at least four feet (o4') in he ight. Fences shall comoly with all reQuirements of the currently adooted edition of the Standard Swimminq Pool Code oublished by the Southern Buildinq Code Conqress International... COMMENTARY: This paragraph deals with swimming pool fencing requirements and references the "requirements of City of La Porte Ordinance ~1059. Ordinance #1059 which adopted an earlier edition of the Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect at the time of the Zoning Ordinance's adoption. The City has subsequently adopted a more recent edition of the swimming pool code. As this adopted code will likely be updated again within the next twelve months, adopting the proposed language would eliminate the need for future code related updates of this section. Page 8 , ,~ ! ~9vV ~ ~~iic.,;8AI..,~.g::~~;.;:"~.l€,,..;.~i~.~* "c("''''-: ~ ,:("..,,,,~.,.,.'..~';"" ....c':\,:. ..~rMl.F,)',;;:.""';",.*iII&~*,<.....,,~Ii.;: ( New Sect i on ) i;'t~."'6t~~~lia;"'" '~perm.l f:tea~'for sing I e fami ly and single family large lot homes subject to the requirements: a. Carports in a required front or sldeyard shall not be located closer than five (5) feet from any front or side property line. b. Carports located on corner lots shall not be located closer than twenty five (25) feet from an intersection. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of property lines common with street right-of-way lines. (This in accordance with the prOVisions of Section 10-605, figure 10-2). c. The maximum width of a carport located in a required front or side yard shall be twenty five (25) feet. (This matches the maximum allowable width of a residential driveway). COMMENTARY: If adoption of this ....hich should be ....ould be locate the Commission should choose to recommend provision there are t....o other related amendments considered. The first is a new definition which 3-100. tl structure, free-standing or ed to another structure designed to provide covered parking for vehicles. A carport shall have no enclosing walls. A structure shall not be considered to be a carport unless it is located directly over a driveway. COMMENTARY: carport so that of structures change to section, WhICh presentlY.;~,!ads : tf. ,it~".:~,:/f~,:1e:fr< iffo. :,0 This definition would simply define the term carports could be differentiated from other types The second related amendment would be a wording The second paragraph of this detached garages and carports, A detached private garage, " --l~~t, as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided: (1) they comply with all the requirements of this section; (2) they shall be five feet (5') or more from side lot lines; and (3) the side yard does not abut a street right-of-way. Page 9 \ ~ ) / '\!/C) I tvV f" L f !'\ i rV'" C/ "? ,"') t ~ ../' COtf"v{yJ-fC 1, e' \ ;Jcll/ 0 \L ~ r\ \' ~" , ~, :", The fl't's.!= sentence-"'Gt, this ar'a,gt'a{>h shoul,d be to mi t the word",,~rport. This.,",,,woul prevent.-..,a~conf'+ict ca;rp t provisiori~proposed for"",ee tion ~0-4 .4. '\,As amended t ". sen nce would req<:1 "A ~etache' ".pr i vate, gar e, ~s defined, ma~e p~ed\ in side, yardi3' pro iCie,~... ,,\ ,---.) ~"c,' ib?O,,i0t',Gfj ", ,:~~~,,~\,,~t]t1G~;..tj&:1 Fences in carnine'reral' and industr ial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have areas projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet (7') above the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment. COMMENTARY: Presently, fencing requirements for commercial establishments are not clearly stated. The amendments proposed for the preceding paragraph would help establishes clear requirements. \ \ , Footnotes: ~. \" V,\ ' 1f'~ ,. ,'I~~t~g.P lQ,-J,OQQ:.~;~, S,~:c:m'Regu:~ ~\"':,t'/~,~~;\{,<,'~;U{'!;f'~,,:' ,fi'.;:;:'S,~ ,.,,~,1 i, <' ?_~,:; ,._,',." .,,-.,..,- j,~;;U~P.'r];A14, "COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL <"""t,:,';,--y,,~",,"';>7':';\ ~~:~Sig~Os~~~ii~~c~~a~~Yi~~~ea~~a~~~~it~Ue;;~m:~~~~ce or COMMENTARY: This is a new footnote which would be added to all three sign tables in Section 10-1000. Adopting this amendment would cause signs to be treated the same as any other type of structure in regards to utility easements. Keeping signs out of easements would help maintain the easements as clear corridors for underground and overhead utility lines. Page 10 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Planning and Zoning Commission at its September 5, 1991 meeting reviewed the following components of the Comprehensive Plan: A. Thoroughfare Plan B. Open Space Plan C. Community Facilities Plan D. Beautification and Conservation Plan After determined is public discussion reviewing these plan components, the Commission that no updates are needed at this time. Unless there comment received during public hearing, no further will be presented. ;~~J; ".' "> ~,~~;~~.._~~~_____j_,_N,C-. f ' .' .. ',1 ,~ .i ;~ --. d-'~ ;i ~' .1 l'~ -.~" ~ ;: ~ /" :;,,, Co ~ '<i :: t- I: ~ ' 't ~..d'flo(",,,,,,,,,,~,,,",,":,...,_..____.."'_....s...,..~,...,,,..:_.......~_ ~ :. !~ "-.:# ~ 81 ,;.-;~ ~~, ~'. '.:... ", {,: .~ ...h"" ~ 4; "". 0'-/ .... "." " .;.,~.. ...,:~~ , Pi ~ HI PUD :'\ ./ ~,> ....._...-:-:;.:..~.::.."':.....,....., .~r:-._:.::::::'r._~ ::rn .".::~: j ~ ;....._'M_........ ~~.:-~ ~ .'.1 i" t..i.i,~.' j i ... .. rn-'l ~ ",-~....- , ,...;~ ~~~..>.o""i_:: ~.... -' ... 4 i. .. LI ; ."" :.. '''A:!:~ ~ 'I; ..__...~............-~..-..-...-.- .,,} ,~4 I'. :.t ,'.,' :~ ~ il;' '~fi ; ~ t ;, 1,,. :~'1""1 i i : ;, ,. 'R 1'''- h"h"; _..h. "...,. .. i ~; J '<l Af ... ~. ,(; ~ ....~~, i , ' ,. .., '" R~! " \~ -~ ., '" y.:!..~,:.~ ~ .. ~"'..:.( "r ~, ;< 0< "!' GC . ~ . ~ /'-:4I/n' '~:::::-''''=,''.~r'' -- ;. .~ -~.\ ; ~; Iv ..... , ,~ h. rh~' " i1~, i .,. { '\ ':: '''''' ~ Ir, "~.' 7-;;\ > '. -~. 1'J; ,)oa. ':1/!)W""" I : i; i /' I 1~ " " .... "'2 ' 'J!;'S )>, ' ',''''' ' , "':":"':'_L-LBrc:.~.L"":'_' __.:. .""" l: EXHIBIT A ~,JU. HI LI 81 GC ~.~' *'". 'f<"'P>:" j!i: t t 1 81 i " ~,~ ;>t...~_ ;A, ~~ ,4 ? { .& PUD' f~ .~: .~: .. ".... .~ '''''''''"'~''''''-,,"',,~ '-. .. >~ ~;; '>t;,. 2 >"",,~' EXHIBIT H .~j