Page 139 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: 11, 12, 13 STAFF: RYAN TEFERTILLER FILE NO(s): CPC PUZ 05-00047 QUASI-JUDICIAL CPC PUD 05-00048 QUASI-JUDICIAL CPC FP 05-00049 QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: RIDGEVIEW AT STETSON HILLS FILING 24 APPLICANT: OWNER: NES, INC. AND JR ENGINEERING PULTE HOME CORPORATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION / SUMMARY: This project requires three applications: 1) a zone change from A/NP/SS (Agricultural with Navigation Preservation and Streamside Overlays) to PUD/NP/SS (Planned Unit Development with Navigation Preservation and Streamside Overlays); 2) the Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 development plan; and 3) Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 Subdivision Plat. The subject site consists of 18.62 acres located at the southeastern corner of Dublin Road and Shimmering Creek Drive. Refer to Figure 1. The project, if approved, would allow for the development of 120 townhome units on a roughly 10 acre portion of the 18.62-acre site; the remaining land (roughly 8.62 acres) is to be dedicated to the City of Colorado Springs for recreational and drainage purposes. The 120 dwelling units are dispersed among 31 buildings, each consisting of 3 or 4 dwellings per building; the buildings have a maximum height of 35 feet. The development is adjacent to single-family residential land uses to the north, west, and south, while to the east is Sand Creek, which is being platted within a 6.07-acre tract dedicated to the City for drainage and open space. The single-family homes to the north, however, are separated from the site by Dublin Road, a principle arterial roadway. Directly northwest and adjacent to the site is a 1.96-acre piece of vacant land which is Master Planned for Neighborhood Commercial use; significant landscaping and fencing is proposed to buffer these uses. To comply with the City s Streamside Ordinance, ample pedestrian access is being provided from the development to the 16 feet wide City Trail running along Sand Creek s western bank. Furthermore, impervious surfaces are limited within the overlay, and landscaping along the creek corridor is significant. STAFF S RECOMMENDATIONS: ITEM 11: CPC PUZ 05-00047 CHANGE OF ZONING Approve the zone change from A/NP/SS (Agricultural with Navigation Preservation and Streamside Overlays) to PUD/NP/SS (Planned Unit Development for multi-family townhouses maximum density of 12.02 dwelling units/acre, 35-foot maximum building height, with Navigation Preservation and Streamside Overlays), based on the findings that the change of zoning request complies with the three (3) criteria for granting of zone changes as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 603 and the criteria for the establishment of a PUD zone as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 603 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Page 140 ITEM 12: CPC PUD 05-00048 PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Approve the Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 PUD Development Plan, based on the findings that the PUD Development Plan meets the review criteria for PUD development plans as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 607 of the City Zoning Code. Refer to Figures 2 and 3. This recommendation for approval is subject to compliance with the changes to the Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing No. 24 PUD Development Plan as set forth in the Technical and Informational Modifications to PUD Development Plan portion (pages 144-145) of the CPC agenda. ITEM 13: CPC FP 05-00049 SUBDIVISION PLAT Approve the Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 Final Subdivision Plat, based upon the finding that the subdivision plat complies with the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Regulations as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 7, Section 102 of the Subdivision Code. Refer to Figures 4 and 5. This recommendation for approval is subject to compliance with the changes to the Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing No. 24 PUD Subdivision Plat as set forth in the Technical and Informational Modifications to Subdivision Plat portion (page 146) of the CPC agenda. BACKGROUND PROJECT INFORMATION: Existing Zoning/Land Use: Refer to Figure 6. Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: North PUD/NP / Single-Family Residential (under construction) South PUD/NP / Single-Family Residential East PUD/NP/SS / Open Space West R-1-6000 and A / Single-Family Residential and Open Space respectively. Annexation: Wills Annexation (August 1984) Subdivision: Unplatted. Zoning Enforcement Action: None identified. Master Plan: Stetson Hills Phase II Master Plan designated Residential 12-18 du/acre and OP Open Space. Physical Characteristics: This parcel slopes south and eastward toward Sand Creek. The site has recently been graded and cleared and contains no significant vegetation. This section of Sand Creek was recently realigned and improved and therefore lacks any significant riparian vegetation or habitat. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: The initial department review comments for the three applications are included in the City Planning review letters dated March 25 th, 2005, refer to Figures 7, 8 and 9; comments from the Subdivision Engineering Review Team were sent in a separate letter dated March 29 th, 2005, refer to Figure 10. Planning Staff has met with the applicant and/or other departments regarding their concerns. The concerns have been or will be addressed in the revised plans and/or will be addressed as a condition of approval, as specified herein. PETITIONER S JUSTIFICATION: Refer to Figure 11. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS: The standard City notification and posting process was used. All applicable City agencies and departments were asked to review and comment. Prior to the City Planning Commission hearing, the site will be posted and mail notifications sent again. There was one neighborhood meeting held regarding these applications. On April 26 th, 2005, during the internal review stage, a neighborhood meeting was held at Ridgeview Elementary School to gather neighborhood concerns and incorporate constructive comments into the project. Approximately 20 persons attended the meeting. Refer to Figure 12 for a summary of the meeting s discussion items. Copies of letters and e-mails of concern are attached to this report. Refer to Figures 13 and 14.
Page 141 ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES: At the time of the required completion of this staff report there were multiple unresolved issues regarding the development of this site. First, and perhaps foremost, is the design and construction of the drainage channel within Tract B on the southern edge of the property. Tract B is 85 feet wide and roughly 1,075 feet long and it will be dedicated to the City as part of the Subdivision Plat (CPC FP 05-049). A proposed drainage channel occupies most of the land within Tract B. Along the edges of Tract B the development s landscape plan shows a number of trees which are intended to buffer the proposed higher density townhomes from the single family residential land use to the south. Refer to Figures 15 and 16. Because this landscaping is within a City owned Tract, a note has been added to the Development Plan obligating the development s Home Owner s Association to maintain and replace (if needed) this landscaping. While the proposed landscaping location will serve as a buffer and improve the aesthetics of the drainage channel they may possibly hinder the function of the channel at peak flows. The applicant has been asked to submit more detailed information regarding the design of the drainage channel to City Engineering before it can be approved; this information was outstanding at the time that this staff report was due. There are a couple potential scenarios regarding the final design of the drainage channel: 1) The requested information will be submitted to Engineering, and they will approve of the current design; 2) The current design will be determined to be inadequate and City Engineering will refuse maintenance responsibilities, which will in turn become the responsibility of the Home Owner s Association; and 3) The current design will be determined to be inadequate and the channel will be redesigned to include a concrete bottom that will lower the potential high water level and thereby allow more room for the proposed landscaping. A second issue that remained unresolved at the time this staff report was due was the location of gas and electric utilities in relation to the streets, curbs, sidewalks and buildings. The current street cross-section detail only shows separation distances for a 28-foot wide street; it is not clear what separation distances are proposed for the internal stub streets that are only 24 feet wide. Refer to Figure 17. Furthermore, the current street cross-section details identify a 38-foot wide public ingress/egress, drainage and public utility tract with a four foot wide sidewalk located adjacent (outside of) this tract. This would require a minimum building separation of 42 feet whereas some of the buildings that gain access from 24-foot wide stub roads are shown as having only 40 feet of clearance between buildings. While this seems to present a significant problem, the applicant is confident that it can be resolved; this confidence is based in part on the fact that identical townhomes have been approved by Colorado Springs Utilities and City Planning in the recent past. Review criteria E of the PUD Development Plan review criteria requires that new PUD developments must not overburden public facilities. This issue was discussed at length between City Planning and the applicant, as the project falls within Falcon School District 49. Staff received a letter dated March 29 th, 2005 from Henry Reitwiesner, Director of Auxiliary Services and Construction Management, with the District. Refer to Figure 18. The School District has commissioned a study to document the actual cost of the current growth in the District with the goal to establish more effective fees in lieu of land. This study however, has still not been completed. Prior to the completion of the study, the District has been meeting with the Development Community as a whole and with individual developers to agree upon voluntary impact fees based on the projected number of new students each project will produce. It is my understanding that Pulte Homes and the District have come to an agreement on the amount of these fees for this project. Documentation of this agreement is forthcoming. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comprehensive Plan 2020 Land Use Map: General Residential. Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies: Residential Use Objective LU 5: Develop Cohesive Residential Areas: Neighborhoods are the fundamental building block for developing and redeveloping residential areas of the city. Likewise, residential areas provide a structure for bringing together individual neighborhoods to support and benefit from schools, community activity centers, commercial centers, community parks, recreation centers, employment centers, open space networks, and the city s transportation system. Residential areas also form the basis for broader residential land use designations on the citywide land use map. Those designations distinguish general types of residential areas by their average densities, environmental features, diversity of housing types, and mix of
Page 142 uses. Residential areas of the city should be developed, redeveloped and revitalized as cohesive sets of neighborhoods, sharing an interconnected network of streets, schools, parks, trails, open spaces, activity centers, and public facilities and services. Policy LU 501: Plan Residential Areas to Integrate Neighborhoods into the Wider Subarea and Citywide Pattern: Plan, design, develop, and redevelop residential areas to integrate several neighborhoods into the citywide pattern of activity centers, street networks, environmental constraints, parks and open space, school locations and other public facilities and services. Objective LU 6: Meet the Housing Needs of All Segments of the Community: Planning and development activities, both in the public and private sector, shall include measures intended to ensure the sufficient provision of housing to meet the needs of the entire community, including housing affordable to lower-income households. Policy LU 601: Assure Provision of Housing Choices: Distribute housing throughout the City so as to provide households with a choice of densities, types, styles and costs within a neighborhood or residential area. Policy LU 202: Make Natural and Scenic Areas and Greenways an Integral Part of the Land Use Pattern: Treat the City s significant natural features, scenic areas, trail corridors, and greenways as critically important land uses and infrastructure that represent major public and private investments and are an integral part of the city and its land use pattern. Strategy N 203d: Incorporate Natural Features: Protect natural environmental features, including rock outcroppings, drainage areas, wildlife habitat, unique topographic features, and view corridors by incorporating them into new and developing neighborhoods, consistent with the guidelines of the Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Policy NE 201: Identify, Evaluate and Incorporate Significant Natural Features: Preserve the variety of spectacular natural features, so prevalent in and around the City, for the enjoyment of residents and visitors. Incorporate significant natural features on individual sites into the design of new development and redevelopment. Identify and inventory natural features through best management practices prior to incorporating features into site planning. Include significant natural features that contribute to the attractiveness of the community such as ridgelines, bluffs, rock outcroppings, view corridors, foothills, mountain backdrop, urban forest, floodplains, natural water bodies, clean air natural drainageways and wildlife habitats. Strategy NE 201b: Incorporate Natural Features into Design of All Development: Preserve and incorporate significant natural features into the design of new development by using innovative planning, design and best management practices. Assist such efforts by private landowners and organizations to incorporate natural features into all development and to protect, restore, or enhance privately owned natural features. It is the finding of the City Planning Staff that the Ridgeview and Stetson Hills Filing 24 project substantially conforms to the City Comprehensive Plan 2020 Land Use Map and the Plan s goals, objectives and policies. STETSON HILLS PHASE II MASTER PLAN: The Stetson Hills Phase II Master Plan designates the majority of the project area as Residential with 12 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The designation for this portion of the project was amended in June of 2001 (CPC CP 01-015) from Residential with 3.5 to 7.99 dwelling units per acre to its current designation of Residential 12 to 18 dwelling units per acre. That same amendment created the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the 2 acres immediately northwest of the project site. The easternmost area of the project encompassing Sand Creek is designated as OP Open Space. Refer to Figure 19. It is the finding of the Planning Staff that this request substantially conforms with and is in compliance with the Stetson Hills Phase II Master Plan.
Page 143 ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA: In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 603, a proposal for a change of zone classification may be approved by the City only if the following findings are made: 1. The action will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare. 2. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the City Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal is consistent with the master plan for the area in which the parcel is located. It is the finding of the Planning Staff that this proposal is not detrimental to the public interest of the existing neighborhood, does conform to goals and policies of the City Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the proposed land use designations of the Stetson Hill Phase II Master Plan. PUD ZONE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT CRITERIA: In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 3, Part 6, the establishment and development of a PUD zone district shall conform to the following: A. A PUD zone district may be established upon any tract of land held under a single ownership or under unified control, provided the application for the establishment of the zone district is accompanied by a PUD plan or development plan covering the entire zone district which conforms to the provisions of this part. B. An approved development plan is required before any building permits may be issued within a PUD zone district. The development plan may be for all or a portion of the entire district. The review criteria for approval of the PUD plan and approval of a development plan are intended to be flexible to allow for innovative, efficient, and compatible land uses. (Ord. 03-110) It is the finding of the Planning Staff that this proposal for a PUD district conforms with the purpose, establishment, and requirements for PUD zone district of the City Zoning Code. PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 607.B, a PUD development plan shall be reviewed using the following criteria found in said section: A development plan for land within a PUD zone shall be approved if it substantially conforms to the approved PUD plan and the development plan review criteria listed below. The standards and other requirements set forth in a development agreement may be used to demonstrate compliance with development plan review criteria. An application for a development plan shall be submitted in accord with requirements outlined in Article 5, Part 2 and Part 5 of this Chapter. Unless otherwise specified by a development agreement, the project shall be vested by the development plan in accord with section 7.9.101 and subsection 7.5.504C2 of this chapter. A. Consistency With City Plans: Is the proposed development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or any City approved master plan that applies to the site? B. Consistency With Zoning Code: Is the proposed development consistent with the intent and purposes of this Zoning Code? C. Compatibility Of The Site Design With The Surrounding Area: 1. Does the circulation plan minimize traffic impact on the adjacent neighborhood? 2. Do the design elements reduce the impact of the project s density/intensity? 3. Is placement of buildings compatible with the surrounding area? 4. Are landscaping and fences/walls provided to buffer adjoining properties from undesirable negative influences that may be created by the proposed development? 5. Are residential units buffered from arterial traffic by the provision of adequate setbacks, grad separation, walls, landscaping and building orientation? D. Traffic Circulation: 1. Is the circulation system designed to be safe and functional and encourage both on and off site connectivity?
Page 144 2. Will the streets and drives provide logical, safe and convenient vehicular access to the facilities within the project? 3. Will adequately sized parking areas be located to provide safe and convenient access, avoid excessive parking ratios and avoid expanses of pavement? 4. Are access and movement of handicapped persons and parking of vehicles for the handicapped appropriately accommodated in the project design? 5. As appropriate are provisions for transit incorporated? E. Overburdening Of Public Facilities: Will the proposed development overburden the capacities of existing and planned streets, utilities, parks, and other public facilities? F. Privacy: Is privacy provided, where appropriate, for residential units by means of staggered setbacks, courtyards, private patios, grade separation, landscaping, building orientation or other means? G. Pedestrian Circulation: 1. Are pedestrian facilities provided, particularly those giving access to open space and recreation facilities? 2. Will pedestrian walkways be functionally separated from vehicular ways and located in areas that are not used by motor vehicles? H. Landscaping: 1. Does the landscape design comply with the City s landscape code and the City s landscape policy manual? 2. The use of native vegetation or drought resistant species including grasses is encouraged. The City s landscape policy manual or City Planning s landscape architect can be consulted for assistance. I. Open Space: 1. Residential Area: a. Open Space: The provision of adequate open space shall be required to provide light, air and privacy; to buffer adjacent properties; and to provide active and passive recreation opportunities. All residential units shall include well designed private outdoor living space featuring adequate light, air and privacy where appropriate. Common open space may be used to reduce the park dedication requirements if the open space provides enough area and recreational facilities to reduce the residents need for neighborhood parks. Recreational facilities shall reflect the needs of the type of residents and proximity to public facilities. b. Natural Features: Significant and unique natural features, such as trees, drainage channels, slopes, and rock outcroppings, should be preserved and incorporated into the design of the open space. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall have the discretion to grant park land credit for open space within a PUD development that preserves significant natural features and meets all other criteria for granting park land credit. 2. Nonresidential; Natural Features: The significant natural features of the site, such as trees, drainage channels, slopes, rock outcroppings, etc., should be preserved and are to be incorporated into the design of the open space. J. Mobile Home Parks: Does a proposed mobile home park meet the minimum standards set forth in the mobile home park development standards table in section 7.3.104 of this article? (Ord. 03-110) It is the finding of the Planning Staff that the proposed Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 PUD Development Plan will be in substantial compliance with the PUD Development Plan criteria, if the plan is modified as follows: Significant Modification to the PUD Development Plan: Add a note to the Development Plan indicating that the Sand Creek channel improvements (Tract A) must be completed before building permits will be issued for Lots 1-28 and 75-86. Technical and Informational Modifications to the PUD Development Plan: 1. Correct the label leader line for the proposed 100-year floodplain to identify the correct floodplain location along the stream s western bank. 2. Add a reference on the Plan referencing CLOMR number 00-08-296R approved September 21, 2000.
Page 145 3. Remove the curbed island shown in the middle of the stream channel just south of the Dublin Road bridge. 4. Revise the impervious cover table on Sheet 11 to show the total percent impervious cover at 13%. 5. Either provide revised turn templates showing that the proposed on-street parking is acceptable, or remove the on-street spaces. 6. Revise the location of the property line separating tract A from the rest of the development PUD Development Plan to match what was submitted on the Subdivision Plat. 7. Provide detailed drawings on the Plan for the proposed pedestrian ramps and add pedestrian ramps at the southeastern corner of Kyla Jade Grove and on both sides of the eastern-most portion of the Wills Drive cul-de-sac. 8. Remove detailed drawings number 9, 10, and 14 on sheet 9; they are already shown on sheet 2. 9. Adjust either the location of the retaining wall or the sidewalk just south of unit #44 to allow at least 4 feet of sidewalk width. 10. Provide a copy of the covenants for Home Owner s Association. 11. A Final Landscape Plan, with applicable detail, is to be approved with the Development Plan. 12. Note soil amendments to address deficiencies noted in the Soil Analysis. 13. Address the opaque structure requirement for the west boundary adjacent to the "Future Commercial Development". Any proposed non-compliance must be addressed through an Alternative Compliance. 14. Submit to Colorado Springs Utilities a Wastewater Master Facility Report. 15. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) must be approved and documented on the Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. 16. Revise private street names to meet Enumerations and Colorado Springs Police concerns. 17. An approved drainage report must be on file with City Engineering. 18. Add a cross section detail to the drainage channel and landscaping within Tract B. 19. Clarify the maximum heights of the two retaining walls just south of units 44 and 45. 20. Add public access easements along all sidewalks not within public right-of-way and along the sidewalk that parallels tract B. 21. Add a third grass paver access point to the drainage channel from the public cul-de-sac at Wills Dr. 22. Review and comply with the attached Fire Prevention review comments. Refer to Figure 20. STREAMSIDE OVERLAY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 508.B, a development plan within the Streamside Overlay Zone shall be reviewed using the following criteria found in said section: Refer to Figure 21. 1. Has natural landform been maintained within the overlay area and does grading conform to the specific grading limitations of the streamside ordinance? 2. Does the development incorporate the stream ecosystem into the project design and complement the natural streamside setting? Has the project been designed to link and integrate adjacent properties with the stream corridor using access ways, creek front plazas, employee recreational areas or other site planning and landscaping techniques which include the stream corridor as an amenity? 3. Has the project been designed to minimize impact upon wildlife habitat and the riparian ecosystem which exists on or adjacent to the site? Does the project design protect established habitat or any known populations of any threatened or endangered species or species of special concern? 4. Have existing or potential community trail networks and other recreational opportunities been identified and incorporated into the project design? 5. Has the project been designed to protect the subject property from potential flood damage? 6. Have all significant natural features within the project streamside area been identified, and has the project been designed to minimize the impact on these features?
Page 146 7. Does the project identify and implement the recommendations of any approved subarea plans (such as the Greenway master plan or a drainage basin planning study) and of any approved public works projects and habitat conservation plans? 8. Does the project design: a. Implement a riparian buffer between the developed portions of the site and the adjacent waterway to assist in preventing point and nonpoint source pollutants and sediment from entering the waterway? b. Minimize surface imperviousness? c. Incorporate all storm water best management practices required by City Engineering throughout the developed site and adjacent to the buffer to encourage on site filtration of storm water? 9. Is surface imperviousness minimized on that portion of the site falling within the streamside overlay and does it conform to the recommendation of the streamside design manual? 10. Have disturbed areas been revegetated to minimize erosion and stabilize landscape areas and does the project landscaping design specify plants selected from the riparian plant communities as set forth in appendix A of the Landscape Policy Manual? Does the proposal meet all other requirements of the City s Landscape Code? 11. Have stream bank and slope areas been identified (particularly those over 15 percent slope)? Has the disturbance to these areas and any protective or stabilizing vegetative cover been minimized? Does the plan provide for the suitable revegetation and stabilization of any disturbed areas? 12. Have visual buffer opportunities of the stream as a continuous system and between existing and/or proposed projects on opposing sides of streams been identified and incorporated in the project design? 13. Have opportunities to reclaim historic streamside areas contained within the project area been identified and incorporated in the project design? It is the finding of the Planning Staff that the proposed Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 PUD Development Plan will be in substantial compliance with the Streamside Overlay Zone Development Plan criteria. SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA In accordance with City Subdivision Code Chapter 7, Article 7, Section 102, a subdivision plat shall be reviewed using the standards found in said section. Specifically, to promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City; to set forth appropriate standards for subdivision design; to set forth appropriate standards for utilities and services; to assure the provision of adequate and safe circulation; to assure adequate public facilities can be provided; and that the development conforms to the goals and policies of the City Comprehensive Plan. It is the finding of the Planning Staff that the proposed Ridgeview at Stetson Hills Filing 24 Subdivision Plat will be in substantial compliance with the subdivision plat review criteria, if the plan is modified as follows: Technical and Informational Modifications to the Subdivision Plat: 1. Amend the associated Project Statement as follows a. Add the number and size of proposed tracts into the project description. b. Revise the Code Section reference to the proper section. c. Add an issue list. 2. Provide proof of ownership from all four property owners. 3. All taxes must be paid in full prior to recording the plat. 4. Add the names of all the private streets to the dedication statement section of the plat. 5. Submit a copy of the development s covenants and documentation of the establishment of the HOA.
Page 147 6. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment must be reviewed and approved prior to approval. 7. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) must be approved and documented on the Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. 8. Amend the dedication statements to add All Public Streets are hereby dedicated 9. Add the word Dedicated to the second sentence of the dedication statements. 10. Revise private street names to meet Enumerations and Colorado Springs Police concerns. 11. Incorporate the fire truck turnaround into Tract N. 12. Provide documentation that Falcon School District 49 has accepted Pulte s voluntary impact fee offer and therefore approves of the proposed development.
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197