HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 05-17-2006PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006
WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed on the consent agenda* are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. CONSENT AGENDA*
A. Approve the May 3, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Corey Scherber. Interim use permit for filling operations at 15 Evergreen Road.
2005130)
B. Frankie’s Towing. Zoning ordinance text amendment to add “towing business with
outdoor tow yard” as a conditional use in the I-2 and I-3 zoning districts, site plan
amendment for a towing facility, and conditional use permits for the towing use and
an 8-foot fence for property located at 5615 State Highway 169 North. (2006015)
C. City of Plymouth. Zoning ordinance text amendment to allow electronic reader
boards in the P-I (Public Institutional) District. (2006021)
D. CBR Development LLC. Rezoning from FRD (Future Restricted Development) to
RSF-2 (Single Family 2) and a preliminary plat to be called “Four Points of
Plymouth” to create four lots for single-family dwellings on property located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Old Rockford Road and Vicksburg Lane.
2006022)
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. City of Plymouth. Comprehensive Plan Update. (2005050) Comments. Map.
Schedule.
8. ADJOURNMENT
1
Agenda Number
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING
STAFF REPORT
TO: Plymouth Planning Commission
FROM: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director (763 509-5401)
Barbara Senness, Planning Manager (763 509-5452)
SUBJECT: Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Update-- Preliminary Land Use Plan for
Northwest Plymouth. (2005050)
DATE: May 12, 2006 for the Planning Commission Meeting of May 17, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
At the May 17, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission will be discussing the three sample land
use plans for northwest Plymouth that were presented at neighborhood information meetings on
May 1 and 2, and to the Commission at its May 3 meeting. This report summarizes this
information and the comments received on the sample plans, and provides discussion questions
that the Commission may use to formulate recommendations to the City Council. The City
Council is expecting to receive the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the preliminary
land use plan at its meeting on May 31, 2006.
2. BACKGROUND
Planning Process to Date
The City began the process of preparing a land use plan for northwest Plymouth roughly eight
months ago. In addition to workshops, open houses and meetings, the City has communicated to
residents, property owners and other stakeholders about the planning process through mailed
notices, the City website, the City newsletter and news releases to the local press.
The City initiated the work on the land use plan in Fall 2005 with two open houses followed by
two meetings where residents and landowners identified neighborhood issues and provided input
for the sample land use plans now under review. These meetings were followed by two joint
Planning Commission/City Council workshops to review the input from the previous public
meetings and provide direction to staff on land use alternatives. Following these workshops, the
City Council hosted a listening session to offer participants an open forum to present their
concerns about and ideas for the future of northwest Plymouth.
2
With all of the Council, Commission and stakeholder input, staff spent the next three months
developing alternative land use concepts, which the Planning Commission and Council discussed
at two meetings in March. Following these meetings, staff went on to more fully develop a rural
to urban transition development concept and three sample land use plans. In mid-April, the
Commission and Council took a bus tour of northwest Plymouth. The concept and sample land
use plans were the subject of two neighborhood information meetings on May 1 and 2. On May
3, the Planning Commission had their initial discussion on the concept and sample plans and
entertained comments from residents and stakeholders.
Why is the plan for Northwest Plymouth “preliminary”?
A comprehensive plan is a long-range vision and guide for the entire community. The
Comprehensive Plan Update the City is now preparing will provide guidance for City decision
makers to the year 2030. The land use plan for northwest Plymouth is only one piece of this plan
update. The overall plan will not only include a land use plan for northwest Plymouth, but the
rest of the City as well. In addition, once the City has approved a preliminary land use plan,
work will start on updating other parts of the Comprehensive Plan—plans for sewer, water
supply, surface water, transportation, parks, housing, pubic facilities. Since each one of these
individual plans must work together, we can expect some course corrections in one or more parts
of the overall plan as we move toward final plan completion.
3. RURAL-TO-URBAN TRANSITION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
At the March 9 and 21 workshop meetings, the Planning Commission and City Council
discussed the overall approach to land use planning and extending services to the northwest
planning area. Four basic strategies (referred to as “Marginal Urban Expansion”, “Sequential
Urbanization”, “Rural Islands” and “Rural-to-Urban Transition”) were considered. The
direction received was to base the plan on the “Rural-to-Urban Transition” approach, which is
described as follows:
The Plan would allow for the entire area to make a gradual transition to urban uses.
The City would plan for the logical and efficient expansion of public utilities (sewer and
water) to the entire area, but allow for non-sequential construction of infrastructure if
developers pay for down-stream improvements (off-site work) and obtain easements.
There would be no assessments until landowners are ready to subdivide.
The land use plan would designate a “Northwest Plymouth Overlay” area, with special
development standards to recognize and help preserve the unique characteristics of the area.
The special standards would include:
o Increased setbacks along major roadways (County Road 47, Vicksburg and Peony)—for
example, 100 feet instead of the current 50 feet
o Site design to protect natural features and vistas, and clustering to minimize grading
o Additional tree preservation and landscaping—increase required replacement/restitution,
increased plantings in transition areas
o Architectural standards to encourage variety in building design and enhanced
architectural features
3
o Assessment policies to require payment for over sizing and non-sequential infrastructure
extensions
Within the overlay area, a “Transition Area” would help preserve rural character for residents
in existing large (5-10 acre) lot areas. Land use designations in the Transition Area would
permit lower densities, larger setbacks and wider lots than in the rest of the Overlay area and
in the rest of Plymouth.
The current “Living Area- Rural” (LAR) guiding (20-acre minimum lot size) would be
replaced with “Living Area-Rural Transition” (LA-RT), to allow re-subdivision of lots to as
small as 1 acre, with public utilities.
The density of all urban land use designations in the Transition Area would be lower than the
comparable designations for the rest of the city. For example: LA-R1 is 1 to 2 units per acre,
LA-R2 is 2 to 4 units per acre and LA-R3 is 4 to 6 units per acre.
The existing land use designations would be used in the areas where a transition is not
required (for example, larger undeveloped parcels without significant natural areas), and/or in
locations where more intense development would be appropriate. On the sample plans that
were prepared for public review, this included:
o The area previously planned for urban development by the 2000 Comprehensive Plan
o The area south of Highway 55, which does not have the same rural character as the rest of
the northwest area
o Some areas immediately abutting more intense development or at major intersections
o Future institutional uses planned along County Road 101.
4. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS
The following chart illustrates the Land Use Guide Plan classifications that would be used for the
Comprehensive Plan update, based on the concept described above. Within the Northwest
Plymouth Overlay, there would be two sets of land use guide plan designations—the rural-to-
urban transition categories, with reduced densities, and the current set. The current set of land
use guide plan designations would be used in the rest of the City and retain their current
standards.
Increasing the number of sets of land use plan designations from the current one to three distinct
sets could be complicated to implement and may be confusing to the public. This number could
be reduced to two, if the increased development standards proposed for the overlay area were
applied to the entire community. With the possible exception of the increased setbacks from the
major roads (which were introduced to help maintain the existing rural character of CR 47 and
other arterial roads in the northwest area), it may be desirable to apply the new standards to the
relatively few remaining undeveloped properties in the existing urban area. The Planning
Commission and Council should discuss this issue when giving direction for the preliminary land
use plan.
4
Land Use Guide Plan Designations
Residential Uses Only)
Northwest Plymouth Overlay
Current Land Use
Designations
Throughout City
Current Land Use
Designations Within
NW Overlay
New Rural-to-Urban
Transition Land Use
Designations
LA-RT 1/20 no sewer
or up to 1/acre with
sewerLAR
1/20
to be deleted)
LA-R1
1 to 2/acre
LA-1
2 to 3/acre
LA-1
2 to 3/acre LA-R2
2 to 4/acre
LA-2
3 to 6/acre
LA-2
3 to 6/ acre LA-R3
4 to 6/acre
LA-3
6 to 12/acre
LA-3
6 to 12/acre
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
LA-4
12 to 20/acre
LA-4
12 to 20/acre
Overlay Development Standards
Apply to current and rural-to-urban designations within NW overlay)
Increased setbacks along major roadways (CR47,
Vicksburg & Peony)
Site design to protect natural features and vistas,
clustering to minimize grading
Additional tree preservation & landscaping--
increase required replacement/restitution,
increased plantings in transition areas
Architectural standards to encourage variety in
building design and enhanced architectural
features
Assessment policies to require payment for over
sizing & non-sequential infrastructure extensions
5. SAMPLE LAND USE PLANS
Staff prepared three sample land use plans for public review and comment at the May 1 and 2
neighborhood information
meetings. They are attached to
this report. The plans illustrate
three levels of development
intensity, using the same
Northwest Plymouth Overlay”
and “Transition Area”
boundaries, as shown on the
map to the right, and the land
use guide plan designations
shown on the chart.
The following table summarizes
the land uses and development
intensity represented by the
three sample plans.
Land Area by Land Use Guide Plan Designation
Sample Land Use Plans, Northwest Plymouth Overlay Area
May 1, 2006
Land Use Guide Plan Designation Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
C (Commercial) 27.71 1.65% 27.71 1.65% 9.93 0.59%
P-I (Public/Institutional) 205.21 12.19% 205.21 12.19% 205.21 12.19%
IP (Planned Industrial) 25.42 1.51% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Subtotal, Non-Residential 258.34 15.35% 232.92 13.84% 215.14 12.78%
LA-1 (2 to 3 Units/Acre) 101.84 6.05% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
LA-2 (3 to 6 Units/Acre) 148.92 8.85% 250.76 14.90% 110.66 6.58%
LA-3 (6 to 12 Units/Acre) 118.49 7.04% 118.49 7.04% 276.37 16.42%
LA-4 (12 to 20 Units/Acre) 0.00 0.00% 25.42 1.51% 25.42 1.51%
Subtotal, Urban Residential 369.25 21.94% 394.67 23.45% 412.45 24.51%
LA-RT (20 Acres/ 1/Acre with Sewer) 349.30 20.76% 258.54 15.36% 214.41 12.74%
LA-R1 (1 to 2 Units/Acre) 435.40 25.87% 390.12 23.18% 202.56 12.04%
LA-R2 (2 to 4 Units/Acre) 270.63 16.08% 406.67 24.16% 471.22 28.00%
LA-R3 (4 to 6 Units/Acre) 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 167.15 9.93%
Subtotal, Residential Transition Area 1,055.33 62.71% 1,055.33 62.71% 1,055.33 62.71%
Total, Developable Land Area (less wetlands
and floodplain) 1,682.92 100.00% 1,682.92 100.00% 1,682.92 100.00%
Potential New Dwellings, All Residential Designations Except LA-RT
Number Units/Acre Number Units/Acre Number Units/Acre
Minimum of Density Range 2,338 2.17 2,972 2.49 4,109 3.28
Maximum of Density Range 4,574 4.25 5,842 4.90 7,782 6.21
Sample Plan 1 Sample Plan 2 Sample Plan 3
Sample Plan 1 Sample Plan 2 Sample Plan 3
6
Key differences among the three samples are as follows:
With the exception of the parcels along County Road 47, the LA-RT areas east of Troy and
east of Dunkirk remain the same through each of the sample plans. The area north of
Pomerleau Lake is the only LA-RT area that significantly reduces in size from the first to the
third sample plan.
Elm Creek Golf Course increases in density from LA-1 to LA-2 to LA-3.
The parcels south of Hamel Road are shown as industrial in sample plan 1 and LA-4 in
samples 2 and 3. This area has good access and is close to a variety of services and therefore
provides an opportunity for higher density housing that could also complement new and
planned development in Hamel.
The area north of County Road 47 increases from a combination of LA-R1 and LA-R2 in
sample plan 1 to LA-R3 in sample 3. This area abuts Maple Grove where urban densities
already exist.
The lots immediately south of County Road 47 increase in intensity from the first to the third
sample plan, based on their proximity to a higher-order roadway.
Hampton Hills moves from LA-R1 in the first two samples to LA-R2 in the third.
The properties on the east side of Vicksburg north of the railroad tracks change from LA-RT
in sample plan 1 to LA-R3 in sample 3.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONCEPT AND SAMPLE LAND USE PLANS
As of May 12, 29 comment forms and letters have been received from 28 individuals who
attended the May neighborhood information meetings. Approximately 125 people attended the
meetings. Any additional written comments received prior to the Planning Commission meeting
will be shared at the meeting, and any later comments received prior to the Council meeting on
May 31 will be shared at that time. A tabulation of the comments, and the responses sent to
those requesting them, is attached to this report.
The comments can be categorized as follows:
Comment Number
Preferred Sample Plan 15
Preference for sample plan 1 5
Preference for sample plan 2 1
Preference for sample plan 3 9
Suggestion for specific land use plan designations 12
Comments on need for road improvements 8
County Road 47 5
Cheshire Lane 2
Vicksburg Lane 1
Opposition to increased setbacks from major roadways 6
Concerns about assessments 4
Timing of development 4
Need for higher densities 3
Concern about preserving golf courses 2
Need for greenways/ trails connections 2
7
The specific changes requested to land use designations are listed in the discussion questions
appearing later in this report.
7. INFORMATION REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
At the May 3 meeting, the Planning Commission requested information on the land use plans for
the other cities that border northwest Plymouth. This information is presented in a map in the
attachments. The Commission also asked for information on how the Metropolitan Council
allocated affordable housing needs to Plymouth.
What is Plymouth’s allocation of the region’s affordable housing needs? How did the
Metropolitan Council arrive at this figure?
The Metropolitan Council has developed a forecast of the affordable housing need in the
Metropolitan Area for the period from 2011 - 2020. This forecast addresses only the need for
new construction, not that portion of need that can be accommodated through the existing
housing stock.
The Metropolitan Council has indicated that the City of Plymouth’s affordable housing
need allocation between 2011 and 2020 is 1,045 units. This figure represents just under 42%
of the 2,500 housing units the Metropolitan Council is forecasting for Plymouth during this
period. They arrived at this figure by first determining an overall regional need for 51,000 units
nearly one-third of the forecasted growth in sewer-serviced households) and then allocating that
need to individual communities. To determine individual community allocations, the
Metropolitan Council:
a. Multiplied the forecasted household growth in a community by a uniform factor of
30.6%--the assumed need for new affordable units in the region as a whole.
b. Proportionally increased a community’s share if the community is a net importer of
low wage jobs and decreased it if the community is a net exporter.
c. For communities where more than 30% of existing housing is affordable, the
Metropolitan Council reduced the community need proportionally. For communities
such as Plymouth, where the current percentage is less than 30%, the Metropolitan
Council proportionally increased the need share number.
d. For communities with regular, frequent transit service, the Metropolitan Council
increased the communities’ housing share. For communities such as Plymouth with
little service, there was no adjustment. For communities without regular transit
service, the Metropolitan Council decreased their share.
8. REGIONAL PLANNING ISSUES
The State Legislature has determined that it is critical to the functioning of the region that each
city’s long-range plan is in conformity with regional plans. Therefore, although the City is
developing its own long-range vision and guide for the future, as Plymouth considers its land use
plan for the northwest area the City must also consider:
8
Growth forecasts
Density of development in the area to be served by the Elm Creek interceptor
Opportunities for affordable housing.
Staff has already calculated that there is enough land in the existing urban service area to
accommodate regionally forecasted growth to 2010. The issue is whether the plan adopted for
the northwest area can accommodate the additional 4,500 units forecast between 2010 and 2030.
The range of potential new dwellings permitted by sample plans 2 and 3 would accommodate the
4,500 units forecast within that time period. However, sample plan 1 would not allow that
number of units unless the entire area developed at the maximum of the density range, which is
unlikely.
The “Systems Statement” issued by the Metropolitan Council to the City of Plymouth indicates
that the City must plan for overall minimum standard of three to five units per acre in the area
served by the Elm Creek interceptor in order to conform with the regional sewer system plan.
The Metropolitan Council has the authority to require a city to modify its plan if it substantially
departs from the regional systems plan. Their authority to do so was confirmed by the Minnesota
Supreme Court when the Metropolitan Council successfully challenged the City of Lake Elmo
for not accommodating their share of regional growth.
Only sample plan 3 would provide for an minimum overall residential density exceeding 3 units
per acre within the area served by the Elm Creek interceptor. (This assumes that the proposed
LA-RT land areas are considered to be already developed at their minimum density range and not
included in the calculation.) If Plymouth would propose to substantially depart from regional
expectations at this stage in the planning process, the City should bring its case to the
Metropolitan Council before spending significant time or money on updating infrastructure
plans.
The Metropolitan Council will also review a community’s land use plan to determine whether or
not there are sufficient opportunities to develop at a density at which affordable housing may be
feasible. It is not clear from the Metropolitan Council’s adopted policies and other guidance
given to the cities on preparation of plans what that minimum density would be. We do have
preliminary indications from staff that the planned density would need to be at least 6 units per
acre to be considered potentially affordable. Therefore, on the sample plans only areas guided
LA-3 and higher might be counted as potentially “affordable.” To further complicate the issue,
the regional “need allocation”, described above, is for a 10-year period, while the overall plan
must deal with a 20-year period.
Consequently, until there is a development staging plan to accompany the land use plan, it is
difficult to determine whether the sample plans would meet the regional goal for affordable
housing opportunities. Because very little land on sample plan 1 is shown in the higher density
classifications, it is unlikely to meet the goal. The other sample plans might meet the goal
depending upon the staging plan and how the Metropolitan Council views the density ranges
permitted by the plan.
It is important to note that the regional policy concerning affordable housing opportunities is not
a “regional system” issue. The Metropolitan Council does not have the authority to require a
9
plan modification if the policy goal is not met. Furthermore, the affordable housing need
allocation and the relationship to the land use plan is only one of the issues surrounding
affordable housing that the City will need to address in the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing
chapter of the plan, which will be updated over the next year, will address the full range of
housing needs in Plymouth.
9. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Staff has prepared the following discussion questions, which the Commission may wish to use to
help formulate your recommendation to the City Council for the preliminary land use plan for the
northwest area:
a. Are there any general concerns or comments about the “rural-to-urban transition”
approach to development?
b. Are there concerns or comments on the “Northwest Plymouth Overlay” concept, such
as the proposal for increased development standards? Should these standards also be
increased for the rest of the City? (This could allow the number of sets of land use
guide plan designations to be reduced from three to two.)
c. Should there be any changes in the land use guide plan designations proposed for the
Overlay and/or Transition areas?
d. Should the boundaries of the “Transition” area within the Overlay be reduced or
expanded?
e. Which one of the three “sample” plans most closely represents your preference for a
future land use plan for the northwest area?
f. How should this sample plan be modified so that it represents a consensus of the
Planning Commission?
g. Should any of the specific requests for changes to land use designations be
incorporated into the Commission’s recommended plan? Those requests were:
Location: Requested Land Use Designation:
1; 23 Elm Creek Golf Course LA-1; LA-1 or LA-2
6 County Road 47 & 101 Sample plan 3-- suggested boundary
between C and LA-3 (sample plan 3)
should be moved to creek
7, 24 Southwest corner of Troy and
County Road 47
Sample plan 3-- suggest moving
boundary of LA-R2 area abutting
County Road 47 to include two parcels
to the south on Troy Lane
12 Planning area 1 (all area east of
Vicksburg Lane)
Sample plan 3-- all should be LA-R3
14 5620 Ranier Lane (PID 06-42-0004) All sample plans-- change from LA-R1
to LA-R2
15 79 acres at Peony Lane & Schmidt
Lake Road, across from Wayzata HS
All sample plans—change to LA-4
10
Location: Requested Land Use Designation:
21 Lots on both sides of the road at the
south end of Dunkirk Lane
All sample plans-- LA-RT should be
changed to LA-R1, and possibly LA-R2
or LA-R3 as a transition to existing
townhome development
22 5739 Juneau (PID 04-31-0006) Sample plan 2—change LA-RT to LA-
R1
27, 28 North County Road 47/ west of
Lawndale Lane (Luedke property)
Sample plan 3—change LA-R3 to LA-
3 (remove from Transition area)
10. CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATION
Staff will present the information in this report and answer questions at the May 17 meeting. We
recommend that the Commission use the discussion questions listed above as a guide, to assist
with making your recommendation to the City Council. If there is any additional information
that we can provide, please contact us in advance of the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Sample Land Use Plan Maps
2. Public Comments—May 1 & 2 Neighborhood Meetings
3. Existing Land Use Guide Plan, with Surrounding Communities Land Use Plans
4. Planning Process Milestones and Tentative Dates for 2006
Sample Plan 1
Sample Plan 2
12
Sample Plan 2SamplePlan3
VICKSBURG
LA
INTERSTATE
HWY
NO
494
INTERSTATE
HWY
NO.
494
CORDNO24
CORDNO47
STATE
HIGH
W
AY
NO
55
STATE
HIGH
W
AY
NO
55
CORDNO47
CO RD NO 47 CORD47
CO
RD
NO
101
CITY OF MAPLEGROVECITYOFCORCORAN
C
ITY
OF
M
E
D
I
N
A
4-10 4-10 4-10
4-10 4-10
4-10
4-10
0-3.5
0-3.5
0-3.5 0-3.5 0-3.5
0-3.5
0-3.5
OVER 10
LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY MAY GO UP TO 5.5 WITH BONUSESMEDIUM-DENSITY MAY GO UP TO 11 WITH BONUSES
PUD1
UP TO
2
URUPTO 4.5
MRUPTO18
PUD2
UPTO2
PARK
PS
PS
UC
UC
URUPTO 4.5
UC1
RR1 RR -URUPTO3
RR-URUPTO3
UH8TO45
RR1UNITPER10ACRES
UP TO 3
UP TO 3 .5
DENSITY RANGE BASEDUPONMINIMUMLOTSIZEPERDISTRICT
DE
NSI
TY
R
A
N
G
E
B
A
SED
UP
ON
MINIMUM
LO
T
S
IZ
E
PE
R
D
I
S
TR
ICT
PomerleauLake
LakeCamelot
Turtle Lake
PLY MOUTHLANDUSE
Comercial (C )
Living Area 1 (LA 1)
Living Area 2 (LA 2)
Living Area 3 (LA 3)
Living Area 4 (LA 4)
Living Area R ural (LAR )
Public/Semi-Public/Institutional (P-I)
Commercial Office (CO )
City Center (CC )
Planned Industiral (IP)
MED LK
MAPLE GROVELANDUSE
LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-DENSIT Y RESIDENTIA L
PARK, GOLF CO URS E OR PRO TECTE D O PEN SPACE
PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC
MEDINALANDUSE
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR)
PARK
PLANNED UNI T DEVELOPME NT 1 (PU D1)
PLANNED UNI T DEVELOPME NT 2 (PU D2)
PUBLIC /SEMI-PUBLIC (PS)
RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR )
RURAL RESIDENTIAL - URBAN R ESERVE (RR -UR)
RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 (RR1)
UPTOWN HAME L (UH)
URB AN COMMERCIAL (UC )
URB AN COMMERCIAL 1 (UC1)
URB AN RESIDENTIAL (UR )
CORCORANLANDUSE
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORING CITY LAND USE DESIGNATIO NS&
ASSOCIATED DENSITY RANGES
0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5