HomeMy WebLinkAbout11142013 - packet City of Ukiah
Design Review Board
Agenda
Thursday November 14, 2013 3:00 P.M.
Conference Room # 3
The Design Review Board encourages applicants and/or their representatives to be available at the meeting to
answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
1. CALL TO ORDER: UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM #3
300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH
2. ROLL CALL: Members Liden, Thayer, Hise, Nicholson, Hawkes
3. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the July 11, 2013 and September 19, 2013 are included for
review and approval.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: The City of Ukiah Design Review Board welcomes
input from the audience. In order to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person
and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Realty World/Selzer Realty Wall Sign. (File No. 13-21-SDP-ZA). Review and make
recommendations to the Zoning Administrator on request for Minor Site Development Permit
to allow a wall sign to be installed on the south elevation of 511 South Orchard Avenue, APN
002-340-38.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
9. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
10. SET NEXT MEETING: December 12, 2013
11. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate
individuals with disabilities upon request. If possible, please contact the City of Ukiah (707) 463-
6200 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting time.
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting July 11, 2013
4
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order
7 at 3:02 p.m.
8
9 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Howie Hawkes
10 Nick Thayer, Alan Nicholson
11 Absent: Chair Hise
12 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15 Others present: Kevin Brogan
16
17
18 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
19
20 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the June 13, 2013 meeting are included
21 for review and approval.
22
23 DRB made the following corrections to the June 13, 2013 minutes:
24
25 Page 8, DRB Consensus, add: `Agrees with applicant's recommendation to use hardi-board with
26 4 inch exposure.'
27
28 M/S HawkslThayer to approve June 13, 2013 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
29
30 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. NEW BUSINESS:
33 6C. Feibusch Building. (File No. 13-16 SDP-PC) Review and recommendation to Planning
34 Commission on request for Site Development Permit and Major Exception to make
35 exterior modifications to 199 South School Street, APN 002-226-07.
36
37 Staff gave a staff report.
38
39 The DRB reviewed the Project description provided for in the staff report and that of applicant in
40 his letter dated July 3, 2013 as well as the site plans and made the following comments
41 recommendations and conditions of approval for the Project:
42
43 • Project would be a good addition to Church Street.
44 • Project would create a more pedestrian-oriented fa�ade.
45 • As designed, the size of the upper windows compared with the bottom windows, makes
46 the building look top-heavy. Recommends modifying the size of the window openings to
47 be weighted to the lower floor. This could be done by increasing the size of the window
48 openings on the lower floor, decreasing the size of the openings on the upper floor,
49 and/or modifying the weight of the lentils/sills.
50 • Referred to the site plans and made recommendations about maintaining the keystone
51 design as well as recommendations about the lintel types.
Design Review Board July 11, 2013
Page 1
1 • Recommends stucco over precast stone for the sill rather than stucco over foam which
2 looks "cheap/tack�' (used downtown Windsor as an example).
3 • Consider providing a stucco reveal between the windows in the location of the proposed
4 signage. Unclear from the plans if this is what is proposed here.
5 • Okay with the awning design, color, and material.
6 • The project would result in the removal tree/shrub in order to install the new entry. Okay
7 with the removal of the tree/shrub.
8 • Recommends planting street trees on Church Street which could help with energy
9 conservation. If this is not required of the Project, consider a partnership whereby Releaf
10 may be able to provide the trees which would be installed and maintained by the
11 applicant.
12 • Look into signage placement to better enhance the building aesthetically.
13 • Construction of the Project will result in damage/removal of much of the existing
14 landscaping. Recommends a condition of approval be applied to the Project requiring the
15 replacement of damaged/removed landscaping.
16 • Windows on the ground floor should be required to have clear glazing, especially if this is
17 to be a retail space. The upper floor could have tinted glazing.
18
19 Staff noted clear glazing of the ground floor windows is required in the DZC.
20
21 Kevin Brogan will consider:
22 • Slightly modifying the size of the windows so that the windows do not look 'top heavy'
23 and provide for more of pronounced/stout building appearance.
24 • Revisit site design with possible changes to lintel types and materials and type of glass.
25 Will consider maintaining keystone architecture.
26
27 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend Planning Commission approval of the Project with
28 conditions requiring the replacement of any damaged/removed landscaping and clear glazing of
29 the ground floor windows as required by the DZC.
30
31 6A. Shell Office Addition. (File No. 13-14 SDP-ZA) Review and recommendation to Zoning
32 Administrator on request for Minor Site Development Permit to allow a 376 square foot
33 addition to existing commercial property located at 206 South Oak Street,
34 APN 003-014-05.
35
36 Staff: Gave a staff report.
37
38 DRB comments:
39 • Is highly supportive of the property owner making improvements to and investing in the
40 property and with the plans to make it ADA accessible.
41 • The building is small and simple. The modifications overwhelm the building and are too
42 eclectic.
43 • As designed, the Project lacks the appropriate scale and proportion, includes too many
44 design styles and materials.
45 • The Project should include consistent design, materials, and details throughout — new
46 building and modifications to the existing building.
47 • As an example of the number of materials, the existing section of the building includes
48 brick, tile, stucco, wood, unidentified material for the rounded pillar, and downspout.
49 • As an example of the design styles, the existing building is a simple mid-century
50 contractor builder constructed building, constructed using simple materials, simple design
51 style, and exhibiting clean uncomplicated lines.
52 • The Project includes three different roof lines: hip roof for the new building, parapet and
53 shed roof with parapet for the south portion of the existing building, and retention of the
54 flat roof for the north section of the existing building. Roof style needs to be consistent
55 throughout to make the design cohesive.
Design Review Board July 11, 2013
Page 2
1 • Questioned if the proposed parapet on the existing building was being proposed to meet
2 a building code requirements.
3 • The Project includes different types of windows and trim. The window styles and trim
4 treatment should be consistent throughout the new building and the modifications made
5 to the existing building.
6 • If the Project is to be a Mediterranean design, the Project needs to fully commit to that
7 design for the new building and the modifications to the existing. The sample material for
8 the roof is not appropriate for a Mediterranean style building and should be clay; the
9 wood trim and pillar should be removed.
10 • As an alternative, the Project could retain the existing simple mid-century modern design
11 for the new building and the modifications to the existing building. This could include
12 creating an addition on the north side of the property that would create a "U" shaped
13 courtyard; an addition with a roof for the existing and new building over all of the
14 courtyard that ties the buildings together. In this case, the existing materials would be
15 used for the new building and could be upgraded in a manner consistent with the existing
16 building and mid-century modern design.
17 • The Project as designed is not consistent with other buildings in the area, does not reflect
18 a design known to Ukiah, and is not internally consistent.
19 • Project should include a landscaping plan.
20 • Unable to support the Project as designed based on the above.
21
22 M/S Thayer/Hawkes to recommend the Zoning Administrator deny the Project as designed.
23 Motion carried (4-0).
24
25 DRB provided the following recommendations should the Zoning Administrator be in a position to
26 approve the Project:
27 • If the owner prefers a Mediterranean design, the Project be designed to use this style
28 throughout for the new building and the modifications to the existing building. This would
29 include: consistent roof lines, materials, window and trim styles, exterior building finishes,
30 and appropriate scale and proportion.
31 • If the owner prefers to continue the simple modern style of the existing building, the
32 Project be designed to use this style for the new building and the modifications to the
33 existing building. This would include: consistent roof lines, materials, window and trim
34 styles and materials, exterior building finishes, and appropriate scale and proportion.
35
36 6B. Orchard Plaza Sign Program Amendment. File No. 13-12 SDP-ZA). Review and
37 recommendation to zoning Administrator on request for Minor Site Development Permit
38 to allow an amendment to the Orchard Plaza Sign Program.
39
40 Staff gave a staff report.
41
42 DRB considered the site plans and project description submitted by the applicant and made the
43 following Project comments and recommendations:
44
45 Sign 1 Leqalization of one unpermitted 4-foot bv 4-foot freestandinq siqn located within
46 the parkina lot between Stars and CVS (shown as# 16 on the site plan).
47
48 Recommended denial of the legalization because the size and location of the
49 sign is a hazard to the vehicle and pedestrian circulation within the parking lot
50 and the site and use already have adequate signage.
51
52 Sign 2 Leqalization of one unpermitted 3-foot x 10-foot siqn on north elevation of the
53 former location of Sears (shown as# 1 on the site plan).
54
Design Review Board July 11, 2013
Page 3
1 Recommended approval of this sign with the condition that the sign can only be
2 used by the tenant that occupies that space. The DRB recommended approval of
3 this sign rather than having the sign box be painted to match the roof.
4
5 Sign 3 Abandonment of the existing Stars Restaurant sign located on the north elevation
6 of the Stars building (shown as# 19 on the site plan).
7
8 Recommended approval of the abandonment of this sign only if the sign structure
9 is removed and the roof is repaired to match the existing roof. If the sign box
10 cannot be removed and the roof repaired to match the existing roof cannot be
11 done then the DRB is not supportive of this sign.
12
13 Sign 4 A�proval of one new 4-foot X 10-foot LED siqn on the north elevation of Stars
14 Restaurant facinq Chevron (shown as# 17 on site plan).
15
16 The DRB recommended denial of this sign based on the following:
17
18 • The design is out of character with the existing signs for this use and the
19 Orchard Plaza.
20 • The center and the restaurant already have adequate signage.
21 • The rotating of the words and visual messages is visually distracting and
22 detracts from the character of Orchard Avenue (a major city thoroughfare)
23 and the shopping center.
24 • Depending on the frequency and number of text and visual images, the sign
25 could be a hazard and distraction to motorists.
26 • Recommends denial because the LED sign would add visual clutter to the
27 building and site since the building and site already have numerous signs. If
28 the Zoning Administrator is in the position to approve the new LED sign,
29 recommends that the sign be static for at least five minutes and only display
30 words not pictures.
31 • If the Zoning Administrator is in the position to approve the new LED sign
32 recommends that one of the existing Stars signs be removed in the effort to
33 reduce visual clutter on the building.
34
35 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend denial of the LED sign with a condition that if the Zoning
36 Administration is in a position to approve the LED sign one of the existing Stars sign be removed
37 to reduce visual clutter on the building and with recommendations to the Zoning Administrator
38 regarding the other relevant signs as referenced above. Motion carried (4-0).
39
40 7. OLD BUSINESS
41
42 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
43
44 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
45
46 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
47 The next meeting will be Thursday, August 8, 2013. The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
48
49
50 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
51
Design Review Board July 11, 2013
Page 4
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting September 19, 2013
4
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hise called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:09
7 p.m.
8
9 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Nick Thayer,
10 Howie Hawkes, Chair Tom Hise
11 Absent: Alan Nicholson
12 Staff Present: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14 Others present:
15
16 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
17
18 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the July 11, 2013 meeting will be available
19 for review at the October 10, 2013 meeting.
20
21 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
22
23 6. NEW BUSINESS:
24
25 7. OLD BUSINESS
26 7a. Mendocino County Historic Society — Annex Building 603 West Perkins Street, APN
27 001-229-03 (File No. 13-07-UP-SDP-PC). Site Development Permit Condition
28 Compliance. Review and approval of proposed roof material for annex building.
29
30 Associate Planner Faso:
31 • The Planning Commission approved the Site Development Permit and Use Permit for the
32 Mendocino County Historic Society — Annex Building project. The Project was approved
33 with the following condition of approval that was recommended by the DRB that reads,
34 'Prior to building permit approval a sample of the proposed roof to be used for the annex
35 building shall be provided by the applicant and returned to the Design Review Board for
36 review and approval.'
37 • The applicant has submitted a sample of the roof color and material for DRB review and
38 approval.
39 • Requested the DRB review the sample for the roof of the new annex building at today's
40 meeting.
41
42 DRB:
43 • The DRB liked the samples presented and that a sample of the existing museum was
44 also presented for comparison purposes.
45 • Noted the color palate for the annex building works well with the roof color.
46
47 M/S Hise/Thayer approved the roof sample for the new annex building. Motion carried (4-0).
48
49 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
50
51
52
Design Review Board September 19, 2013
Page 1
1 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
2
3 Associate Planner Faso provided a written update from the property owner on the Feibusch
4 building upgrade/remodel dated 9/9/2013.
5
6 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
7 The next meeting will be Thursday, October 10, 2013. The meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m.
8
9
10 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
11
Design Review Board April 11, 2013
Page 2
1 ITEM NO. 6A
2
Community Development and Planning Department
G�lty of Zl�a�i 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: November 13, 2013
5
6 TO: Design Review Board
7
8 FROM: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for review and recommendation to Zoning Administrator of Minor Site
11 Development Permit to allow a wall sign not on a street frontage .
12 551 South Orchard Avenue, APN 002-340-38
13 File No. 13-21-SDP-ZA
14
15
16 REQUEST
17
18 Staff requests the Design Review Board review and make recommendations to the Zoning
19 Administrator on an application for a Minor Site Development Permit (File No. 13-21-SDP- ZA)
20 that would allow the installation of a new wall sign.
21
22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
23
24 An application has been received from Paramount Sign Contractors, Inc. on behalf of Realty
25 World Selzer Realty to install a wall sign on the south elevation of an existing building located at
26 551 South Orchard Avenue, APN 002-340-38. The project would include:
27
28 • One (11 X 3'6") LED wall sign
29
30 The existing monument sign on South Orchard Avenue would remain.
31
32 ANALYSIS
33
34 General Plan. The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Commercial (C). This
35 land use designation identifies lands where commerce and business may occur. Specific Uses
36 are precisely defined through the uses allowed in the individual zoning districts.
37
38 Zoning. The zoning of the project site is Community Commercial (C-1). The existing use of the
39 building is a Real Estate office, which is an allowed use in the C-1 district.
40
Realty World/Selzer Realty Wall Sign
Design Review Board Review
551 South Orchard Avenue
File No.13-21-SDP-ZA
1
1 Sign Ordinance. The City Sign Ordinance regulates signs within the City and regulates the
2 allowable sign area per parcel.
3
4 Sign Ordinance Section 3227 (A): One and one-half(1 %) square feet of sign area for
5 every ground linear foot of parcel frontage. No more than two-thirds (2/3) of this
6 allowable signage to be freestanding.
7
8 Based on the fact that the linear frontage of the subject parcel is 153 feet, the total allowable
9 sign area for the parcel is 229.5 square feet. The table below is a summary of the proposed and
10 existing signs on the site.
11
Si ns Size
Proposed Wall Si n 38.5 square feet
Existin Monument Si n 22 square feet
Total sign area on site 60.5 square feet
12
13 The proposed sign would be located on the south elevation of the building, not facing a street
14 therefor a minor Site Development Permit is required.
15
16 Sign Ordinance, Article 4: Genera/ Signs Regulations Section 3227 (A) (11) states
17 placement of signing shall be limited to street frontages and business frontages except
18 sign orientation to parking areas, freeways, pedestrian malls, internal courts or sign
19 programs may be allowed subject to a site development permit.
20
21 Project Approvals. The proposed project would require a Minor Site Development Permit to
22 allow the sign at this location. In order to approve a Site Development Permit, all of the findings
23 are required to be made and supported by information included as part of the application and
24 public record.
25
26 1. The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City General
27 Plan.
28
29 2. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or
30 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.
31
32 3. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect
33 to traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to
34 adjacent or surrounding uses.
35
36 4. Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening
37 the proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up
38 and screening large expanses of paved areas.
39
40 5. The proposed development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on
41 the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in
42 the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.
Realty World/Selzer Realty Wall Sign
Design Review Board Review
551 South Orchard Avenue
File No.13-21-SDP-ZA
2
1
2 6. The improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have a substantial
3 detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district.
4
5 7. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features,
6 including trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site.
7
8 8. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the
9 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external
10 appearance.
11
12
13
14 Attachments:
15
16 1. Project Description
17 2. Project Plans
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Realty World/Selzer Realty Wall Sign
Design Review Board Review
551 South Orchard Avenue
File No.13-21-SDP-ZA
3
Aft�rh�vt�nf #
Project Description
Proposed Sign
551 South Orchard Avenue.
The property owner is requesting additional signage on the South Elevation of his two story office
building to increase the exposure of his business, since this elevation is not fronting the street a Site
Development Permit is required . The property owner recognizes & accepts that site lines could change
with any future development of the adjacent property to the South . An existing Monument Sign on the
West Elevation is frequently blocked by large vehicles parked on the curb and suggests that the entrance
to the building is nearby yet the actual entrance requires the use of a driveway on the South Elevation .
Locating an additional sign on the South Elevation will provide the desired exposure & way finding.
Butch Bainbridge
Paramount Sign Contractors Inc.
Toll Free (800) 675-3343
Direct (707) 485-7555 Cell (707) 391 -8553
www. paramountsigncontractors. com
butch (c�paramountsiqncontractors. com
V
'� a
N � �
N � Q
C Q' �
V
� � � �
n N�o^ '"`� �,p � .n..' �.
p3� oo �G? : s ° �.
cao o. � -'
oa°o r" y ��� ..o �� .
-z
— O �a
� A
:o� .tn ..„ ..
° ... ...�z .... ..
...� �9 tii . " .
.i.�... . ' ..
� � �
V
O
t �v�� 'q1 ,�x� � . . „�,...� /�.y
Ou J * t, �' � .:il , e 4i� /y
` � � � C!� fD
_ �
, !� �
�� �� � _.
�` " ' ��x � � �
� � D � �
� � o
�, , , a
� �„� � ���
��, � j � � �
� —
� ��� � �� ° � � � �
, � �.., N
�
�'� � ��� � � � t�
� ,�'p— �' � tNa
��• �� � � � � �
�
� �� � � �
�-"'. � �=o�
� �:,, � 1"D `�
� .
(t} `�
�� � �.
�� ' � �� _.,,�
—• �,+�
, �.
k�� � �
..�"
� ��n: f� a�
� Va �
� � g ���
� � �,
i'
� �
� � � :�
`� hn � �
� �
� :�; s�
� —
� � ��
� r:� � �
� �
� f� o��o
a
° ,:
��� � ��
� �� � ��
�
a W
� � � ��
� y,'
� t
�s
�� '���
... . . �:3� .
...... ... . ... . ._... , .° .<<�,:.. �� �
� � �
"^i
�� �
�
� �
��
C»n� . .....
; �
�,
d � �
; � d a �
ed � �
— �
cu,'Oay.; . •� . .. . .. .. . .. . . ... .
m°��� .�+ �
��.��� �
d .�
� � ��
o -. �
� . ,
� a .., �, t.��,�; �,
a � � ���
� o �,•� � �`
��,
�;�` �
��
� v�+ ro ��Ty ��\
� fi �
. � � v �
�; N � � ; .�
�' p„G '.. � ,:
y �• p ri
� d O.,�.�. S�.
A n N.; ;.��, .
NSU N.: `�,@
{�. � . 3��' �.
� ro F�:
� v
� �
c ,� : • t��
�
�i
��: 'si'�x�...
o �u4; .. . ��.
, ...��, „ _. ....
�,
<$�,
y�.;
,�
�,i.
�
'o
� �
w �; O
� � ;k �
� � O
m
�
� �
} (&� ''" �
Z
;�{ j, ',
0
�
�
� ' �;,
s', �
.,"
N �.
m `
n�
N
�
ti
v
N
� � O � _�n z "�� .
N� � � � �� � �� .
W n k;
� N� � �. � �'�w.
• � a'.v ,��'_„� ~r
c� `.< n
� o �ro-° t71 °�
� �
s ��� _ -I
� .
ni O-o �, �n'
o �v=, °' "' . . . . . . ���.
o p�
���m
�
!!')�Q'� � . .. .. ..
-.p�. �
� o�� �
nco - -
n c in
.°� m`�.m 3
�Fr� o �-
� -'� � Q
0 0� � v
� �� �
a� m tp '
m �� �
c�i� �'
�
�. s �
y � 0
_ = � �
�y��� '�
��aV� � � N � � � � � �
: �' --
�a���� �� � v m c�u °. � � ! N �
-� � � m -- O
� "�� � � � � � o m O � O
� p � r O Z � �n C�D m
N :Q; N r � i v� p
"y� .
� � ro � � 00 `v v�
[D O N r �^ � �'
O 7C '�'�
a- � S2� O � � c�n D
"' �o o Q- W X G Z p �
o�o �. � � � � � � ; � A
m
� O �
� � � � � � v�i �q�q � m n�i Ow0
� t+ n� �� � .O I .
_ . v :X. .� ..r. n � � ..� Vt
? �,� tn r+ ,y: Z ,.�.t O = N
D � 4� Ot] c�n � � � ro rt � � 'rt
s o � p' C� '+ (D �
u�i O a��: p � �n � � 'n fl- �� p�j �
W � � : n e-�r � � N �"� r�r � ���.
N N N�.. r�-t flI � C. o � (p '"'p ��.
Q �... Q , � fD ,
< � Q � �{ � � � Q .
� G W O T.
� � � � � �-�r' \ � � F-' �
� � 11 �
� �j�- � G N � O � � �'I N
' � � �. x � x � � ..
° � r,N,r, .� F-� � � 07
N N � � � Q
� � � n �
� � � �
O" �� ogi � O
O o� ^G � Q
X t^� ''''
C
� O � � —1
�? O C � �
� " � �
o � cn
�
e� ,
r+
O
�
r t7 �
O C � .�-r
�
r� tp � O
� W D �, �,
Y' tt O X
o � a �,�
� � � � �
°�° ��� � � oc� .
� �, = a
� av �
,: N � .O _._ ..... . . .. ...:.-_ .. ..... y 4....
N (D ;�. ... . .. . .. . �.
t� rt Q
!�D
'cw � — .��-��� v�i
\ t:i: p "y`
O
n� � � m � �
N
� Q �
v �
� �
c :
N � � �
� �
�' "a... ____ . . ..... ........ .., �,.:
('-rD , ....._. w .,._. ._... , �,
<
� � w _ __ o:
� — �� �, �
�. -- ,. w > _. C
N __
'a >j.C� z (D
� i.
N � O � � � O .., ��... �
W � o � � �.�N _ ' �_ _ — _ •�'+ _
O °--� -__..
r 3G O�� .-V5. C""� I
� o o$� ITl D Q7 r t� cn
N �Z�� � s n -'• � X N
s � o� y � � � N � �
O .Zl t�n � N O � �; � Q .
�
U��°-'xo c� � � OLl � �'' .
. ............�:�.�.�.a .� . Q .. �
C7�� Q � � N... n
N �. o C7 m � �. ryq ��
�m-,;m � � rD
F c� � rr
w .� � Q � v�
��-� � W -p
°� � a� � p !D
.m��'SQ :N m . .
� � - � �
Q. y ` �
0
; ��
� d � °�
_ � �+ �
��x� � �
�y�° '� �.
�,����
��d�� � �
"��m� -� �,
a a� � °� a �uo.►��£S
J
� � S±� a. h d '+�`� ^�4
r,;
e � �T��p �
CS �� i �
f� �... ��fi , � � �;�,�, �.
�'
� ��:�
;. � �
e �„ � �� �,.
�f � � .
. � s.��
��'�
� � ' � �a t .
� � � � � r,. �� 'y,3 �
_� � � �. �� ,..
d �� • `�, , .� � �, ����� ..
� a � .. +'v. �.��
.�-n
A � O � w���, §., �`�'�:�
� � � � �il
u, O p—, f5 ���! � � �
� s ro I' a �;: �
�
N Q � � � Y ��`� �� ���§P � ; e4
g�� � f ��r�. �; < �
Gry � �� � `��' @w. s''�.��n �,�� '�
� � � t�'��'.,,ry� �.
� � � � ���� ����� ���?� �
�� ��
� � ., �
� j� � � ' ': �,���
�?�'
� x
� i�`� � � � �.
� �t
���� � �" ' ,k,v.�.
� �
4��� . a� ... � ��,.�� �� � ��
�fi S�, x_
'�# ,g�'1'�� .
� ��� �?�`���� k;':"�'�
Y
�,%���': }, �,��, ���n
� � ��u� �� ;�
v� : � r'� � ��„ �;�.
oq �� � ' f�'
o � � �
� �n'� �
i8 �R i
�, y
�v,' ��
L. ' �rc
� gi`
�
O ` '
m � � ''
� ' s '' �st?""������� t� `��� �
�
*� �
� +..i 81n,�a�. �d t��`�'�.?"��l ��i�3� � �
. � ;V2:3.'i.�h�.������
, �,.'.a.*,a��'
—I -v rn � ��� �.w �, u `1� 4�,�,��
O '� X �U� � �� ���� �.. X
��� � � O n �i'�. vi
3� =e�
� � � � C + � �`.' a
� �p 0'Q O � ; '�.� � ,,a .. Iq
�F (/�
� �� �,
Q N � � � � �. �}�t� „' �; �
� ryp � Uq r"�' � +:3��^,�� � �
�� r'
N� � C � �? ��.,��� �
0o m A � x �q t�C�� �
� �
N O m F. � t� 4� m
i� , S� �{ � , '
N 0 �$ ��� Z v' d � in O1 ;����,' '� ����� �
�a��. c� � � � (� (7 w tn II X
DO � t� 'r�� , u �
� a � �:`� � _ —� Z � 0'�U� N u? �,���:�' ��'�: �.... .p„ . �
� _ �`•[ <D n � tn II � 00 �� �,�.
� o o�� m -^ � � H
. ro �O�p' �n � �, N m �� �(��'�� `t .
s tv Z.� _ ? I I �^ -�' N :�„,� �� �S�� i�� .
3 �� a' �n � ^n �?' N p t .
� fls �+ v� ;a+
� m� � w � O -n ,� �z� �,
�
. �_O�"�..� ..-�+,. ..:Q. � ����...,�,. �I� 4 �, �I�i .
. ... ... (n��- o . ....
�d�' �
a �
�n�� c in' fJq �
.
�
� �m�.m � � � #
� 4.
mg. "�jO Q D' �
.». n �-c � . , . .. ..., .......
. O O= � N � .. . .
� 6-�. � LU . � .
, �� _.
�.� (6D tp . ... . ... . ... ..... .
� �� ,
�� � ... . . .. �