HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_03122015 Final G�ity of Zl�ah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting March 12, 2015
5
6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order
8 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson,
11 Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
16 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Matthew Gilbert
20 Sara Gilbert
21 Stephany Wilkes
22
23 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 3, 2015 meeting will be
26 available at the April 9, 2015 meeting for review and approval.
27
28 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
29
30 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
31 Development Permit applications.
32
33 6. NEW BUSINESS:
34 6A. (Revised) Gilbert Mixed Use Project, 676 South Orchard Avenue (File No.: 37)
35 Review and Recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for
36 a mixed use development that would include the existing single-family home, modification
37 and expansion of the existing garage which would be used for the commercial processing
38 of wool, one food truck with outdoor seating, and modifications to the parking and
39 landscaping at 676 South Orchard, APN 002-320-53. The Project also requires Planning
40 Commission approval of a Major Use Permit to allow mixed residential and commercial
41 use of the parcel.
42
43 Assistant Planner Johnson:
44 • The Project includes the following:
45 ■ Use of the main building as a single-family home;
46 ■ Conversion of the garage to a wool mill (see project description);
47 ■ Conversion of the covered concrete pad to the south of the garage into an
48 enclosed expansion of the wool mill;
49 ■ Construction of an addition to the wool mill on the west elevation;
50 ■ Relocation of the existing cargo container to a location that complies with zoning
51 setbacks;
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 1
1 • Use of the existing cargo container to store products and materials associated
2 with the wool mill (see project description attachment 1; and photos attachment
3 4);
4 ■ Addition of one cargo container to provide additional storage for products and
5 materials associated with the wool mill (see project description attachment 1;
6 and photos attachment 4);
7 • Operation of a food truck in the south portion of the parking lot/front yard with
8 outdoor seating; and
9 • Modifications to the parking area and landscaping, including striping to provide 8
10 standard parking spaces and one van accessible parking space.
11 • The applicant has revised his project based on the DRB comments from the initial review
12 of the Project as well as comments from Planning staff.
13 • Attachment 1 of the staff report is a full project description prepared by the applicant.
14 • Attachment 3 of the staff report is the revised site plan.
15 • The document `Mendocino Wool and Fiber Inc.' is an update/response to the permit
16 application that addresses the `Incompleteness Letter from Planning staff, dated October
17 22, 2014 and is incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1.
18
19 Matthew Gilbert, applicant commented on his revised project:
20 • Project involves three uses: 1) Single Family Residence; 2) The garage to be remodeled
21 to a wool mill; 3) Food truck that fronts S. Orchard Avenue.
22 • Explained how the three uses would work harmoniously on the property.
23 • Referenced the `Mendocino Wool and Fiber Inc.' document that provides a very detailed
24 list of all the project changes to specifically address all the project concerns.
25 • Of importance is the issue raised about the trees/bushes proposed to be planted along
26 the edge of the parking lot in front of the shipping container where it was the opinion of
27 the DRB the species selected would grow too slowly to effectively screen and would not
28 enhance the existing tree in this location. Acknowledged the aforementioned portion of
29 the property is actually the 'prettiest.' A wooden fence will border the back edge of the
30 parking lot and is of the opinion this is a good choice from an aesthetics standpoint.
31 • Related to the issue that the pedestrian circulation to the food truck does not appear to
32 be safe, is specially addressed in response to the Incompleteness Letter in the
33 `Mendocino Wood and Fiber Inc.' document on page 5.
34 • While the photo rendering of the site and accompanying uses is not entirely accurate, it
35 provides an idea of what the site will look like when the project is complete.
36
37 DRB auestions/comments related to:
38 Pedestrian Circulation and Food Truck
39 On-site Traffic Circulation
40 Signage
41 Noise Impacts
42 Existing Travel Trailer
43 Planter Boxes
44 Front Fence
45 Bicycle Parking
46
47 Member Hawkes:
48 • Asked about the food truck and whether it will remain stationery on the site?
49 • Related to the photo rendering of the site, asked if the site would look more or less like
50 the picture?
51 • Requested clarification the wool mill industry is a labor intensive process.
52 • Finds there are many ways to mitigate sound.
53 • Likes the metal planters that look like cattle feeding/water troughs.
54
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 2
1 Member Morrow:
2 • Will the wool mill use generate traffic on site and/or will it be light traffic?
3 • Will people be coming to the site to drop off the wool?
4 • Asked about noise impacts and how the ambient level can be measured. Further asked
5 about the information from a comparable wool mill having similar equipment that
6 reported at 50 ft. from the equipment through a 2 x 6 wall, the decibel level is similar to
7 the ambient level and inquired where this testing was conducted. Was the wool mill
8 located in rural setting versus and a dense industrial area?
9 • Requested clarification the ambient levels are comparable.
10 • It is likely the project should be conditioned to address noise complaints requiring the
11 applicant to explore mitigation measures.
12 • Requested clarification the planter boxes will shelter the seating area although this is
13 indicated differently on the site plans and commented it might be beneficial to do
14 something by either moving the planters in and around the seating area or put bollards in
15 this location to prevent vehicles from coming right up where people are sitting and
16 eating.
17 • Asked about the location of a bicycle rack.
18 • Asked about sewer connection for the food truck and/or will the truck be serviced offsite?
19
20 Vice Chair Liden:
21 • Asked about the travel trailer on the site?
22 • Signage on the site would be much more effective without having a double sign for the
23 food truck and the regular sign for the wool mill. Is of the opinion double signage is
24 confusing and looks somewhat `cluttered.' Is there a way to put a sign on the truck? Is of
25 the opinion having the truck sign as a secondary sign included with the wool mill sign
26 draws from the wool mill sign. Would like to see separate signs and have a really nice
27 looking sign for the wool and fiber company without the truck sign. Supports having a
28 sign for the wool and fiber business and a sign on the food truck that essentially
29 emphasizes the separateness of the businesses.
30 • Would like more information about the wool mill equipment related to potential noise
31 impacts.
32 • Will the fence along the front property line be replaced?
33
34 Member Nicholson:
35 • Related to signage while wanting to maintain some type of continuity between the wool
36 mill and the food truck uses may want to consider how to keep the message clear about
37 the separateness of the businesses. As it is, the food truck use dominates the wool mill
38 use even though the Wool mill sign is larger. May want to integrate the signage in some
39 fashion that maintains continuity but indicates there are a number of businesses
40 operating on the site rather than having the signs compete with one another.
41 • Asked about the sign process.
42 • How did the grease trap get to the rear of the property when the sewer line goes out the
43 front of the property?
44
45 Matthew Gilbert:
46 • The food truck will be rented out to a vendor and will not be a permanent structure on the
47 site.
48 • The rendering shows the concept and placement of the buildings/food truck/planter
49 areas/signage/parking and/or general layout of the site. What is not demonstrated well in
50 the rendering is that there is actually space between the planters and the food truck
51 where people can circulate, but is clearly shown in the revised site plans. The driveway
52 isle is supposed to be a 24-foot minimum and has been widened.
53 • Confirmed traffic for the wool mill will be light. There will be three or four employees that
54 will come and go per shift.
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 3
1 • People will access the site to drop off wool, but it will be infrequent.
2 • The wool mill industry is labor intensive, but the associated equipment is what makes the
3 process work effectively and commented on the process.
4 • Referred to page 2 of the `Mendocino Wool Fiber Inc.' document that addresses the issue
5 of noise and noted based on the best available information, is of the opinion the project
6 will not significantly alter the decibel level at any of the property lines and explained the
7 factors/measures taken and/or in place to help mitigate noise. The wool mill that provided
8 the information cited in the `Mendocino Wool Fiber Inc.' document was the only source he
9 could find that would give him noise data related to operating similar machinery and
10 reported that at 50 feet from the equipment through a 2 X 6 wall, the decibel level is
11 similar to the ambient level. Confirmed the wool mill that supplied the noise information is
12 located a rural area (100-acre ranch).
13 • Related to ambient levels, while comparable, it is likely the ambient level on S. Orchard
14 Avenue would be significantly higher than what the rural wool mill experiences.
15 • No one lives in the travel trailer and is used for storage.
16 • The truck sign could be on the truck, but the disadvantage of this is when the tree is fully
17 leafed the truck cannot be effectively seen northbound.
18 • It may help to put the food truck sign and the wool mill sign in the same frame.
19 • The food sign does not necessary have to be on the truck but rather a sandwich board
20 sign on the sidewalk next to the mailboxes.
21 • The sign for the food truck could be put between the fence and the sidewalk.
22 • Related to information regarding the wool mill equipment, the equipment manufacturer is
23 no longer in operation so he is unable to get technical manuals that address the decimal
24 level. Based on the information received from the comparable wool and fiber mill
25 business noise would pretty much end at the property line so any neighbor on the other
26 side of the fence would not hear any noise.
27 • Questioned how a decimal level test can be conducted without the equipment being
28 functional until the project is approved.
29 • Referred to the revised site plan (attachment 3) and noted most of the back wall that is
30 closed to the neighbors is the bathroom so it is like having another room with an extra set
31 of walls. Confirmed there will be new 2 x 6 wall construction and well-built so noise
32 should not be an issue. In the event noise is an issue, can take measures to mitigate the
33 sound.
34 • The front fence is pre-existing and intends to replace it in another phase.
35 • Related to the planter boxes and seating area could implement a wheel stopper to
36 prevent vehicles from coming upon and/or backing up in and around the seating/dining
37 area.
38 • It was noted site plan keynotes #9 on the revised site plans indicates the designated
39 bicycle parking area.
40 • Explained the reason for the location of the grease trap and confirmed there will be a
41 solid waste line extending underneath the building.
42 • The food truck will be serviced offsite.
43
44 Assistant Planner Johnson:
45 • There could potentially be zoning issues associated with having a sandwich board on the
46 sidewalk.
47 • Related to the issue of potential noise impacts has knowledge it is possible to conduct a
48 decimal check for compliance with City noise standards by using a special machine. The
49 measuring of decimal levels will likely be required for the Wool Mill project before the
50 project is reviewed by the Planning Commission to make certain the project is consistent
51 with City noise standards and not cause potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. If
52 the noise standards are not properly met, will have to look at mitigation measures to
53 offset the sound impact.
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 4
1 • Does not have an answer about how to conduct a decimal level test without the
2 equipment functional.
3 • The applicant would have to go through a sign permit process separate from the mixed
4 use project. Would like input and a recommendation from the DRB regarding the signage.
5 • Explained the applicant worked with the Public Works Department regarding his project
6 needs related to sewer, etc.
7
8 DRB auestions/comments related to:
9 Building Facade
10
11 Vice Chair Liden:
12 • Asked about plans for the facade of the wool mill building.
13 • Looking at the color rendering, sees the facade as having a western theme and
14 questioned whether this should be the approach.
15 • It may be the problem is the color of the building.
16 • Recalls that Chair Hise at the initial DRB review of the Project talked about material
17 features that could be added to enhance the appearance.
18 • Asked if the roof was pitched would the siding match/work?
19 • Because the wool mill building is a fake facade having that `stepped western appearance'
20 is not certain a fake pitched roof facade would look more fake. While the building will
21 feature a fake facade is of the opinion that the stepped western looking facade kind of
22 works with perhaps a different color scheme.
23 • Asked if Member Nicholson would like to see the Project again if there was a change in
24 the design.
25
26 Member Nicholson:
27 • The initial discussion concerning the facade by the DRB acknowledged there was too
28 much distinction between the buildings and was not pleased with the appearance of the
29 building during this discussion concerning the building facade/shape. There was
30 significant opposition to the square western facade where the preferred elevation was to
31 have a pitched roof that reinforced architectural compatibility of the existing house.
32 • Is of the opinion the square western facade reinforces the inappropriateness of this
33 architectural design. While there are a few of these western facade designs for buildings
34 in town that essentially do not fit well with the existing `fabric' finds the proposed elevation
35 does not match any of the buildings in the neighborhood and cannot support the western
36 facade design. The roof is out of design context with the residential building on the site
37 and buildings in the neighborhood. Does understand the reason for the design concept
38 since the wool mill building is a factory and a western facade design works with that of an
39 industrial use so having a disharmonious design separates/distinguishes the industrial
40 use from the residential use.
41 • Preference would be for the building not to have `the steps,' but rather have a `box'
42 design. This design would be more in keeping with the post office building and motel in
43 the neighborhood.
44 • The issue is not the color of the building but rather the shape.
45 • Recalls at the initial DRB discussion of the Project Chair Hise said the buildings should
46 either match architecturally or not.
47 • Sees the proposed design working adequately in Covelo, Anderson Valley, but not on
48 Orchard Avenue in an urban setting.
49 • Is okay with a pitch roof appearance and finds this design would match with the storage
50 container design.
51 • Whatever occurs for the wool mill building the facade is a false front that is visually
52 apparent. Better approach would be to have flat facade that extends to a pitched top that
53 meets building code requirements.
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 5
1 • Referred to attachment 2, City of Ukiah Commercial Development Design Guidelines
2 Project Review Checklist for Commercial Projects outside the Downtown Design District,
3 Page 2 Visual Appearance, says, `buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and
4 complementary (scale, proportion, design, style, heights, mass, setbacks)'and `buildings
5 exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or over monotonous
6 designs, or strong contrast with adjacent buildings, creative use of natural and recycled
7 materials, metal discouraged unless creative and consistent with Guidelines),'and noted
8 these questions are supposed to be addressed. Cannot say `yes' to these questions
9 relevant to the stepped facade. While the proposal exhibits variety and distinctiveness
10 finds the facade visually not cohesive, compatible or complementary to the neighborhood
11 and therefore, cannot support the stepped western facade, as presented.
12 • The Planning Commission will make the final decision about the Project. If the applicant
13 has an alternate plan he would like to take to the Planning Commission would be fine
14 with not seeing the Project again and let the Planning Commission decide. His
15 recommendation is not to use the proposed design. Recommended the applicant talk to
16 Planning staff about alternative design concepts.
17
18 Stephanie Wilkes:
19 • Asked about a facade alternative.
20 • The building would be easy to `square off.'
21 • Could prepare something with three different facade designs.
22
23 DRB noted the aforementioned alternative cannot occur because of the need for a firewall.
24
25 Member Hawkes:
26 • Asked about the firewall and its effect on the elevation.
27 • Talked about the concept of a pitched roof. The barn-look would be an acceptable design
28 on the site and for the wool mill use.
29 • The fake stepped western facade would likely work, but should likely have a different
30 color scheme.
31
32 Member Morrow:
33 • Having the buildings with somewhat distinctive designs sets the character as being more
34 `industrial' than the other residential uses on Orchard Avenue.
35
36 Matthew Gilbert:
37 • Referred to the site plans the concern of the DRB at the initial review of the Project was
38 whether or not the wool mill building would be distinctive enough from the residential unit.
39 • His intent was to have to separate and distinct building elevations.
40 • Finds that the western facade architecturally flows with the post office across the street
41 that has a square shape.
42 • Recalls the DRB's initial discussion concerning his project was that the wool mill building
43 should 'sort of' match the residential unit, but not really.
44 • Talked about the design requirements in connection with the firewall and noted the
45 parapet must be three feet tall above the eve.
46 • Related to having a squared-shape building, would result in 15 feet of free standing wall
47 and questioned whether this would work. This would somehow have to be tied back into
48 the roof.
49 • Related to the architectural design of the wool mill building for him was not necessarily
50 the industrial component of it, but rather that wool has been around and a major part of
51 Ukiah for a long time. The intent was to make the building look as though the wool mill
52 has been around for a long time.
53
54 Assistant Planner Johnson:
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 6
1 • Applicant has photographs of other facade design concepts that could be used on the
2 wool mill building.
3 • The project can be brought back for further review if this is the preference of the DRB.
4 The facade is a significant element and a major component of the Project.
5
6 Member Hawkes:
7 • Supports DRB approve the Project with recommendations to the Planning Commission.
8
9 M/S Hawkes/Nicholson DRB approve the Project, as presented with the recommendation that
10 the facade be considered `influx' at this point and that the applicant bring some other design
11 options to the Planning Commission and to make it clear the DRB was not 100% in favor of this
12 particular aspect of the Project. (Motion carried 4-0).
13
14 Member Nicholson:
15 • Applicant did a good job describing the Project both graphically and with the narrative
16 that fully explains the intent of the Project.
17
18 7B. Jared Hull Use Permit for Single Family Residence — Hillside Project, 315 Janix
19 Drive (File No.: 707): Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Use
20 Permit to construct a 1,997 square foot single family residence and 795 square foot
21 attached garage at 315 Janix Drive, APN 001-040-73. The exterior would include earth
22 tone painted stucco siding, a metal roof, and landscaping. The site is accessed by an
23 existing private asphalt paved road. Since the property is located in the Hillside District,
24 Planning Commission review and approval of a use permit is required for new
25 construction.
26
27 Assistant Planner Johnson:
28 • Referred to the staff report and accompanying attachments 1, 2 and 3 that provides a
29 project description, visual renderings that are intended to show what the Project would
30 look like from the Valley floor from Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza, copies of the proposed color
31 schemes and materials, site plans, and hydrology report.
32 • Explained the history of the Hull/Piffero subdivision.
33 • The applicant is not present.
34
35 The DRB acknowledged the Project but did not review the Project and/or make comments in
36 detail.
37
38 DRB:
39 • Asked to see a colors and materials board.
40 • Requested the applicant provide more information about the Project details as to
41 elevations, water/sewer infrastucture, colors/materials, landscaping, etc. and with
42 possibly visiting the site with the applicant and have a discussion.
43 • Would like more information regarding the Hillside zoning district regulations concerning
44 development.
45 • Asked about how many of the remaining lots of the Hull/Piffero subdivision are buildable/
46 can be developed.
47 • Provide accurate visual renderings/simulations showing the location of the proposed new
48 residents and what it would look like from various locations on the Valley floor.
49 • Requests applicant come back to the DRB for a more comprehensive look at the Project.
50
51 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
52 Asked if the DRB would be willing to have another special meeting on March 26, 2015 at 3:00
53 p.m. to review preliminary plans for a new Chapole restaurant in the City.
54
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 7
1 The DRB would be amenable to having a special meeting on March 26.
2
3 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
4
5 9. SET NEXT MEETING
6 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 9, 2015.
7
8 10. ADJOURNMENT
9 The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
10
11
12 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 8
; �
, ,
��
��,� ` �
,`< �
• �
�:f: �
�. �
�
��
� ��
,
� �
� � �
� � �°^�`��+;
- . � t
� ����,� � �
���
�1� �
L
a.�,h�WR � �*+? � . � .
if '�� ^ ,, n �
(�y a
...... . .. . ... � ...�� .... {4 � � � � �M6u+ai& ........
�
'�S,R."±x:S��3 .. . ..e , `.. .
j� m
"xthU#� ... � .� M�, V.v�; '�` 1"E'
. ..... . . .�� ..� i a, .
. . . � � ��� � � � ..
.. ... . <n ��� ... . . � . . ' . .. .
>
. . . . . ,.:.�+u . . ; �- .
�'
. . . . ,.�: �`aia�aw� �" . , �, ..,.�' . .
r ;
.. . . ,. .' ,.�.. ,
.� � � � . ... . . . . ��..��ro . .. . � .v �. ..
. ' . .. � � �seoev�e+a� �*�r�n��e . � � .
. . . . � ' ' - '. �,. .
.... � . � . ' .. . . . . .
.. .. .. .. �+*.t�`�.�,„eaa � . �� . :,,u��.., "a� .
.. . .. � . � . . . ..� s� ... . . . .. � , ..
� ��n�
B
� � . . . � . . ��� .. � � . ���rnaa .
. . .. . . . � . .. . . � �� . . .. ...... . �� . .
�.���� �'��� ���.
. . � . . . . . . �� ;,��� � .. . .
.� � .. . �� � . .. .� .. .. .. ..�`�'`�`� � : .. . . _�� � . . .. .
a
� a��m��ss . .
��� < �
... .... � .. .. t%�'�;yuvpP� . Y!�S4Y . . ... �a�� .",.
. . . . . ... .. . �'��'�a�,a,�..i�s � t� �, .. `
��� �� � ��
����� � y �«
�,�� �_.._ �
��. � ._:,
.. . . � . . . � ��3`��TY� A."Sl'��"::i',aA . . . .... .. . ��..�
. . . .. ... . ... "k�a"d@."R,vu't� . .. .. . ` . .
.. . . . . � b'�'a"i",�\1`v"*�'� . � . . .. .... . .. ���
. . . . . . . . � � . � . t �
. . . . ... . ... .. . . . . � �:° =m.aw� .. ..
..... � . .. . � . ... . .� .. . . . ..... . . ..... . .. .. .... ��� .. .
... . . � . .. . . ��s:�k
� ... .. . . � . � �...:,�
.. . . . � .... .. . .�
�.
. .... ..... .. . . ....... ..... . ...... .. . ...... ... ....... � . .... .... . .. . . .. .��.
{
. .. . ..... ....... . . .:Y ... . . ... .... . ..... . ... . . .... .... ... . ....
a
. .� oeosw a'�7vnww.0 4 � . '��`��t�� � ..� .
�A . �c oa a a�aa a �sr.i. . � .9nueny p��y�JO yl�aS�JG9 � ° �.. ..
(.) cx.<se4<4aia�i�anw NV1d210Q�j � � �
� � a3�Na�oa�o�„va •�u�aaqi�pue�ooN}oui�opuaW a � n „
fa
�
C
N °'
'''`,,�
.�
� �- µ
� � ix�
�
� �'
�
� `�
.� z�
� � Y.�
� � �� ���
� � T
� � �
\V FS
� � .� . . `� . . ._S . . .
\l
�♦ . .. ... .l.': .
... .. . �V/�! . � � ... . � . . .. . . �,,�
.. � � .. ..Yp�. .. . . . . � . . . . .. ,_.�
i,_�
. . .`V ,. . . ... ._.'.
.. . .... � . . ... . . .. <.. . . ... ... . .. . .
.. . . � � ,. �. . .
. � .� .. � . . . . . � . ... .
O
. .... . . . . .. ..o . ... ..��... ... ... .... . .... .. . . . .. .. .
. ... � . � . � � . . � . . � .. .. . � � . .
W
� �
� . �� • . . . � � .. . .
V �
� �
♦�
�
.. . o •.O .. .. .... .. ..� . . . . . . ..
. . ... .� �„' . .. . .. . . . .. . . . � . . 1�� ..
^1 W �l
W/��
Wy� � E fi
.Y� �"�� � . �__
�
O � . � � � Y:i. . �
� � i�t. ....
� .� n, . .. . . �� . . . .. . � :�
��� •��y N p � . . . . . . � � � .
� ��
. .. . ..V ...i lW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..
. .. ....� .. �^, � � . . � . . ..... ... . . . .. .. . . .
. W y � . . . .. . . .. .. .. ..
.. . . ... � � . . . .. . . .. .... . � . .. ... ... . .. ... ..
� .. � \ . � � � � �
•
, , �
; �^
. � � � � �
_
S2 � � � � � `�' �3 � q„?
� � .� *fC� `'�°� ��' '�
x ,_ 4.,�
� .?
t/� �
N �, � .� � � � � .� � �
�, �- � � � � � � �
� � � �
�o °� � .�
�� ,� � � � � �., � � ,� `� .�
� � �, � � � �
� �'
� � ° R
� .� �_
l� � +' � � �' �' +� � � �
� o `�
� t/� N "_
� �� � � � � � � ,�
� � `_ � � � � � � � � �
t� — � �
� '}-' a °.�' .
. _,
.�...� � s— � � .�, �, ..� cn s.� �" �
� (� � m� c.�— � � � .�, � (� C�
� O
.a� � V7 v°a � �
N � � � � � � � p� � � �
•N � �+ � � c.J �°- Q;► �
Q � $� cr�
� �
tB � � � °�°°' �Q � � � �
� _ � `cra � �
� �} ,� ,�.
� > a�
3 � �3 C� � � � "� f� � � -�
v � � � �. � � � �
� �� ,m e� �
,� � o�
� �
O � �
�
� N � o�
.� � ^ `
t� � ,
tl.► � � � .
Z5 +� > � ,� � � .�-+ c�i � e t'� � �
� � �
G '— �
, �
C�.i N � � .
N � � —
.—, _ ��
� N � o � .,�
N N v � — �
^ � � � «� ,� .
I— . �
: : ca .�
•
� � �
,�,i
�
�
� �
� � � �
+�.+ � � � d' Q
4-
`'S �U � � vy
�
f0
� � � �
� � � �
Q �'; �,
�1 � � Q
N � � � � � �
� _ � � `r' ° °
� � N N , �,
� � �
Q7 •—
� � � �
� � 'c� O _
4J O � �
� � Q � `rV Op
� � ' N tll �
� N �
P� � `� � � �
�., O cv
.�..� � Q , t„� �-' ' c.' �
i
/"1 1 �°°'' a� � ca 4- P`'�
ti�l�✓ s� �' ��., n O �
`t � t�
�� � �
.�- U .�,
�
a�, u' aJ
VJ � �
� •> _ �' � �
_ �
� � � � � � � Q �
�
� � N � � �
� '� ._
�
�
� L � � �
� L .� v�
V ' N �A
� � 0 � 0 �
L
� — � � � � �
� � ..c t— c � ,�' � �
� .� � � , O �
� C� U m � �
�
� � � �
O
� � ' � �
� ' � �
� j 11J � ; � �
�.J � �' _ a.~°
a} '�'
� � � �
u� +.�, � '
� �
:c ', � `'-
+-+ tn � i
� �
� �
...�'�..i .. ..
�
^
W. .. �..... .. ...... . .... . ..... �..... ...... ....... ........ �. ... � .......
�
� � �
y � � �
{^q �
V � �
� � �
� n� o
� W`' �
� ..... . ... ......� i .. . ... .�� ... . ........
� .....� � o�...... .�
� � � � ^
� � L
� � � 6,�.. � Q .
.
t,.� ' � �' Q.
� � � t�.�
N � � i
. � � � � a-�+
� . � •�, e� Q �
� � ._ S�„ .�
� Q ,� � � �
�
cu � � � �
'�f a f2 C1.1 � � �
� L .e..,R a°'a
� � � N �
� � � N
� � � ,� �
p � m �—
t�0 � �
� � N � Q ,� ,� t,� � �
Z� -� CUp � v �
Q,t � � � ,_
V � � � �
ta i � �
� � t6 \ tU
v� � � � � �
� N
C ,� � � • � �
'� � Cll � — �- � �+-+ +-+
L V � 1 O 6� o
t� U � •
� Q � � ' � � Qi � �
� p� � � � �
_ ' • .O .O
v � � � � � �
� ' -� � ca tc.�
� j o� O � � �
O O
� 11J � 'N .i� i'� d�o, Q) � t1J .v
� � +� � � N c� � � °�-'
+-+ p � � •—• +� �
N � � � � d,) �5 �S
� � V � O � Q
� .�
� � H � Z Q � �
+-+ : : � : v� : :
O I I I I I I I I I I
:
•
I
; �
0
� . . � � . .... . . ... ....
� `� � � r� ��. e� �� . . .
� �
� � •�
�� L
' .V � 1 �.. ..
. � �/ � s�.. ' . .
C6 V c.�
�+ � fB °
u� � � , � � QJ
� � � a_. ,
� � � '�
Q„ p � :� '� ;�.
� � � .m
� o �
� � .,�. . ..� o
N � +' .� �
� O :s-- �°
•o � o � .�, .,�
� � .� vNi '� c"�i9 � � � � � �. °�' .�.
tl�J � t,�
"�"� F— N� CLJ qJ � �`+ "� a + S� t� � �
Q . U ,� «�
+'' `�/
� f0
�
N L �
� �,� � .� '
� -� �,
ca o �
,?� .
.�
� � � � � � tt5 �' � � � � �� � � ��"' �
� � �
Na"' '�
O �' +-' '°�
� O C � p� (� � � :�.., � � m � �� � �
. G � � � � � .�, � �
'� O � �
� �
v� '�' ,
O V c{"'n s�
� O � O �°' �+ � � tY"a � �� � t� � � � �
Q� N � � c� � �
� � � �
v� +-' N '
� O �
. +-+
� � p A�
� •— � ..�
� � V �,,,a � �2 �; o� � CL� � � ,� � � �
� � t� � ,� c.3 .� >.,,�
N � N � � � � � � � � �
� �
�—+, .°�
•� '� tU
� � ,� Q.� ,o e�
� � � � � � � �
. � i t,r� ,
• �
}
�y�
', a ltd
•� . . .:.� �. .. .... .. �. � ...... ........ ..... .... .
� .a� . a� � <�
{ � � iN
� � � ♦mai
, � � �
�
� � m� � �
,� � � � od.. :o
�
� � � � .� ,� .
� Q �N � � � .�, � �
� � ..�. � ,� � � '� � � � ^�
� ,�,, � � � � � .,�"", , .�. �,
� � � � � � �
O Q � � � .� �
� r� �
�F-�+ ,� � � � ��
� � � � v� y�
� .m �
��
� � f]J cr' t�3 Q.r � � � � � Q .�
� � � � � � � �
t� _
o � 'v � � �
N � � � �
� � � � �
+, — vs �
cn '�' � �
c� a� .�. �
� � � � � � .— .�. e_.
� � � � � � � �
� �
� +V ,� � t�, � � °°° °
.i-+ N � .�
ta i�. � � � 'i�
� � � �
�1-' 0 4J y� ..�.
� � � � � �
„� ,
t� •m � ',�,
c� � � a,� � ao � � vi � � �a �
Q � � � � � � �
l'�0 tU � �
� .cn � � � � .� .�
�Q > � �
V � � � �
� � m +� � � � . �� ,� �
.� fl1 —°
�
f� � � �11 � �
� � � � ,� .m
� ^ .�, � �
fB � � . � ,,� � �
� , � v� �; �
� q � � � � .�
�o � � t° � F- cn .�
� o � � I I I � Q�
�.. _.
� c0 v
• +� �
� �
; .r..
. .,
, Y �
s �i� � �
, � , �. �
, �� �
, . t
� e,
:
I Y
`!,.`"`�vni t` .
s
c��
��Xir�..hiz U.. ..
ti�� �
� ..:....... ... ... .. `.'. � � ,,.�. .. .......... .
S 4SVh
�s Sy a
� �
h�AY y
;�;'^�',�`i'�z+�E'�- , d°�� .
`a, pt.�...S.w. �.,;.,.
\�+U.�l 3;'x1i�k {FF14kY`\'':
i . ..,';,�o``�.".` „iYi` � � ..
.. ',4ti, . . .
,.��.'^. ���t"ti��.
. �Sa4 . �.,.�'�j`.
� � ti:��''-`��+, �.W`�':`:cX;:, ao�,
. . .. ''ye�3. .���.� rp. . .
� �
. . z.,u, � � �
.... .� .�� '��
'. � , tr �. . - .,
: ����t
L.5'� t\4# f'�
?��k`�v�7E*:X���y����� l.�s
�'�""�tN,,��'^r�,�"� L',��.`..�; �'..
�.
�Sx. ��,�.�
�� �
t '�'���4�ti�� �;�„e
t ,,�� s ��° �
�,, t.,.u,,����,���>„•� �
� <��:
s ���� �*;<�4
, �
�� �
� a�^�+�
� " °
, �f �«, �������
� � .��� � .��.��.� , . " � � ���'�� �'�,�
'� z�t.r<�, �,������,�..�,
j', ��?�i���a��.
� ����������;r m•�.
�x :��a
v�
4? �w�"z`;
�a„
y't
,� �� `� '� �
�
����;.� �a �
�� � °` �`�. : i �'
,. s � �` �; � c,.�:�
���� � 4� � � * ��:
.. ,�� � .. . :�.....�`�� �° �:���. s.. A �"" .�sa',�7:Ya�
.e.. .. ��., .. -,:. rt . ��. � �
v
� . .. � 3A� a . ��.
�
b.�;,:.: � s a��q,� ����ti� �p � j�� ,i�,,,ir,� s�- ��
, ,
�
�.a �,
��. ��` �� ������ 4 �������4';��'���' �� � � ��_�
� �� �� ,� '� � �
. .. . ,,
*�
���;u�.�� �� �
�..�� �, _
� �x
n �,:> ��
� �
� �
�t � �
`� � �, � �
� �.,.�_, O �,, �
�x �
�
,�,
���� ������:
� ��� : ���.
Vwa���`�� � ,� �; ��`� �;. �� '��a�
�
� � i
i .� � Q
O
.�-+ � C1J � t� � �
-� � � � CIJ t� (� �
O � «. � +�
� �> �
: � �. ° �
� � O
o p � O
.� ._ �
� � � � � � � � � �
C� +�.+ a�,
� � � ;
c� ., ;
L � . o • ,
� � � o �
Q f� °�r .� ,� � � � ,}�-+ c/! .�'i
Q � �
C.? '.�'
Ct3 m {.d � qa � � N � �
cu � � °' � �, �- � �
� � � � �
I— •j O
� � � v
, ..�. . .� ,�
n , � � 8� � � t� ,� - r� cn �-
W cJ �� t� �-+ •-
� � � u� �� � `� � '�"' N � �
.� .� ° � � .o
O � �� o �N �
� �
O CJ� � � o �
U � t�
+-+ o �
� � � � �
4- 0 6 0 �y �
O � � � '„�,
cn +� � �
� N ° N Q. �
O .v� � �`
� � o �
i'�. � aJ �2 O
i
O � .� � � v
._ , � ._,
.�-+ �S � � O C�0
t!3 � N L �
O � � vo � X
L , • z
� � � � �
� � !� � �
.N i C� � �
� ,�, � � � qA �
Z� p � � . � � •� ^� � � � t'�
� �
•o � "� � '�
� ,
� .� o � �
• •
�
:
.� � e� �
i �
�
� � �
� � • � �
� + � � N � � �
'� � � � � c./"3 C� � � � �
�
t6 -� .
�A C7 �,�,
: a.�.
o .� � �
CU � .�2 .� '°" � � _ `�' °� °�°
�„ • � <� � c� � � p �— .�..,
' � 4 � ..�p¢�q � ea.��
O � ! �, � .14d �° . � •m .tbR
ya
�i
(l.. .�
4�
� �
� � .� , �. ("Q �
� �� � �
� � � � t.� � ° � � � �}
� � � � _
� �
a a •—
V � � � � .�, � � � � � Q � CU
� a-+ = cn
C� .N � va °�° � �
� .� —
� � � �
.,.�.. � � � � � � � •� ! � �
(�� � _ � �
V 1
, „m.. .
+J t.1 Cl� � `+°"' � u� ,t12 f6 � � � Q�g � C!d
� � � �.
QJ
.F, � +-+ � e�
� � � ,°` � c"�
+�-+ � � .�
c� v� p� � a� � ON
f�
0 2� Q +�+
:�,, cn .� :�:� �
� � � Q Q �� ��
'L +-+ � '� �
C.3 o V a�.
(n � tn � �
-� � � � � � � ...� � � � �„ � �
�-+ � ,� V �
� � �
•�+ � °, � •o tn
� � � � �- � �
' �
N ('L5 � Z$ (1..
E'° �} � E— � a""
: > � � �
• � • ft
�
a v�
Q � � cn
, � � � � � �
tn O � � � �
� � �
� � � � �
� � a � � v Qj
6 �
'� N� c�s �'a '� .� � � � �
� � .� � ' 3 N � ..,_
� — � _ � O u�
O � :� i -� _ '�
°��t '� a1 � a �" .� p
tZ � •— ° .
� � m� 0 ,�, � � .V
L� � � � �" � � � � � � �
+-' '� + Q} S—
O + + — � �t}
� , (� a.�„ = a-+ d�
._ Q
� ;+� � � v zs
.�? 'S � � � � O �
a.,� e� � � +.,
.� �.., i� � � 4— �
c6 � � . �
u � � � ° � �
� .�
�N � � � o � �
o '� .
� � � � ��
�+— � ., � �.
QO � .�., °�°' � .� � �� 0 � Q;� t� �
m� �
s_ � � � U `a .s2. � �
� •— ,.n
O N � q� v >•
� S� � � :�. r q
� �'i � �, � �-,:�, �- � �, � b� � .� O 4�i � „�,
V J � � � o : �
� .�.
� � � � � p � i
� � V � � � � �
4= O � :�_,+ � .� � •o �
� � � °� � � � � �
O T�
T3
;L5 � � �" O : � � ~
� O V � — •� N � � � 4)
� � . � V O +r
� o � "�" � � � � •�
i'� � .� o � °� � � {U �° � '°`
�i' � Z� ' '�"' �� °� c� � � +�-+
u�i o "o � z .� � `
N .�,
tU '� tU � � � � ' ,�-+ Q
'� � N �- � � � � � Q� �` CU � � �
t'�'.,� N .� a� � � � +-+
fll � � (� N � � � .�
,O_� N � � � N � �
S._ 7• ;+�' � � U ?� � %r ��-
� � 'i'' s�° N � ,� � � O � � a m
� �-� � � . F� � N CU � C2. � ;
� � � bA t11 S2. ,°
~ � .-��, �°' C7 c�a ,� I— Q i�. c� �a
• . .