Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 979 ZOA 00-09 Office Professional, Planned and General Commercial I Ordinance No. 979 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.20 of the Municipal Code, the setback requirements of the OP (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ) V. DATE: June 28, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance No. 979 B. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 00-90 C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2075 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 5, 2001 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 979 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. district. October 17, 2000 Planning CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 979 CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) JUNE 28, 2001 Commission recommended approval of an amendment which would have added a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height in the OP district. This amendment was forwarded to City Council at its November 9, 2000 meeting. The matter was continued several times, a subcommittee of City Council appointed, and the scope of the amendment expanded to include the C-1 (general commercial) areas and PC (planned commercial) areas. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION: This revised code amendment was presented to Planning Commission at its meeting of June 5, 2001 and was recommended for approval on a 3-0 vote with Commissioners Finerty and Campbell absent. 3. DISCUSSION: The main thrust of the revised amendment is the addition of a "daylight triangle" requirement on corner lots in the OP, C-1 and PC zones which will assure greater open space on corners. On corner lots buildings will be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and not encroach into the "daylight triangle." This setback requirement will be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan (see attachment 'A' to the draft ordinance). This revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on interior lots will be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. Lastly, the ordinance provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach onto vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. These new provisions will be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings approved after enactment of the amendment. All approved buildings on corner lots meet the requirements. All existing (Wpdocs\tmonroe\sr\zoa00-09.cc4) 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 979 CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) JUNE 28, 2001 buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. In the case of a terraced building with a single story element at 18 feet in height and a second story section with 30 feet in height, the "daylight triangle" would have two base lines. The first floor section would be setback 36 feet from the ultimate curb location and the second floor element would be 60 feet from the ultimate curb location. This should serve to create openness on corner lots. 4. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: STE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: RICHARD J. LKERS , -ARLOS L. OR GA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY COUNCIL 31CTION: APPROVED ✓ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETING DATE AYES: PA/LA-Am .0 NOES: �► ¢ 7 ABSENT: .�n-e'-4.t 'v) (Wpdocs\tmonroe\sr\zoa00-09.cc4) A$�TAIN: �-- � {L� n m VERIFIED BY: -t „A-K.J Original on File with City £lerk's Office • CITY Of PflLDI DESK 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 ;\" TEL: 76o 346—o61 1 �' ' FAX: 760 341-7098 ..... info@palm-desert.arg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk June 15, 2001 City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 5, 2001 CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) district. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. district. October 17, 2000 Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment which would have added a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. This amendment was forwarded to City Council at its November 9, 2000 meeting. The matter was continued several times, a subcommittee of City Council appointed, and the scope of the amendment expanded to include the C-1 (general commercial) areas and PC (planned commercial) areas. II. DISCUSSION: The main thrust of the revised amendment is the addition of a "daylight triangle" requirement on corner lots in the OP, C-1 and PC zones which will assure greater open space on corners. On corner lots buildings will be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and not encroach into the "daylight triangle." This setback requirement will be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan (see attachment 'A' to the draft ordinance). This revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on interior lots will be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. The ordinance notes that ultimate curb location is the curb location when the street is constructed to the ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. 2OA 00-09 JUNE 5, 2001 Lastly, the ordinance provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach onto vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. These new provisions will be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. All buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. In the case of a terraced building with a single story element at 18 feet in height and a second story section with 30 feet in height, the "daylight triangle" would have two base lines. The first floor section would be setback 36 feet from the ultimate curb location and the second floor element would be 60 feet from the ultimate curb location. This should serve to create openness on corner lots. III. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of ZOA 00-09 (Revision #1 ). V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by p-,efmith Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved b Phl� Drell Director of Community Development /tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering setback requirements in the C- 1 , PC and OP districts; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. 2075 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of June, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JONATHAN, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: CAMPBELL, FINERTY ABSTAIN: NONE JI PEZ, air son ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Pla ning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 EXHIBIT "A" 1) That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street front and street side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location, whichever is greater. On corner lots, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1 ) foot of setback from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height, whichever is greater. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That Section 25.28.060 be amended to read as follows: 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1 ) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or a minimum of one (1 ) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 -0.4, . o Dr, SUBJECT TO k 6' REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 seek to be open for lunch, as a condition of opening amongst other potential requirements and having to come back through the Planning Commission, etc., as an additional condition the applicant must acquire a separate site within 300 feet that could be developed into 25 additional parking spaces that do not exist right now. Chairperson Lopez said that would be incorporated into the existing conditions and asked for a second to the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2074, approving PP 01 -1 2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. E. Case No. ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ) - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250, and 25.30.270 of the Municipal Code, the setback requirements in the OP (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. Mr. Smith indicated that last September the Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. zone. October 17, 2000, Commission recommended approval to City Council. The amendment would add a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. That was in the O.P. district. The matter went to City Council at its November 9 meeting and the matter was continued several times. The City Council formed a subcommittee and through the subcommittee the scope of the amendment had expanded to include the C-1 and the PC zones. At this time the main thrust of the revised amendment is creating a "daylight triangle" requirement on the corner lots in the three zones which would ensure greater open space on the corners. On corner lots buildings would be required to be setback a minimum of two feet for every foot of 27 91/rtl FT- SUBJECT \\ REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 building height and not encroach into the daylight triangle. This setback requirement would be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the location of the curb when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Staff showed an example of the daylight triangle. He said that what this would have done was push the building at Highway 111 and El Paseo back further from the corner. The revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on the interior lots would be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for every foot of building height. The ordinance also provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and should be setback as if the former property lines were still in existence. That was a request through the council.subcommittee. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith for further clarification on that point. As an example, Mr. Smith said that the building on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Portola, the AG Edward's building, formerly had a frontage road in front of it. Part of the redesign involved moving the access to the west side of the building and connecting into the parking lot and getting rid of the frontage road. In that exchange there was some trade off on building area that allowed the building to creep out, although it didn't actually go into the area that was vacated, it didn't meet the five-foot setback that we would have otherwise had there. There was a significant feeling that shouldn't be repeated. If we need to, the City should acquire those properties and not trade development rights. Mr. Drell added that as it relates to two-story buildings that are terraced it specifically allowed that daylight triangle to be measured to the height of each terrace of the building, so it did allow the first floor to encroach into the daylight triangle. There were two separate base lines on the triangle. Mr. Smith said that staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff said the new provisions would be prospective in nature and applied to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. That was a little confusing because they approved something tonight. If it didn't get constructed prior to enactment of the amendment, they were subject to the new requirements. Mr. Smith said that they didn't have any problem with the amendment. Commissioner Jonathan said there could be approved projects out there that the commission has granted extensions for which 28 9 I), F SUBJECT TO REWSION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 would not meet this amendment. He asked if staff had thought through the effective date and if so, when that would be. Mr. Smith said it would be 30 days after the City Council gives the matter second reading. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would apply to previously approved projects that hadn't been built yet. He asked if those projects would have to come in and alter their plans. Mr. Smith said that was conceivable and that was why they had been bringing it to the attention of applicants for several months. Mr. Drell explained that a precise plan approval granted a vested right for one year. When they came in with a time extension request, the commission could deny it based on non compliance with the current ordinance. He wasn't sure there were any buildings that were in non compliance and didn't recall any on corners. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it wasn't, just the corners, it was also the 1 :1 setback. Mr. Drell said that all of the buildings with the exception of one have always met the 1 :1 setback. That was because of the lack of a parkway on a portion of the Shah building. The building about to be constructed on San Pablo and Highway 1 1 1 , the Norwalk Furniture building, met this requirement as well and probably exceeded it. Commissioner Jonathan said that the initial granting of the precise plan would probably protect that. Mr. Drell concurred and noted that the commission wouldn't be compelled to extend it. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't familiar with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, but at the same time greater open space on corners was important to him. Given some of the problems existing today on streets they didn't think would get that wide, he asked if the General Plan Circulation Element took that into consideration. Mr. Drell said that right now all arterials were planned out at six lanes. Mr. Greenwood stated that generally the Circulation Element tried to predict future conditions although the city wasn't always successful. They were currently doing the General Plan update process and he knew that the committee would look at the Circulation Element very closely with an eye on very rapid growth so that we don't suffer these kinds of problems that we currently find ourselves in. Generally he thought the Circulation Element was going to point to a lot of six-lane roads where we now think they are going to be four lanes. As soon as the Circulation Element is updated, it wouldn't be an issue because we will have identified all of those streets that would be extra wide. 29 . : Mal MINUTES ' ' REVISION` PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan noted that when we increase the standard like in the way proposed, it had the impact of reducing the buildable area on a lot. He asked the City Attorney if there was a precedent and authority for cities doing that and it wasn't considered the taking of property in any way. Mr. Hargreaves explained that it would become a taking if it they conditioned development in such a way that development of the property became uneconomical. If they couldn't make a profitable use of the property because of the stringent conditions, then there was a potential taking. He didn't believe they were getting any where close with this kind of requirement. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second the motion and expressed his gratitude to staff. He brought this up a while back and it took a little longer to get done than he expected, but it was worth the wait. Part of his concern is and has been the elimination of view corridors throughout the city. It impacted the quality of life and this measure would be an effective way to combat that situation. He thanked staff for putting this through. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2075, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ), subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP/CUP 00-27 - LAMB ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for reaffirmation and adding conditions to its previous action in the matter of Case No. PP/CUP 00-27 30 141 ] 44..a. - - 7 1 _ _ ift.....A_,, i 1 ),. 1 __! __ 1 ..,....., 1 .. . _ \i. 1 _ ..___ _ , __ . ..., ._. i\I 1Ii . 1 i I _.- ` _ ,Iji 1 • cie,..7::........ i • ®', c'' fit. / . ?, /'. ri ` e i - --• _ _ . 0 . f..... .,.t3:;._______,_:i,V __ I 0 At_ 7_._,, , , I1_ „11441.. . --(1) D h' L 1 I V-•-___ , ---5-JILT-LIP ROOFtNG . ll ' 1 l .4....11.1111.11111111111 SUILT-UP ROOFINC:-- - 1111111.11111 ,, •. ,426Niammomm I, ,.-- , .111.111111111111..1111,/:::' . . . 46W81111111.1111.1111111T f: , • .• HHIHH ':- rd‘.till / . ,..--="' , __ . HIP: /''' ..., __ -11111111111111111111110r ,.. , . . .....r .... ,, _ ._ :_.,.._ IL. I , ; • '5.-.._. 10 1 MNMIIMEIMIMIIMIIMEMMIMIIIIIIIIIPV , , . ..,•-• , • I , ii iilimmi ........................m............ 1, 1 immffmr.......00.........0„.- .... - H.... 0.. . „*., ,, ,,... • ,.. „..„ ...I , Imir,. t----- ' ,' • , ........ I ,....„..,.: ,...,..... . , . .. , ... . . , • ...,..,,,.... , • . • .__. ...... : ...._. , - - • • .. .. ..._______...:...... . . c....upe, . . , . .. , . ....,,,,...„.. , . . ... . , . . . , • ,.....,. ,.. .,. .........._ ......,._, , __ . .. ..._ • • ... • •._ .,.• :,• ., :., .. ,.__ . ,, , . ,. . , . :• . . • , . 1 .