Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRV 09-358 - R.Maciag 73340 San Nicholas Ave CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A REQUEST TO PARK A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 73-340 SAN NICHOLAS AVENUE SUBMITTED BY: Missy Grisa Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Richard Maciag 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: RV 09-358 DATE: October 8, 2009 CONTENTS: Site plan, submitted by applicant Photos ARC Minutes dated April 28, 2009 and August 25, 2009 Recommendation: That the City Council, by minute motion reaffirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) denying a request to park a recreational vehicle (RV) in the front yard of a single-family residence located at 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue behind a movable fence and proposed landscaping. Executive Summary: Approval of the staff recommendation would deny the applicant the ability to park a RV in the front yard of a single-family residence. Two separate and different applications have been proposed and denied by the ARC to park this same RV in the front yard of this residence. Discussion: In the latest request for approval, the applicant proposed to park a 10' high by 8't wide by 20' long RV parallel with the house and the street in the front yard of the residence, essentially blocking the majority of the front view of the house. Proposed screening mechanisms included a 6' to 8' high movable fence, with the addition of landscaping. City Staff Report RV 09-358 October 8, 2009 Page 2 of 2 standards allow a maximum of a 6' high yard wall in this situation and location. In addition, staff researched the submitted application and found that under Chapter 8.40.050C.3 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, the vehicle must not encroach into the public right-of-way and, unless an exception is granted by the City, the vehicle shall be parked perpendicular to the public right-of-way. Staff presented the report and findings, and the ARC denied the proposal due to the facts that: an exception had not been granted to park the vehicle parallel to the public right-of-way, rather than perpendicular; and inadequate screening was proposed from adjacent lots and the public street. The motion carried on a 6-0 vote. Previously on April 28, 2009, the applicant submitted a separate and different application proposing to park the RV in the front yard of the same residence, but in a location perpendicular to the street. The ARC denied the case due to inadequate screening and the opinion that the RV parked in the front yard would obliterate the view of their home and front yard. This motion carried on a 4-2 vote, with Commissioners Touschner and Levin absent. Staff agrees with the concerns of the Commission, and recommends denial of the request to park a RV in the front yard of the residence located at 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue. Submitted By: Department Head: Mi sy Grisa Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director of Community Development Approval: ' CtTY COUNCILA�'TION J n M. Wohlmuth APPROVED DF,NTED C t Manager RECEIVED OTHER MEETt G DATE " AYF.S: ' -. � , � p�.j- - � ; ;� NOES: ` ABSENT: ABSTAIN: �`� VERIFIED BY: 7��� Original on File with City� rk's 4ffice G:�PlanningU�Iissy Grisa\ARC Cases\73-340 San Nicholas Ave RV�CC Call-Up Staff Repurt.doc �_�_� CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA � � REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION OF THE: Architectural Review Commission (Name of Determining Body) Case No. RV 09-358 Date of Decision: August 25, 2009 Project Proponent: Richard Maciag Address: 73-340 San Nicholas Ave. N � O � ��� cn z...�. Description of � ��:�� Application or Matter Considered: � �r°�; �. E/')j.�:...: a '�" - . _ .7Cs cn`r; Approval to park RV in the front yard. .-= ��'`�' �; 0 D� n� � COPY 7 _ - DAiE � �`�� Member of the City Co cil FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Filed: - — Received by: ��'��,L;��--3• Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk W:\City Templates\City WordPerfect Templates\cncl req for review-no lines.wpd 5/21/03 � � � . _----- ---_ . ___. ._. _ _ __ ._ __-- ._._ _____ __ _ _._ __ � - _ _ _.. � t I � ; � (r;\ � � � ) � � 1, � �``°� � t� a.�, 1� _'� � � 4`a ' �:��a � �� ' i ? t� � ��, � � 4 `° . � � i �� i � j t � j I �_ � ?- �'`� ..:_. .. .....,.,_,._ --....._...�.......�..,..,. ,......�.. �,. � i ._ �"w � -r.3 �••Z ��r �# ._..�..�..,..._...�.,..v..-«.--... ._ . -� t t���� ... ----.rm.�•. - � : ... '-. ____�_..... ' � p _ . � � �, ,� __ _. __ �i�.w....tr��.�,, � < r � ' � � R � � s- , �� � ; : �� �� _ � ; � � _ � �� � � ������ ' � � � ; ; � � , � , ; � ; ' �' 4 ' .. I �"`� ' �� c�__.__�___ � � ; � �'I,� Q.1. � � � ����� i �2� J .� � ; � ` � � � . j `�`� �..`� . i ( 1 � � � � ' � �t�`` � �� �� 1�' � � i ` � / � 1 �� '-�` . s� � ; ; ° � _ � � � _ - .�, ___ __ __. __ __ .�.._�_._.. _�______.�.._�._._____F__ � --� � �� , �, � ��� ,� � "�'"`"'�''�''''�''� ��� � \ `� 1 � . \ \�. . 1 l .. Z O \ i 1• �1 \ 1 � �...........�_._._.. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet also agreed that it needs to tie into t architecture because there is some neat architecture o the nctuary building; a nice roof angle, nice use of block rk and offs It is really just a big box right now an devoid of architec e. Commissioner Gregory stated that th oof angle is a very shallo itch and it might be possible if th weren't forced by the existing con ' 'ons to get a pitched roof. ommissioner Lambell stated that the Co ission didn't hav any problems with the sanctuary building; it i tying the o bits together. The two structures need to come to the s one. Commissioner Vuksic stated to the architect to pick u n the ascent of the architecture. Ms. Diane Hollinger, andscape cialist and the architect discussed the lands pe plans. ACTION: It was moved Commissioner Vuksic and seconded b Commissioner Lambell to ntinue Case CUP 09-14 subject to: 1) tying in th rchitectural feature of the sanctuary; 2) consider adding other efements out b ond the ba ' box; and 3) landscape plans to be reviewed by the Lan pe pecialist Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Tousc er absent. 6. CASE NO: RV 09-175 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD MACIAG, 73340 San Nicholas Avenue, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a RV in the front yard. LOCATION: 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue ZONE: R-2 (7) Mr. Swartz presented this project and stated that the applicant is proposing to park a Recreational Vehicle (RV) in the front yard as there is no room for it in the rear or on the side of the house. The RV is 10 feet high, 9 feet wide and 24 feet in length. There is an existing six-foot wall that steps down to five feet to four feet and is where the RV would be located. The applicant is proposing a six- foot high gate sixteen feet back from the street and tied into a four- foot wall. The house from the curb is 44 feet and the RV is 24 feet in length so the RV would still be about 20 feet from the RV to the street. The applicant is not proposing to put any landscaping as G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 there are currently three palm trees in that area. He stated that this was noticed and has received no comments in favor of or in opposition. He asked if there was anyone in attendance in favor or opposition and none was noted. Staff is concerned that the RV is directly in front with no possible way to screen it. Mr. Richard Maciag, applicant stated that there are three palm trees in front and they could possibly add a few scrubs there to help screen it. He stated that he didn't know how to hide an RV and asked for ideas. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager of Code Compliance if anything has happened with the effort to screen RVs. Mr. Ponder said that they have checked with other jurisdictions and they are as vague as our code. Mr. Bagato stated that staff is researching this issue and will go to the City Council and recommend initiation of a change. Commissioner Gregory stated that until we get better guidelines we are in a state of limbo where it is very subjective. Right now the ordinance states that the RV must be substantially screened from viewed. So the Commission tries to look at this to take the sting off because the RVs are right there in your face. These large vehicles do impact somebody whether it's your neighbor or someone driving by because essentially it is a house extension. Mr. Maciag stated that if he thought he was set back far enough from the street so that it's not up close to the street. Mr. Swartz asked if they would have a driveway for the RV. Mr. Maciag stated that they wouldn't be removing the curb but they would use a ramp. Mrs. Maciag stated that it would be behind the five-foot part of the wall leaving enough room where the RV would be hidden. She mentioned that they have discussed putting big planters with hibiscus or ficus in moveable pots to cover the RV. Mr. Bagato read Chapter 8.450, Permitted and non-permitted uses of recreational vehicles. "the architectural review commission, may approve and issue a permit to park a vehicle in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard- surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots, lot(s) and the public street(s)." Mr. Bagato pointed out that the gravel being proposed is another issue because typically that is not an approved hard surface. They are also asking for a gate six feet high fifteen feet from the curb that is an exception from the fence because a six-foot high gate has to be twenty feet back. It is not just the RV they are looking at because the applicant is trying to put a lot in the front. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2009�AR090428min revised.dx Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet didn't understand how they could screen it with the amount of room they have and said that it is really difficult to screen it on any lot unless it is a huge lot. He pointed out that there isn't enough room on the side yard to screen it and only a couple of feet between the RV and the four or five foot high fence, even though it steps down you will still see it from the side yard. Mr. Maciag stated that he drove around Palm Desert looking for examples and saw plenty of RVs with four-foot high fences around them with at least six or eight feet sticking up and none of them were disguised. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't know if those were approved through this Commission or they were put through illegally. Commissioner Gregory stated that applicants come in for approval and iYs a problem with this fuzzy type of rule. Mr. Ponder stated that Code is going through the different areas and determining who has been approved and who hasn't and taking it to Planning and making the applicant go through this same process. Commissioner Gregory stated that the screening to cover an RV would be very big. For example, the vehicle is ten feet tall so the screening would have to be eight feet tall or more. Mrs. Maciag stated that they thought of a circular driveway to park the RV there behind the palm trees as well as other growth. Mr. Bagato stated he was concerned with setting precedence with people turning the front of their house into screening for RVs. Commissioner Gregory stated that it is a very rare situation where these things work well because most front yards are really something that produces an environment for the street that makes the place we live in nice. He said that they are dealing with a situation where it was never intended to have an RV parked there. If it were developed that way in the first place where there is a side yard that would work much more easily. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission would be consulted by the City Council as far as coming up with ideas to make approving RVs a little more structured so they are not relying on verbiage. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development thought that the City Council would look to the Commission for suggestions and ideas because the Commission deals with it more than they do. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Lambell stated that the applicants have a beautiful front yard and the home would be obliterated by the RV being parked in the front and made a motion for denial. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to deny case RV 09-175. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. 7. CASE NO: MISC 09-147 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new commercial building and landscape; Parcel 8 at the Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-987 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ ACTION: No action was taken due to lack of quorum. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-02, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 15 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 3. CASE NO: RV 09-358 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD MACIAG, 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV in the front yard. LOCATION: 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue ZONE: R-2 Ms. Grisa presented this project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park an approximately 10` high by 8' wide by 20' long recreational vehic�� .(RV) in the front �rard of a residence located along the eastern frc�nt, yard parked parallel with the house. The height of the adjacent yarc! wall roughly starts at 6' in height stepping down to approximate(y �' and 4' thereafter. The full height of the yard wall extends back towards the rear yard. The applicant is additionally prop€��ing a 6' to 8' high movable fence to be parallel with the street as indicated in the attached site plan, which would extend c�ut frorri an ad��c�nt column on the house and end where existing and new prapt�sed landscaping would be located. At this "time, there are' three 16' palm trees and the applicant is proposing tQ add three new shrubs to additionally screen the east side of the RV. The requested placement of this RV woiald stiC� leave 4' fully exposed to the street and adjacent neighboring �rapertiesa since 6' is the maximum wall height permitted. Lands�ape can be planted for additional screening, but Ianel�caping is not always maintained and should not be relied upon as a �ermanent screening technique. Lastly, Chapter 8.40.050C.3 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code states, the vehicle must not encroach into the public right-of-way and, unless an exception is granted by the city, the vehicle shall be parked perpendicular to the publi� right-of-way. This vehicle is not proposed to be parked perpendicular to the public right-of-way, and a separate request went before the Commission on April 28, 2009 requesting approval to park a RV perpendicular to the street in the front yard, but was denied due to inadequate screening from adjacent lots and the pub�ic street. Staff is recommending denial due to the fact that an G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009WR090825min.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 exception has not been granted to park the vehicle parallel to the public right-of-way rather than perpendicular as noted in Chapter 8.40.050C.3. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if this was a different RV from the first proposal. Mr. Richard Maciag, applicant said they now have a smaller RV and asked if RVs were allowed in front yards with adequate screening. He asked the Commission for their definition of adequate screening because he has driven around Palm Desert taking pictures of severa�: RVs that were parked in front of homes with bushes, potted �lants arr� trees to screen them and wanted to know what was adequate. H� sait� that he can come up with different ideas, and asked the CQmmission to help determine the type of screening #hat will be accept�d because the ordinance is very vague. Mr. Swa�z stated that `an August 27, 2009 the City Council will hear '� r�quest for a moratorium to provide staff the time to develop standards regarding RVs. Mr. Maciag asked if his proposal is denied 'could h� appeal and then come in with another design.: Ms. Grisa sta#ed that if a new design is significantly different;from th� original design he can re-submit a design review. Mr. Maciag stated that`'as he drove �round the neighborhood there were junk cars, utility trailers, fifth wheels, and an abandoned ice cream tru�k parked in front ofi residential homes. He mentioned that Cod�: C�►mpliance had issued him a violation and informed him that he wau;ld be fined $50 a day for his RV. He asked the officer about the other vehicles in the neighborhood and the officer said thase were on app��l. He pointed out to the Commission that where his RV is p�rked now is almost a three car wide driveway and felt i� would be a perfect spot. Commissioner Levin said unfortunately it doesn't come close to being adequately screened. Mr. Maciag said that he could build a screen and cover it with a six- foot limifiation. Commissioner Gregory stated that this problem is exactly why a moratorium is needed because it is so difficult to try to came up with a consistent response because each case is a little bit different. The term adequate screening is not a good term and doesn't give an objective means for someone to determine if it would work. The problem in most cases is that an RV, such as this, is large in proportion to the size of the house and because of that you have a problem with how to screen it when it is so large next to the house. What happens is the screen becomes an architectural element and starts to be viewed in a way as either a part of the house or something competing with the house. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2009�AR090825min.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Mr. Maciag referred to the previous approval for a trailer in the side yard and asked what the difference was between that trailer and his RV. Commissioner Gregory stated that there are many things that are different and obviously it is a subjective opinion. Mr. Maciag said that the trailer will be at the applicant's house for three or four days and asked if he could do the same thing. Commissioner Gregory said that the problem with a subjective review is that you run into the same type of a thing each time and everyone has a different take. He said that applicants feel very strongly about wanting it there and have a vested interest in it�eing approved, but someone else won't. He felt th�t it was a v��y poor way to make the system work and no one is h�ppy with i�. Mr. Maciag asked if the RVs par[�ed in front of residential homes that were approved before the rnoratc��um goes into effect would be grandfathered in. Commissioner Leuin �tated that just because they are parked there doesn't mean th�y are;,grandfathered in. If they have come before ttte Architectural F�eview Commission (ARC) and the screening was approved, then that approval stands. Mr. Maciag said that if he �ou�d .�ind an RV in town that's been approved by the A�� and follaws"tt�e' same or similar screening could he submit a pl�n fo� that. Mr. Swartz stated that every lot size is differenf and on th� small�r lots you wouldn't be able to park RVs in th� front or on the sides. That is why staff is revisiting the ordinance and revising it ta get clear direction. Cammission�r lfuksic said that the Commission tries to make good decisions and h�� �rpproved RVs in the past with landscape scr��ning but they have found some that are not a good solution because the landscape changes and it doesn't look natural. The Commissi+�n is far less likely now to approve them then in years past. He stated that it is rare anymore where they approve RVs in the front yard. Mr. Maciag said the Commission just approved the utility trailer in the front yard. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the trai�er is only there three nights a week for his business and it was a difficult discussion that received a split vote. Commissioner Lambell stated that the previous applicant has to obtain a business permit and a Home Occupational Permit (HOP) to get approved. Commissioner Gregory stated that he may not get the HOP because what he is doing may not be legal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it is a temporary approval with a lot of conditions. G:\Planning�,lanine Judy\Word Files�P,Minutes�2009�AR090825min.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Levin said that if Mr. Maciag parks the RV parallel to the front of the house he will obscure the whole house and he thought the RV would be more visible. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to address the applicanYs question that he asked earlier so the Commission doesn't lead him down any path. Going out and taking pictures of something that was approved some time ago is not a guarantee that doing the same thing would be approved now, because we may feel that it was a bad decision looking back at it. Mr. Maciag said that some of the residents that just put a bunch of potted plants in front of their RVs, as st�c�wn in some of the photos, were lucky enough to get approved. Commis��oner Vuksic said that is a great example of a bad decision. Cornrt�issioner Gregory said that was an example where th�� Commission tri�d to help and attempted something and later realized `that it was � mis�ake. It was really "iffy" at the time and w� were actually trying ta 'be nice. Commissioner Lambell said she h�,d a, problem with it merely because it is too big for the lot, it's lik� trying to put a size ten foot into a size five shoe. She felt that the '�pplicant had a wonderful looking home that will be obseured by the F�V �rtd suggested that it not be parked at this loeation and to find a place to store it. Mr. Maciag asked w�rat the tlifferen�e was between his parking his RV at his home and fhe previous case. Commissioner Lambell stated they are both diff�r�nt v�hicles. Mr. Maciag said that the previous case was a cornmercial' vehicle. Commissioner Van Vliet said tha� the vehicles look substantially different; it was a trailer which was �c�vered and doesn't look like the RV. Mr. Swartz said that utility trailers, boats, RVs are all classified as a recreational vehicle. Commis�ioner Gregory informed the applicant that he could appeal to the Gity Council. Ms. Aylaian stated that if the Commission denies his application today the applicant can appeal to the City Council and they will hear the appeal pending the outcome of the rrtora#orium. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant's proposal to park parallel to the face of the house was not sanctioned in the ordinance. Ms. Grisa answered that was correct. Mr. Maciag stated that he would then go back to his original proposal with it being parked perpendicular to the house. Ms. Grisa informed the applicant that the appeal period for the first application has lapsed. G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009V1R090825min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Regarding the proposal in front of the Commission today the ordinance states it cannot be granted an approval unless an exception is granted by the City Council to park an RV parallel with the house. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, denied Case RV 09-358 due to the fact that an exception has not been granted to park the vehicle parallel to the public right-of-way rather than perpendicular; and 2) inadequate screening firom adjacent lots and the public street. Motion carried 6-0. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2009�AR090825min.doc Page 12 of 15 +�►,. � � �i'� � +�' �� �'; tM; Af, `E i i"'"a`^w...... ��_�"'Y� a�� a . � �IIIIIIIIIIIII� I ��` � x � �� � � n 4 U � � � � � e .__._ � �. � p � ��� � . " y� , f+' ' -- ' �. �- �, � �r� " �� : . x.,�. .< ,' e�``����: � , � ' � . , �u'� ^ � ur � � t -�--ti �*" . � ^a��., ,, �• � .� „ „ ' ,,, ,���, a;� � ; , . .., -� , , ,x„ , � �F. « �� � � _ � _ _ ., � ,, ,, ,: . =t , ,, � <,,�_,�, , � . �,;;,- �e� - _ : , -,.�,��� "� _� �, ` �� � � "'�`'"�,.,,—�.. �� �.�..�. .... _ ., :�.:,,� `�e. . . ,< ,i�. � ;,�, : ,r� ?G ;^ � ,p ;�. � ti f��,. � t .� f, _ ■ �.`""..-/1!�y �� . I � . .1-�,r ._. ��� s ����� ���.�. � � � � �� .. � .. ... . nu .. ._ .,� x . � M.+ � __ _ A H 1� w i• � .vP '� Lia n � . � .3�1 � � � ' �I ` ��� � � : . � ��• .. �q',, �" i ._. . .. � -�. ..I�:. ( -.>, � �'M-4i:. �'... .<, .... „w�� .�"„y'1�� ,' • �,�y�,� ��q�,`.,� . �_ .. . . ....., ...� .., � <,i!'JMr..... � "^^�r....... ��5�,' : '.. b��p i �.f.�h ��t- :�,. �..: ��.. `�f 5` \°f; -.��i�.. 4� / f�/ i �� � .,..� .. .4. .. � . .. h, � �� � .In +.. _., .. . .. a*S � �,�,^,� t����.; ��. �`'.. i,� 3�lit� �.:d:� � ��' ': �R i� �:_T.'y k �M 'I� Y,Yr,., y�k �� � � -s i `Av K .. . . a,p t � � ��i.'� � �„r .a � a .. `� � �4� = S '' s�A #i, #�'�ai_ �. �a�� +�u� w'3`+�„�dy'�`�'����. .�,++�� �", 'r. :�-- '�'r � :'.� i M ..:ru e,y��fp, �� >�Yd`C „ . w . � ° .. .., �l x'_:a� 4 �*''ana}ft�.�'?� l`,?'�'k''SG `3.F.�.t;H�' v vt".�'��4 ' i . . ro � ,. . . : - � r � � - , . _ , .r' � _:" .�.. �_ � A .., .:, . .:.:,- . ... , ' , . �ISS����� t � � "� �.__ i. � ,i_� ��., � - �, ' �. �; ,r � .. �� ' . . a ��{� - rq �� �.. � � ' R .. �I iy` .�i' — T.. � �/ � � � _ �[ � fq � _ � -.�vX 4 �S}Si I .,�yun _ *4 3 '���' L: z.. t w " `+ �.. ��1'd: tA .� ,.�'� �u i " `�' I 3 ur��ai,�.�g ���y .+" 4s� �„�`-� ���'��'�T.��fv�a� se. .r'� . 3 �r:.��y�� .. Ys U .. i.�� tll ' ry� . �;�,e <y..� �^"�s�va�"=fi' x ,� `"a`'�. , ��sRf. � u � y � � s, ,� °f, 'ni' �y� �^y� �� �.a ° #y�� wa'