Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-10 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 10, 2011 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. March 29, 2011 Study Session 2. April 12, 2011 Regular Meeting 3. April 26, 2011 Special Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-00397 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2234 Siskiyou Boulevard () accessed from Chitwood Lane APPLICANT: Groundworks Community Development Corp. DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan review, and Site Review approval to construct a five-unit townhouse development under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88) for the property located at 2234 Siskiyou Boulevard, also known as Chitwood Park. The applicants have also requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees six-inches in diameter or greater at breast height; Exceptions to Street Standards to allow a dead-end street in excess of 500-feet in length, a private drive to serve five units, and a separation between driveways of less than 24 feet; and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design & Use Standards to allow a reduction in the separation and screening between residential units and parking areas. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 14 CB; TAX LOT: 100 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.TSP Joint Meeting Follow-up Discussion VII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES March 29, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin John Rinaldi, Jr. Brent Thompson, Transportation Commissioner Julia Sommer, Transportation Commissioner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Russ Silbiger PRESENTATION OF DRAFT CONCEPT PLANS Tom Litster with OTAK provided a short presentation that covered: 1) Pedestrian Place characteristics, 2) Pedestrian Places integration with the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update, and 3) Zoning updates and concept plans. He explained Pedestrian Places typically have a concentration of pedestrian activity, nearby work and living opportunities, and a good public realm of streets and buildings. Mr. Litster clarified they are not trying to create car-free zones, but rather provide the opportunity for people to be without a car if they choose to. He noted the on-going TSP update and stated this project shares similar objectives with the TSP, including changing travel patterns away from autos, higher levels of transit service, innovative street enhancement projects, and coordinating public and private actions. Additionally, the two projects share complementary growth objectives, including affordable and mixed income housing, larger-scale planning, green building and site development practices, efficient use of land and infrastructure, and sustainable growth within the City’s urban growth boundary. Mr. Litster reviewed the concept plans for the North Mountain Avenue/East Main Street, Walker Avenue/Ashland Street, and Tolman Creek Road/Ashland Street intersections. He noted there is already a fair amount of pedestrian activity in these areas and these concept plans will enhance that. He stressed that these are only concept plans, not actual development proposals, and several components (including a more robust market, a willing seller, and a willing buyer who wants to develop the parcel consistent with the plan) will need to come together before development occurs. Mr. Litster recommended the Commission consider a Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone, which could include reduced parking standards, increased FARs (floor are ratios), maximum building setbacks, minimum building heights, and revised landscape requirements. He also commented on implementation strategies, and stressed the importance of understanding the different public, private, and joint roles. Comment was made questioning how long Mr. Litster anticipates it will be before redevelopment starts to occur. Mr. Litster noted the TSP will identify Capital Improvement Projects that are consistent with the objectives of the Pedestrian Places plan, and those City projects could happen within the next several years. In terms of redevelopment projects, he stated it depends on what happens in the real estate and financing markets, but it will probably be 5-10 years before projects start coming forward. Ashland Planning Commission March 29, 2011 Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Hearn/515 East Main St/Stated he is speaking on behalf of IPCO Development, which is a family owned business that owns several tax lots near one of the study areas. Mr. Hearn stated they have concerns with the plan, including worries that this plan will make some of the infrastructure they have put in obsolete, or need to be redone; and that the plan may make it more difficult for these properties to develop. He questioned what the net impact would be on IPCO when they try to develop under the new standards, and what hurdles will they need to overcome as they try to develop their industrial and employment land. Mr. Hearn noted the importance of having industrial areas in the City, and stated the concept plan for the Tolman Creek Rd/Ashland St intersection could make it difficult for truck deliveries. Baback Khosroabadi/Stated he is representing the Texaco station at Exit 14 and the Shell station at Walker and Siskiyou Blvd. Mr. Khosroabadi stated although this is a great concept, he does not see this as something that will benefit his business and expressed concern with eminent domain. He questioned the need for this project and stated their Texaco station is on the outskirts of town near the I-5 entrance, and there is not much pedestrian traffic or housing opportunities in this area. Mr. Khosroabadi noted they provide local jobs to members of the community and stated they will support this as long as it does not encroach on their businesses. Ken Khosroabadi/Expressed concern that this project will affect his small business and stated they have already lost part of their property to the bridge expansion. He stated when it comes to the public right-of-way, he has no say in what happens, and stated if anymore property is taken he will be unable to run his business. Marsh clarified at this point there is no development proposal on the table. She stated they are discussing conceptual drawings and very broad design ideas for what might happen at these locations in the future, and certainly there has been no talk of eminent domain. Joanne Kliejunas/Commended the Commission for taking this on and is excited to hear this will be moving forward in interim ways. Ms. Kliejunas stated she lives above the university and suggested an informal ride sharing program aimed at residents who live above the boulevard. She noted the difficultly in getting people out of their cars because it is not feasible to get back up the hill on foot, and recommended during this interim period they consider doing things that are aimed at providing transportation for people who are interested in walking down. Lisa Ware/Commented on pedestrians at the Tolman Creek/Ashland St intersection. Ms. Ware stated she is a pedestrian by choice and noted the increased pedestrian traffic at this intersection. She stated there is a strong need to improve this area for pedestrians and voiced surprise that there have not been more accidents at this location, especially given the number of seniors living nearby and crossing the road. Steve Meister/Market of Choice/Voiced concern with how trucks will access his business if this plan is implemented and noted that he has deliveries every day. He voiced his objections to the festival street concept and stated he does not believe this will work and questioned how they could close a street down and not let delivery trucks in or out. Instead, he suggested redeveloping the trailer park into a festival area with a pedestrian connection that joins his shopping center to the Ashland Shopping Center. Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Stated a lot of the basic principles proposed in the concept plans are in place now in other areas of town. He voiced support for reduced parking standards and increasing minimum density standards to address population increases within our current urban growth boundary. Mr. Knox recognized the concerns from businesses and recommended the Commission include exception language. He also recommended they utilize this strategy on at least five other intersections in town, including Siskiyou/Mountain, Bellview/Siskiyou, Siskiyou/Sherman, E Main/Walker and Helman/Nevada. Mr. Knox stated he is very supportive of these concepts and stated these types of plans are an asset to property owners and gives them a blueprint of what the City would like to see. Chris Hearn/Added a final concern that often conceptual things on a plan tend to turn into something much more permanent. He stated the concept plan shows opportunities for future connections through his client’s property and he voiced their objections to taking away property for this road. Ashland Planning Commission March 29, 2011 Page 2 of 3 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Dawkins questioned the addition of safety islands, specifically at Ashland/Tolman Creek, and stated he has not seen this in the TSP materials. Ms. Harris noted there is a pedestrian crossing enhancement indentified for that location, and Mr. Litster stated he would ensure the members of his team are aware of Dawkins’ concern. Commissioner Mindlin commented that the work they are doing is important for the longer term, and they are trying to be very forward thinking and lay the groundwork for a world where people drive less. She stated they need to consider a future where families might not have cars at all, or only one, and how they will address their needs. Mindlin commented on the importance of green space for higher density residential developments, and asked if this plan would impact those standards. Ms. Harris clarified there is currently an 8% open space requirement for multi-family developments, and these plans are not proposing to change that. She added, however, there is a suggestion in the plan to allow required landscaped areas to include hardscape areas. Comment was made questioning where they go next with the zoning suggestions. Mr. Molnar stated if the Commission agrees, staff will take this information and put it into a format that is compatible with our land use ordinance and other implementing documents, and bring this back to the Planning Commission in a format that could be adopted. He added the existing zoning districts would stay in place, and clarified what they will be looking at is fine tuning some of the language to allow for greater flexibility. Ms. Harris added one of the first steps will be making revisions to the land use ordinance to make it more possible for the types of things outlined in the concept plans to occur. Commissioner Marsh asked if there is general agreement in pursuing the changes recommended in this report. Rinaldi voiced his support. Mindlin agreed and stated the basic requirements for the overlay zone seem fairly minor and easy to adopt. Transportation Commissioner Thompson commented on modifying the code language so these types of development are easier to occur, and voiced his support to implementing the suggested code changes. Thompson suggested the Commission consider reducing the on-street parking credit to 21 feet, and also suggested a 36 ft height limit for structures in the Historic District. Thompson stated the overlay zone is a great idea and they may want to consider extending it, and also encouraged the Planning Commission to implement smaller fixes that will result in a bigger change in the City over time. Mr. Litster agreed that these are modest steps, and noted this is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. He added there is also a difference between allowing and requiring. Commissioner Marsh indicated there seems to be general agreement that they would like staff to pursue this and work towards implementation. She recommended they consider having a separate discussion on just the parking issue, and noted there may be elements in this plan that they want to apply citywide. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 29, 2011 Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 12, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh noted the April 26Study Session will be a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission to discuss the th City’s TSP Update. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. (Rinaldi abstained) PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2011-00043, 400 Allison Street. Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-00043. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0. (Rinaldi abstained) B.Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01611, 260 First Street. Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Blake m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-01611. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0. (Rinaldi abstained) TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-00319 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 805, 815, 835, 843, 851, 861, 873, 881, 889 and 897 Oak Knoll Dr. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2011 Page 1 of 4 APPLICANT: Dan Thomas, Representative DESCRIPTION: A request for a 25% Variance to the maximum fence height of six and one half (6 ½) feet. The applicants are proposing an eight (8) foot wall along the rear property lines for the properties located at 805–897 Oak Knoll Drive adjacent to Interstate I-5 and tax lot 7000. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 14 AD; TAX LOTS: 4900 – 5900. Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Rinaldi, Blake and Mindlin made site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the 11 homes along Oak Knoll Drive that were destroyed in a fire last year are requesting a variance to construct an 8 foot tall concrete block fence at the rear of their properties, adjacent to Interstate 5. Ms. Gunter stated the maximum fence height allowed is 6.5 feet and listed the variance approval criteria for the Commission. She stated staff believes this is a unique situation and noted this is the only residential area within the City that is directly adjacent to the freeway. Additionally, she stated the wall would provide a sense of security for the residents and would also reduce freeway noise for these homes and the homes on the opposite side of Oak Knoll Drive. Ms Gunter noted the wall would be visible from I-5 and from the properties on the other side of the freeway, and stated that while staff is supportive of the variance they believe the visual impacts should be mitigated. Ms. Gunter displayed examples of different wall surface treatments that could be used and recommended this be addressed in any conditions for approval. She concluded her presentation and stated staff is recommending approval of the variance given the circumstances of the properties and the benefits it will create. Applicant’s Presentation Dan Thomas/897 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated he is representing the residents whose homes were destroyed in the fire, and noted all 11 property owners have given their consent to this application. Mr. Thomas stated they believe there is a need for some type of wall between their homes and the freeway, and stated the old wood-style fencing may have contributed to the widespread fire damage. He added they strongly believe their homes would still be standing had there been a concrete wall in place when the fire occurred. Mr. Thomas stated a block wall would make the property owners feel safer about the potential for a repeat grass fire, and would reduce freeway noise and provide added security. He spoke to the issue of cost, and explained the home owners will be paying for this out of their own pockets and may not be able to afford the types of surface treatments suggested by staff. Mr. Thomas stated they are dealing with two issues, the first is the height variance and the second is what type of wall they can afford to build. He stated it is clear that an 8 foot wall would greatly reduce the freeway noise and would work well for security; however the fire issue likely won’t be affected by the height of the block wall since any grass fire would conceivably stop at the base. In terms of the type of wall and cost, he stated a masonry block wall or an ICF-stucco wall are possible options; however the stucco treatment for an ICF wall may push them over their budget. He suggested the homeowners pay for the ICF wall, and for the City to coat it however they like. Mr. Thomas stated they want the wall to look nice, since they will be the ones looking at it every day, but it has to be economically feasible. He added if this application is not approved, each homeowner would likely build their own 6.5 ft wall or fence, each in different styles and materials. Commissioner Dawkins stated there is some conflict in regards to whether a wall would have protected these homes from the fire, and noted the Memo submitted into the record by the Ashland Fire Marshall contradicts Mr. Thomas’ testimony. Additionally, he disagreed with Mr. Thomas’ comment about the cost of block walls. He stated he recently purchased a large amount of block wall and textured blocks cost the same as smooth face blocks. Commissioner Dawkins asked Mr. Thomas to explain how they plan on installing one continuous wall when some of the owners aren’t rebuilding. Mr. Thomas agreed that this is an issue and stated as a group they are asking for the option to build up to 8 feet tall. He stated some people may not want to go as high as 8 feet and clarified they are not in contract with each other to build this as a single wall. Concern was expressed about this wall being built in stages and with varying materials. Mr. Thomas noted they will be going before the City Council to request a portion of their building permit fees be credited back to them and stated this would really help to build this as a single wall with the treatments suggested by staff. However, even if the application is approved, his neighbor could decide to build a 6 ft tall cedar fence and that’s their option. He stated unless the City wants to step up and build the Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2011 Page 2 of 4 wall, this is a gray area that they are trying to work out. He stated their best chance is to keep their costs down and if they can get a fair price he thinks all of the property owners will jump on board. Commissioner Blake noted there is not a consistent grade across those properties and a fence or wall would likely be stepped to adjust to the varying grades. Ms. Gunter clarified there is a 3% slope; and Mr. Thomson stated he believes some height variation would be aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Marsh asked Mr. Thomas about painting the concrete blocks. Mr. Thomson stated this could be done, but it is another cost that would be added on. He suggested if this is desired the City should consider painting it. Public Testimony Nanosh Lucas/873 Oak Knoll Drive/Requested clarification about the process and asked if the wall or fence were constructed at the permitted 6.5 foot height, could it be whatever material they wanted. Commissioner Marsh clarified “Yes”, and added the application for a variance opens the door to these types of requests, since they are asking for something that would not normally be allowed. Mr. Lucas asked the Commission to look at the aesthetics of the wall and the height variance as separate issues. Applicant’s Rebuttal Dan Thomas/Requested clarification about the appeal process. Commissioner Marsh clarified the applicants can appeal to the City Council if they do not like the Planning Commission’s decision. Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Rinaldi stated there are two different wall issues, one along the freeway and one along tax lot 7000; and questioned whether they should require them to treat the wall abutting the Caldera property. Rinaldi stated he believes some type of treatment on the freeway side is rather important and likes the idea of at least paint. Commissioner Dawkins stated he just completed a project with 1400 colored and textured blocks, and the blocks he purchased were the same price as the smooth block face. Commissioner Mindlin stated this application came forward with the argument about fire safety, and between the Fire Marshall’s letter and the applicant’s own testimony, it is clear this variance is not for fire safety. She stated it does not seem that the applicant has met the burden of proof in terms of why an 8 foot fence is necessary. Commissioner Blake commented that a 6 foot fence is not a reasonable height limit for these properties along the freeway. He stated there is an added benefit in terms of sound control and stated he is comfortable with an 8 foot fence. Commissioners Blake/Dawkins m/s to approve an increase in height from 6.5 ft to 8 ft and require the material to be at a minimum concrete masonry, and encourage some form of aesthetic treatment. DISCUSSION: Blake stated he is sympathetic to the home owners and noted the taller walls you see in other areas along the freeway are typically built by bigger organizations with greater funding resources. Dawkins stated it is a false premise to state this wall would stop a fire from spreading, but he is sympathetic to the noise abatement. In terms of the material, he recommended the motion be amended to require some sort of textured block. The option of painting the wall was briefly discussed, and Dawkins noted blocks now come in different colors and stated paint would not adhere to the block very well. Comment was made that they could add a condition for all of the home owners to construct the same wall, or at least a certain number of homes in a row to participate. Marsh stated this is unrealistic and people are going to build whatever they want. She stated if they approve something that is a reasonable cost they will have a greater number that participate, but you can’t guarantee what the owners will build. Dawkins stated if they allow them an extra 1.5 feet, he would like some assurance that they don’t all do their own thing. Dawkins made a friendly amendment for the block wall to be textured and colored; Blake agreed to this addition. Rinaldi questioned if they should remove the decorative treatment requirement for the three lots that don’t abut the freeway. Rinaldi made a friendly amendment to exempt the northerly three lots from the texture and color requirements; Blake agreed to this addition. Marsh made a friendly amendment to include the language “or an alternative method for surfacing the wall as approved by staff”; Blake agreed to this addition. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Commissioners Dawkins, Blake, Rinaldi and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 4-1. OTHER BUSINESS A.Pedestrian Places Follow-up. The Commission held a brief follow-up discussion regarding the Pedestrian Places presentation given at their last meeting. Rinaldi asked if they will be prioritizing which locations they want to look at first. Blake commented that this is private property and the property owners are going to determine which develops first, but if there is civic investment that could accelerate one site. In terms of how to proceed, Planning Manager Maria Harris clarified five main suggestions have been presented: 1) Reduce the parking standards, 2) Increase the allowable floor area ratio, 3) Require buildings to be closer to the street, 4) Require a minimum building height, and 5) Revise the landscape area requirements. The Commission briefly discussed various topics, including a history of the setback issue, opportunities at the Shop‘n Kart/BiMart shopping center, and which areas they might want to focus on. Marsh requested they reserve time on the regular meeting agendas for Planning Commission discussion only of items that come up at these joint meetings. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2011 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the special meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Micahel Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Debbie Miller UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Approval of Findings for PA-2011-00319, Oak Knoll Wall Variance. Ex Parte Contact:Commissioner Marsh stated she made a brief house warming visit to one of the houses, but did not go in the backyard or discuss this action. No ex parte contact was reported. Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the options outlined in the Staff Memo for an additional condition #6. He clarified Option 1 requires one continuous wall with the same style along all 11 properties; while Option 2 sets a specific 8 ft. wall design, but allows the properties owners to build it in sections and does not preclude an individual property owner from building a 6.5 ft. fence as allowed by the ordinance. Commissioner Marsh clarified the question before them is not what they believe is the best solution looking back in retrospect, but rather what did they intend to approve when the motion was made. Rinaldi stated it was his understanding that they all understood it was unlikely all 11 property owners would build the same kind of fence, and all of the homes might not utilize the variance. He commented that the best solution would be a continuous wall, but stated this is not what was approved. Marsh agreed with Rinaldi’s recollection. Suggestion was made to amend section 2.5 of the Findings to state “as a result, a condition of approval is included requiring the wall to be constructed with colored and/or textured block. in order to ensure the wall is one cohesive unit which is also aesthetically pleasing”. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman clarified the first person who applies to build an 8 ft. concrete wall will establish the design pattern that the rest of the owners will have to follow. Staff clarified the approval already requires the blocks be painted, textured and earth-toned, so the design options are fairly limited. Mindlin requested staff make sure the property owners are aware that the first wall section sets the precedent that the rest of the owners will have to follow if they want to go up to 8 ft. Commissioners Rinaldi/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-00319 with the addition of Condition #6 option 2, and amending the sentence in section 2.5 as discussed. DISCUSSION: Mindlin questioned section 2.4 and a friendly amendment was requested to change the sentence to read “… an 8 ft tall wall is merited because it is the minimum necessary to abate the noise and will provide a non-combustible physical barrier to the freeway.” Rinaldi and Dawkins agreed to this amendment. Voice Vote on motion as amended: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0. Planning Commission Special Meeting April 26, 2011 Page 1 of 2 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Planning Commission Special Meeting April 26, 2011 Page 2 of 2 m` V °off C _ OU� �7 �6WO U) a�Qooaq O—W»F� CD a° 03 U m LL� m m 2� S n2Q�2 W / C �U a YB M13]3 NJ!NQf NVid 33S h3 o a a W w w n � 'N1n„ZL S �R4 ti & \ 2tj O W o � W 12 2ouWi URN- �3�� 0��� ® 3 p oW x n � z� ✓� 1.'J ti IM ° yy 'N6N„Zl