HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2016-01-05 #2Meeting Date :
Case Numb ers:
Project Planner:
Community Deve lopment Departm ent -P lanning Divi s ion
Age nd a Item :
January 5, 20~6
ED14 -062
Kraig T amb ~ '185 -3092
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 10 E Crescent (Si lva Apartments) -Environmental and Des ign Review Perm it for a new
four-unit apartment building on a vacant 10,394 square foo t re c tangul ar hillside parce l with an
approximate 37-percent upslope from the street; APN : 10-29 1-67; HR1 .8 Zone; Dan Silva,
Applicant/Owner; Wes t End N eig hborhood. Continued from September 9, 2015
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Designation
Project Site: High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Fourth Street
North :
So uth :
East:
West:
Lot Size
Requ ir ed :
Proposed :
Height
Allowed :
Pro posed:
Parking
Required :
Proposed :
Retail Office
Medium Density
6,000
10.398 (exis ting)
30' (Hill side)
28 .5'
8 , (4 covered , 4 uncovered)
8 covered (no guest parking req'd)
M in. Lot Width (New lots)
Required : NA
Prop osed :
Outdoor Area AND Landscape Area
Required : 150s f yard area per uniUmin . 6 ' dim .
50 % front yard land scapi ng
Min 3' side ya rd landscaping by
driveway
Proposed : 150 sf per un iU6 '
>50 % fr ont ya rd
5 ' side ya rd
Zoning Designation
HR1.8
MR3
NA
C/O
MR3
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Existin g Land-Use
Vacant
Multi-Family
. Pub li c Stree t
Multi -te nan t com mercia l
Two-unit build in g
Standard : 60% Lot Coverage
Prop osed : 50%
Residentia l Density
All owed : Min . 3 Ma x. 5 (1 un it per 1800sf site area )
Proposed : 4 units
Upper F loor Area (Non-hillside residential)
Allowed : NA
Proposed : NA
Setbacks
Reguired Existing
Front: 15' nfa
Sid e(s): 5' nfa
Ext. side: nfa nfa
Ped. side: 20 ' nfa
Bldg. sep: 8' nfa
Rear: 5' n/a
Proposed
15'
5'/10 '
nfa
nfa
nfa
33'
Grading Tree Removal
Total : Cu t 460cy, Fill 260cy Tota l(No .lS pecles ): No ne
• Hillside building height is m easured from natural grade to top of roof/struc ture at all paints of th e s tructure . Standard building
heig ht is measured from an establish ed exterior fin ish ed grade e levation to mid-p oint of a sloped roof.
SUMMARY
Th e Design Review Board (DRB) review and recommendation for this project , co nsi sti ng of a multi -
family development on a hill side site , is required pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code
Chapter 25 .050 .040 . The Board 's recom mendation wi ll be forwarded to th e Planning Com mi ssio n.
The development implements th e HR1 .8 zoni ng district and General Plan 2020 land use designation
which a llo ws up to 5 units on the property , and is responsive to the site co nstraints including its location
on E Crescen t close to the Fourth St reet arteria l ro adway, the steeply upslop in g characteristics and lot
shape , situation between parcels wit h sig nifican t differences in grade elevation, and need for protection
of an ad j acent Redwood tree on the neighboring parcel t o th e west.
Co nceptua l review of a proposed five-unit co mpl ex in two buildings was conducted in Jul y 2013 . Forma l
review was co ndu cted on September 29 , 2015 wit h direction for furth er design chang es in response to
comments made by staff, neigh bors and the DRB . The applicant has worked cons ide rably t o respond to
th e physical site co nstra int s, techn ic al requirements , a nd design cr it eria of the City .
Staff req uests t hat the DRB provide its re commendation on t he final revisions presented in response to
the September 29, 2015 co mm ent s , as discussed in this report .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Th e project proposes a two -level bu ilding , co nta in in g four units ove r parking , with a 4 ,996 square foot
building footprint (50 % coverage) and th e following unit typ e s :
Unit A -2-bedroom, 926 sq uare foot unit
Unit B -1-bedroom , 1,030 square foot accessib le unit
Unit C -2-bed ro om , 880 squa re foot unit
Unit D -3-bedroom, 1,646 sq uare foot unit
Th e revised proje ct meets al l required zoning standards : inc ludi ng front , side and rear yard se tb acks ,
wal l stepbacks , outdoor yard area , landscapi ng and parking .
Colors and materials include a mix of stucco and hard i-plank a lo ng the building wa ll s with double pane
viny l or fiberg lass sas h windows , hipped and gable end roof forms , op e n balcony/deck areas ,
conventional ga rag e opening , typical gutter and downspouts and composition sh in gle roo fing . A mi x of
co lor schemes remains proposed for the four unit types with med ium -dark body co lors and lighted
acce nt s for un its A t hrou gh C and mediu m-ligh t body with darke r accen ts f or unit D whi ch is to the rear.
Roof vents and exterior building features h ave been revised to respond to design crite ri a and shown o n
project plans . A color rendering of the bu ild ing and an updated color board wil l be forwarded at the
design review board meeting .
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The project remai ns co nsiste nt w ith th e appl icable Ge neral Plan 2020 high density reside nti al land use
designation , and compat ibl e with the s urr oundin g medium density l and us e designation . The density
rang e for t he site is 3 to 5 units (without grant of a density increase per the State Density Bonus la w).
Ana lysi s of co nceptua l review is limited to applicable design criteria , wh ich are addressed through
review of t he proj ect conformance with th e zo nin g sta nda rd s and des ign criter ia discussed below .
Zon ing Ordinance Consistency :
As noted in t he Project Description and Zo ning Summary Tab le, th e project has been rev ised to meet
or exceed al l appli cab le zoning sta ndard s: inclu din g the H R1.8 District lot coverage, 50 % front yard
landscaping , and 150 sq ua re foot outdoo r yard area with minimum 6 foot di me ns ion s , the Hill side
2
Overlay District (-H) 30 -foot height and 20-foot wall stepback requirements , the Chapter 14 .18 parking
requirements , and the Chapter 14 .25 design review requirement. Below are the applicants responses to
the comments expressed at the design review meeting (9/9/15), followed by staff 's analysis :
1. Provide access to the elevator for all building tenants .
Applicant Response : The purpose of the elevator is primarily to provide accessible transport for a
tenant in the accessible unit from ground level where their garage space is to the living space on the
upper floor. If the elevator is made available to all tenants , the usage will go up substantially which
could cause a higher rate of maintenance problems in the future due to the increased usage and
thereby more potential down time when the elevator is not available for use by the person most needing
its function . Also, if the elevator is made available for use by all ·the tenants , it will need to be of the
commercial variety which is twice as expensive as a residential elevator and requires yearly inspections
by the state .
Staff Comment: Staff agrees with the applicant response .
2. Front elevation needs more articulation and to be more welcoming to the street.
Applicant Response : The front portion of the building has been revised to place the main door entrance
towards the street with an overhang roof over this area . A full porch roof over the door is not possible
due to the setback line and setback restrictions in regards to structural posts being placed in the
setback area . Also the massing has been changed at the front to provide a stepped roof line at the
staircase and change to hip roof to keep the eave line as low as possible . The front deck is now larger
to assist in breaking up the wall plane .
Staff Comment: Staff concludes the revisions respond to this comment.
3. Building should be moved away from uphill neighbor.
Applicant Response : The proposed structure has been shifted 3' further east to be sited farther from the
uphill neighbor (8 ' from the property line with the exception of the garbage enclosure). This shift has
lowered the structure 12" -18" from grade to roof on the uphill side of the lot while slightly increasing
the grade to roof height on the downhill side towards the commercial building to the east.
Staff Comment: Staff concludes the applicant has addressed this comment.
4. Landscape plan should have more detail regarding the numbers of plants proposed.
Applicant Response : The landscape plan has been revised to show the quantities of plants or trees
proposed for each section around the perimeter of the building . Details for planting installation have
been added to the plan . The building has been shifted on the plan to match the civil plans and revised
entry at front of the building . A note has been added regarding the installation of brick edging at the
driveway to add architectural interest to the driveway.
Staff Comment: Staff concludes the applicant has adequately responded to this comment. A reduced
copy of a color rendered plan has been included in the ORB packet.
5. Eliminate uphill side deck due to small size and privacy concerns by neighbor.
Applicant Response : The uphill side deck has been eliminated (west side) from the design .
Compensating open space has been provided through a larger front deck area for this unit.
3
Elimination of thi s deck and th e recess be lo w allowed for back up space from all garages to hav e a
minimum of 26' of back up space . See eng in ee r's drawings for back-up diag ram.
Staff Comment: Staff concludes this com ment has been addressed .
6. Eyebrow vents not considered desirable.
Applicant Resp onse : The eyebrow ve nt s ha ve bee n e liminated eve n though this is the best way to meet
the lo wer attic ventilation requirement in areas where the wi ldland -urban interface f ire regulations
severe ly restrict the use of eave venting . The proposed so lution is to use "V ul ca n" bran d fire rat ed
eave ven t s at the eaves despite th e in crease d material cost for these patented vents . Ridge vent ing
wi ll address the upp er attic venti ng required .
Staff Comment: T he eyebrow vents have been rev ised to provide a better design so lution that
remains compliant with all city requirements .
7. Reduce the number of plumbing and mechanical vents protruding from the roof.
Applicant Response : Chimneys have been added to th e roof for each unit as a meeting point for eac h
unit 's plumbing and mec hani ca l ve nts . Each chimney wi ll co ntain one to two plumbing ve nt stacks and
1 to 2 mec hanic al ve nt stacks . This sho uld reduce th e visual "c lutter" on th e roof.
Staff Comment : Staff conc ludes this comment has been add re ssed .
8. Mix siding at the front elevation.
Appli can t Response : Due to th e number of offsetting s urfaces at the front of th e bu ild ing wit h the
revised design , it seems that cha ngi ng th e siding as we ll wo uld make th e front of th e building lo ok "too
bu sy".
Staff Comment: Sta ff agrees with th e app li cant respo ns e.
9. Increase the existing deck depth to create 6' clea r of usable space on the decks.
App lic an t Response : All of the side decks have bee n in creased to 8' deep by cant il eve rin g over the wa ll
below . Th e f ron t deck has been in creased to 6'-4" de pth to al low fo r 6' clear of usab le s pa ce . All
decks exceed the minimum 150 sq uare feet of open space requirement for eac h uni t.
Staff Comment: This co mm ent ha s been addressed .
10. Suggest using fiberglass windows.
Applicant Response : The plans cur ren tl y no te that fib erg lass or vinyl clad wi nd ows are to be use d.
Staff Comment: This co mm ent is addressed .
11. Look at ways to lower the height of the building through lowe r ing of the garages where
they appear tall.
App li cant Response : The garage height is di ctated by the clearance needed at the driveway area
beyond the ga rage opening , which varies in he ig ht due to th e slope of th e driveway . So me garages are
somewhat high e r than ot hers to allow fo r each apartme nt unit above to be at the same fini sh floor
heig ht w ithin th e unit.
4
Staff Comment: Staff agrees with the applicant response .
12. Allow for roof of building to be solar ready.
Applicant Response : There is a large portion of the roof facing the street and facing south that could
have solar electric roof panels mounted as part of the project now or in the future .
Staff Comment: Staff agrees with the applicant response .
13 . Applicant should consider a wider hallway and stair area.
Applicant Response : The stair case area provides a 4 ' minimum wide staircase with several windows to
keep this area welcoming . The hall is wider than th e 42" required for an accessible hallway .
Staff Comment: Staff accepts this response as adequate .
14. Traffic engineer shall respond to neighbors concerns regarding traffic safety.
Applicant Response : During the development of the driveway layout by the civil engineer, extensive
care was taken in consultation with the department of public works to provide the maximum view
corridor possible for vehicles pulling into and out of the driveway for the project. This project has better
visibility for exiting its driveway than many of the existing properties on this street. Care has been taken
to provide at least 150 feet of visibility in all directions based upon the requirements of department of
public works .
Staff Comment: The Department of Public Works has reviewed and commented on the design of this
project and recommends it adequately responds to site conditions and constraints to the ma ximum
extent possible , in response to traffic safety and visibility concerns . The public works department has
not providing further information on any planned improvements to address neighborhood concerns with
the intersection at Fourth Street.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site , the West End
neighborhood association and posted on-site at lea.st 15 days prior to the meeting . The uphill neighbor
has expressed interest and concern whether his comments have been addressed . Any further written
comments will be forwarded to the Board at the meeting .
CONCLUSION
The project appears to address the comments and concerns raised by the ORB . Staff recommends that
the ORB provide its recommendation on the project to the Planning Commission .
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity map
2 . Applicants response letter
3 . Prior 9/9/15 reduced size plan set
4 . Revised plans including landscape packet and colored exhibit
5
EXHIBIT 2
Kraig Tambornini, planner
City of San Rafael Community Development
Dear Mr. Tambornioi,
RECEIVED
NO~ 7. 52015
PLANNING
November 24, 2015
I wanted to thank you again for meeting with Mr. Silva and I on October 81h to review our
proposed changes to the proposed apartment building at 10 East Crescent. Your feedback
was helpful and the owner and I feel that we have addressed most if not al1 of the
comments expressed regarding the project at the last design review board meeting as well
as comments from you at our most recent meeting with you.
Below are responses to the comments expressed at the design review meeting (919/15).
Also included are responses to your November 12 th request for materials :
1. Provide access to the elevator for all building tenants.
The purpose of the elevator is primarily to provide accessible transport for a tenant in the
accessible unit from ground level where their garage sp ace is to the living space on the
upper floor. If the elevator is made available to all tenants, the usage will go up
substantially which could cause a higher rate of maintenance problems in the future due
to the increased usage and thereby more potential down time when the elevator is not
available for use by the person most needing its function. Also, if the elevator is made
available fo), use by all the tenants, it will need to be of the commercial variety which is
twice as expensive as a residential elevator and requires yearly inspections by the state.
2. Front elevation need s more articulation and to be more welcoming to the street.
The front portion of the building has been revised to place the main door entrance
towards the street with an overhang roof over this area. A full porch roof over the door
is not possible due to the setback line and setback restrictions in regards to structural
posts being placed in the setback area. Also the massing has been changed at the front to
provide a stepped roof line at the staircase and change to hip roof to keep the eave line as
low as possible. The front deck is now larger to assist in breaking up the wall plane .
3. Building should be moved away from uphill neighbor.
The proposed structure has been shifted 3' further east to be sited farther from the uphill
neighbor (8' from the property line with the exception of the garbage enclosure). This
shift has lowered the structure 12" -18" from grade to roof on the uphill side of the lot
while slightly increasing the grade to roof height on the downhill side towards the
commercial building to the east.
202 Web ster Street· Petaluma. CA 949 52 . 707.769.05 35
EXHIBIT 2
Response to ORB Comments from 919/15 meeting regarding 10 E. Crescent-cont. 2
4 . Landscape plan should have more detail regarding the numbers of plants proposed.
The lalldscape plan has been revised to show the quantities of plants or trees proposed for
each section around the perimeter of the building. Details for planting installation have
been added to the plan. The building has been shifted on the plan to match the civil
plans and revised entry at front of the building. A note has been added regarding the
installation of brick edging at the driveway to add architectural interest to the driveway ..
5. Eliminate upbill side deck due to small size and privacy concerns by neighbor.
The uphill side deck has been eliminated (west side) from the design. Compensating
open space has been provided througb a larger front deck area for this unit. Elimination
of this deck and the recess below allowed for back up space from all garages to have a
minimum of 26' of back up space . See engineer's drawings for back-up diagram.
6. Eyebrow vents not considered desirable.
The eyebrow vents have been eliminated even though this is the best way to meet the
lower attic ventilation requirement in areas where the wildland-urban interface fire
regulations severely restrict the use of eave venting. The proposed solution is to use
"Vulcan" brand fire rated eave vents at the eaves despite the increased materiaL cost for
these patented vents. Ridge venting will address the upper attic venting required.
7. Reduce the number of pLumbing and mechanical vents protruding from the roof.
Chimneys have been added to the roof for each unit as a meeting point for each unit's
plumbing and mechanical vents. Each chimney will contain one to two plumbing vent
stacks and 1 to 2 mechanical vent stacks. This should reduce the visual "clutter" on the
roof.
8. Mix siding at the front elevation.
Due to the number of offsetting surfaces at the front of the building with the revised
design, it seems that changing the siding as well would make the front of the building
look "too busy".
202 Webster Street · Petaluma . CA 9 4952' 707.769.0535
EXHIBIT 2
Response to ORB Comments from 9/9/15 m eeting regarding 10 E. Crescent-cont. 3
9. Increase the existing deck depth to create 6' clear of usable space on the decks.
All of the side decks have been increased to 8' deep by cantilevering over the wall below.
The front deck has been increased to 6' -4" depth to allow for 6 ' clear of usable s pace.
All decks exceed the minimum 150 square feet of open space requirement for each unit.
10. Suggest using fiberglass windows.
The plans currently note that fiberglass or vinyl clad windows are to be used.
11. Look at ways to lower the height of the building through lowering of the garages
where they appear tall.
The garage height is dictated by the clearance needed at the driveway area beyond the
garage opening, which varies in height due to the slope of the driveway. Some garages
are so m ew hat higher than others to allow for each apartment unit above to be at the same
finish floor beight within the unit.
12. Allow for roof of I?uilding to be solar ready .
There is a large portion of the roof facing the street and facing south that could have solar
electric roof panels mounted as part of the project now or in the future.
13. Applicant should consider a wider hallway and stair area.
The stair case area provides a 4' minimum wide staircase with several window s to keep
thi s area welcoming. The hall is wider than the 42" required for an accessible hallway .
14. Traffic engineer shall re spond to neighbors concerns regarding traffic safety.
During the development of the driveway layout by the civil engineer, extensive care was
taken in consultation with the department of public works to provide the maximum view
corridor possible for vehicles pulling into and out of the driveway for the project. This
project has better visibility for exiting its drivew ay than many of the existing properties
on this street. Care has been taken to provide at least 150 feet of visibility in all
directions ba se d upon the requirements of department of public works.
202 Webster Street· Petaluma. CA 94952· 707.769.0535
I • EXHIBIT 2
• STUDIO 202
Response to DRB Comments from 9/9/15 meeting regarding 10 E. Crescent-cant. 4
Color renderings fo!' the elevation and landscape plan have been added to the submittal
set in 12" x 18" format. See also color board for proposed exterior paint and roofing
fwishes. A site section (new sheet 12) has been added to show the relationship of the
neighboring properties to the building. The Civil Engineer has revised sheet C-5 to show
more specifically the cut and fill areas.
As you requested , r have included packets for the design review board with pictures and
information regarding all the proposed landscape planting to describe height and size of
plants along with other data about each specific species.
I chose not to bubble the changes to the elevations and floor plans at areas of change
since the last meeting as the drawings would just get too busy as a result. The responses
above adequately describe the areas of change since the last meeting.
Finally, r did revise the deck area notations on sheet 1 to reflect the current deck sizes.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the responses above, please contact Mr.
Silva or myself at you!' earliest convenience. .
Brent 1. Russell, architect
Cc. Dan Sit va
202 Webster Street· Petalu ma. CA 94952 . 707.769.0535
Iii
III
.. ,,_ ...... _""-_."..,... ... -..--
.,....".. "I1l$$'l~·IJ., .. lIlIY -----.,.---............ -ftlO1U1UJ
!II i II III I II . 'I Ii,IIII',j ll i 'I '
',lUll 1111", I! Ii!, "" II d HI 'j'!' II Il' I I I I 'l'l, I' 'l'p'llIll/lIll l '11111111'11 i l!!,f 1111 ! I '" ,j lh lUll ,,' I 1111 ~ Ii II ,. . ,I ...
iilillllllU! ! Iliiiiiiiiiiii ~ll t I .I l! i I·, .. I I····
M
I-
m
I >< W
Lt·t~'Ot N~¥
tIltH V;J "lIVAVlIIlVS"II Q .lH!I;JWltl .I.SV1I,t
S.LN3 W.LlIYdY VA'IS
1
t
I • ~
~
~ ...--.
L!)
oor-
0
N
Q)
I-a..
W
(f) ---I-
W
(f)
Z «
-.J a..
0:::
0 -0::: a..
I
CV')
r--co -I >< W
't'H t'~1 N4 Y ,
Uki M y:)',,,V/l VlI i.!V!''1I Q J,NiCSlOI ::IJ.6'Y li Dl
S~Naw ,I,lIV,1V V,,'IS
,
~
"', ........ _----.,""' ... _'---"'-"1'W11111 I 'I.t"llJ .. -.._-.. _---~~'"'
~ 111 -'L....:l+I-l~h-i I
aHt"il l J\1dV
1Mi'll V:)"lIVIIV H N'V !;''','(J J.J\13 ')S!lH!)JSVII 01
S.LNaw.r.lIVdV VA'TIS
--l!)
I
.. ~~~ } !~JJ !j Hr ti. i !f ," ~ ,.o! . t~\. ~l
}!. I I
{
\ ,
~
j
~ . ,
~!
i~ : I ,
I r ,
1.t;IU"O INflV
I""'" V;) "I1I1I<lVII NV8~lI n J.HX>SlI lI;).LSVlI 01
S.LN:rnlL IfVdV VA'TIS
"'lU'IIl ~4V
'N t ' V:>"IlIV.!IVII NV$'"HaJ.Nll:>!>!nl:J J.SVll 01
S.LNa~.I.~VdV VA"S
I
I
l
I I
~
I ,
("I') I
I,
~ l-I ----l (() -I I >< ,j 'I gf. T W " ~ I
" 3 I k < ~ "' '" I j 7 ~ ~O ~ ~ -'" o:::~
0.. ,-
'" '" ~
I
,
I
M
I-
en
I >< W ~
~ ."
•
I~
l , ~\ 1M
" D
" l " "
~.
1. ~\ ~
" 11' 1 I •
ill-
~l
Jll :
~I J -
!! U
u"l6r 'flJ NI'"
INK '1'3 ".:;/'1''''1'11" HVS k )lQ J.N3:"l Y .... :l.asv3 0'
SLN~WJ.llVdV VA'llS
~
I j
,~
• . I---
I
i
~I ./ '--
I .,'," •• -,"1,~
t
1>
1 • )
~i , -
~
!!;I
0
~ ,.:.
1 ,
i :-
i
"
•
• .. ,
.,
t
I
I
'.
'. ~ ~ '" I " t
I I I • I •
is)
• @l
,-
L()
~
0
N
m
r::: -(f
~
C/) ........
I-
W
C/) ~
~ T • ~
~ ---J ..
~ ~ c
~
"-
0 oJ
-!i'
0:: <:J
-J
a..
---e
~
®
e
\
/
M
I--CO
I
X
W
'."-'" -_ ... -"'_ ...... -.. .. _ ...
..... ~ 'Tl"ASI'Il. '\.tIa1tI
-""'-..... _-_ .. --"-tttOKlIWI
•
i
-'
"'16:"1 NdV
Iot.M v :>'1a YotYII ,,"'VS "1I0J,N1I:>S'AII:>JSr.I I\
SJ.Nal'lJ.lIVdV VA1'S
. '-,'"
.~,
1
I ' ~ . ... •
> \ , I , ' ....
11111.
-@
I
i
"
!
________ -=~ ________ .. -_' ~~~ ____ ~~u ~@L' ____ ~1
I
M
I-
ea -I >< UJ
.. " ............ _ .. --... ..,~ ... '-.-.-..-. 'TDBII."',I,III'UII ,-... ----~ ,.~
=
a -"t"1I 1</""
1000t, ¥:) "l SV.II.VII H'VS ~IIO JirrlII:'IYdll:)Ln'lI "
= =
T
, '" r /
~'
1
1
SJ,N3W.LMVd V VA11S
= =
° o
!'l~ 0 I
I'l ;4 1'\ ! 'I" 1 JL :
f :
~ o I
I
F. -0 I f <
0
(""
0
0
O!
"
0
~!I ,
~~
~=====F===' ~ ,
d -. •
I b _____ --_ ,
: ==-zh __
° ~j
, ' ~ -=-=--, ~---1
~\_,j, 0 1
I
\r 'I " ~ll t. ~1~ h ' ~o.lJ ,
~
:cr
0..
,
---ti> :
_____ -r--_tt
I
i-
" " -J
~
'" >-
"\
•
I
(V')
I-
CO -I
X
UJ
~ '~
II
... ~-. -'. . iL , ....
_.
• "L ~ ..
\ ,
.' ,
o j
/
I
/ .-or
• 1
t II
-.
I
WI't'O I NoI'"
IN ti Y;'''13 VdVll NV S'1Ia .l.N3:)SinO.Li>'VII 01
Sl.I\I3V1l.l lrVlIV Vh'l IS
.'"
g ..,
J ' '" . '"
..
\ OJ ,
'-I
• ,
~ I
,
~ "
~ It. ~ I
g.' ~ ~~ '" '" ';'i I~ ~ V I
" j ' I I • I •
,
--
~II I t <,
;? Ii ~~ I <~ ,r
~ I ·1
~, I , ,
~ • __ ,t:
'\ ~-$,\
r ~ < I~ ,
t
f
r I :"
W ! '" .,
;::
" '" '" .0
-'
•
~ ~I
~
l' ~ !I~ ~~
~ I ···I~~!l .
I . , ,,~
_ . ~i .
~ 'l 'I ~< i ~"
Ei ~l ~
" '" '"
I
I
"
T
i>
Lt-I U"l1 NIl'
I"'" V;)',av .. n InI s"'n J"HlI:>,-,,"'.1$VlI 01
hi ~\,
I
I
SJ."31~~lIV dV V A'n g-
I
.'--<I.
-"':'J:J !
..... c;
H ,
< '-__ I
H·' :mc---;-I-l ~;:ffi;-~~, ~ }
'I i ~ ~ ~ \ '11 ."lI..
!,U ~a..~ 1 1
W
Cf)
'-'"
'j ! .lJ ~ ~ ~
) l' 10 ~ /-1 ~ i 0::::
I ,.
I
~ i
I
I
"I II.
"1 II, Ii
Ilil
J 11 ili I
U"I 6l"OI No/V
106" Y:l '"IlI V~YK NVS'"IIQ .LNlOSlIlI.:l ..L SYli 01
S.LN :mJ,lIV dV V A'IIS
I ,
.--~~----.~--.... -.. -.. --... ---"
il l ~~ III II " ' 1'1' I j Ill, Ililli i ,
I
I
I • il
'I I 'II '
11111 111 l~ill l l l
mIl . !
---,---
III( ! III ~,~l ". 'III
1II1 II1I 1.1 j I I'
11111 Jill J .~~ 11111 1 Ilill
J . ~ , Iii
11't = I ~ill ~ llilll +i '
...-
L()
~ a
N
m
~ a..
UJ
CJ) --~
UJ
CJ)
z «
....J a..
0::: o
0::: a..
