Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2019 9:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190044 Address: 201 S. College Ave. Owner: Fort Collins Museum of Art Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano, DaVinci Sign Systems Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.1[G][3][a]; 3.8.7.2[G][1]; 3.8.7.2[G][2] Project Description: This is a request to build an additional primary freestanding monument style sign at 201 S College Ave. This building is in the (D) Downtown district and would require the following 3 variances: 1) Exceed the limit of 1 primary sign allowed per frontage. The proposed sign would be the third freestanding sign. 2) Exceed the height limit of 7 feet when setback 0 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is 11 feet tall setback 0 feet. 3) Allow an animated/wind driven design, such designs are prohibited. The proposed sign contains a "spinning" wind driven element. • OTHER BUSINESS 2020 ZBA Work Plan • ADJOURNMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve the September 12, 2019 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously, Long abstained from the vote. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) – None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190039 – APPROVED Address: 806 W. Mulberry Street Owner/Petitioner: Kevin Dewlen Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3); 4.8(D)(3); 4.8(F)(1)(c) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building (garage with carport). The request requires the following three variances: 1) Allow an accessory building to encroach 7.29 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. 2) Allow the floor area in the rear half of the lot to total 1,062 square feet, the maximum allowed floor area is 907.5 square feet. 3) Allow an accessory building to be 1.12 feet less than the required 10 foot minimum front setback, greater than the front setback of the principle building. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the primary structure was built in 1939. The proposal is for a single story garage with a carport along the side. This property faces Mulberry, therefore the rear setback is the property line to the north, requiring a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 October 10, 2019 15 foot setback. The joining neighbor only has a 5 foot setback from the shared property line as it is their side yard. There is an alley located along the west property line. To ensure an accessory building is not the focal point of the property, an additional 10 foot buffer is required from the primary structure. This proposed garage is not meeting that setback by 1.12 feet. Also, because this is a smaller parcel that was split the long way of the rectangle, the majority of the house already sits in the rear half of the lot. The additional floor area being requested does not exceed the overall lot square footage, just the rear half. There is an existing shed that did not previously require a permit due to it’s size, and therefore is not counted toward the floor area. Applicant Presentation: Kevin Dewlen, 806 W. Mulberry Street, addressed the board. He stated this is a unique lot with the east/west orientation but with the address facing Mulberry. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Boardmember Long stated this is a unique lot that lacks depth after being subdivided. It impairs the owner’s ability to do much of anything within code. Shields agreed, and liked how the applicant put the accessory building to the neighboring side, opening up the lot. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve ZBA190039 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to public good, the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area of the lot overall, the subdivision resulted in a shallow parcel, the abutting property to the north is allowed a 5 foot setback from the shared property line and the proposed structure takes vehicle access from the alley. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 and a strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. 2. APPEAL ZBA190040 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 310 N. Mason Street Owner: Rich Mark Petitioner: Chad Hartoin Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(E) Table C Project Description: The variance request is to allow window signs to exceed the permitted area a sign can cover in a window and to exceed the allowed overall height sign. The request proposes to cover 100% of the 2 sections of windows in vinyl signage when the code allows only allows up to 50% coverage. Additionally, a window sign cannot exceed 7 feet in height, the proposed signs are an additional 2 feet 3 inches taller sign than the maximum sign height. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property recently developed in 2014. Current sign code limits the percentage of window area that can be occupied by a sign. One window area is defined as the space between architectural features, a window area is not broken up by the small mullions. Currently at this location, 100% of the window area is covered in signage. The two variances that are needed are the percentage of sign covering the window and the sign height. To come into compliance, they would need to reduce the sign area to 50% and reduce the height of the sign to 7 feet. The signs are already in place, the applicant did not realize they needed a permit for the signage. Boardmember McCoy asked if window signs are separate from building signs in term of allowable square footage. Beals confirmed both count towards the allowable square footage for the building and Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 October 10, 2019 the applicant would still be in compliance as they have 2 frontages and quite a bit of allowable sign square footage. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned the colored stripes and black area towards the bottom of the window. Beals confirmed those are included in the sign area. Boardmember Meyer asked if they removed just the black and colored stripes at the bottom and the top above the mullion, would that be 50% of the signage. Beals explained if they took one side out and shorten the sign height they might be within the 50%. The height limit would still be an issue. Boardmember Shuff, inquired as to what defines signage, if that has to be text or imagery. Beals clarified signage can be anything that is used to market your brand. In this case they are advertising a lifestyle, when it’s something that is part of the marketing campaign, then it’s part of the signage. Applicant Presentation: Chad Hartoin, 310 N. Mason Street, addressed the board. Mr. Hartoin asked what the difference is between taking down half the signs versus just the stripes and bottom area. These are multi-purpose signs, and they allow for privacy while people can still look outside. Lucy Skrobacz addressed the board, explaining the window wraps are in place to address privacy issues because from outside you can see into the residential area. This is a common area where amenities are located and they hold resident events here. The colors were chosen to match the color scheme of the building. They are willing to remove the top or bottom portion of the sign to help come into compliance with code. Vice Chair LaMastra explained that typically when you apply for a variance there are justification reasons listed. This application stated this variance does not diverge except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LaMastra would like explanation as to how this is the case when the percentage of signage on the window should be 50% coverage, but is currently 100%. Ms. Skrobacz replied that this is adding to the lifestyle of the community and the neighborhood. LaMastra clarified the board is not here to look at their marketing, they have to focus on the code requirements. Ms. Skrobacz explained that previously there was a misunderstanding as they believed the coverage was 50% of the total public facing windows (not including resident windows) could have signage. Beals clarified that is not how the code is applied. The code is applied to a distinct window area, as distinguished by significant architectural features. Within that area, up to 50% can be signage. The advertiser doesn’t have the option to take percentages from all different window areas. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this seems like a minor infraction compared to many of the businesses along College Avenue. Window sign code is challenging and this is an attractive looking sign. Beals stated merchandise is allowed to be displayed 3 feet behind a window and does not count as a sign, Also, this signage would not be considered a banner. Vice Chair LaMastra emphasized the board’s focus on the code and requested measurements of the signage. Ms. Skrobacz replied the height of the image portion of the sign is 71.75 inches, the bottom portion with colored stripes and black panel is 2.5 feet in height and the top small windowpane is 11.25 inches. LaMastra estimated this would be approximately 40% of the sign, which would then be nominal and inconsequential. There is no hardship, and this isn’t equal or better than the code. Boardmember Meyer stated the black bottom panel and colored stripes do not seem to tie into the signage. Removing the top or bottom sections would not affect the privacy and would seem nominal and inconsequential. Ms. Skrobacz explained the colored stripes, stating The Flats have three communities: Mason Street Flats, Old Town Flats, and Max Flats. Each community has their own color scheme and also tie into each other. Boardmember Long stated the signs are tasteful, but that is not why we are here, we need to focus on the square footage. This signage is already installed. We tend to have strict adherence to the sign code because it makes Fort Collins unique. He cannot approve a 50% increase even though this is a tasteful sign. There are other solutions to the problem without approving this appeal as it is proposed. Discussion regarding the motion language and whether they specify square footage or percentage. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA190040 with the condition that on all 4 panes the portion of the sign above the top mullion and below the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 October 10, 2019 bottom mullion (the sky and the black with the three stripes) are removed from the window. We find this supports the Land Use Code, and does not diverge except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Boardmember Long questioned the condition, asking if the applicant is allowed to make the bottom portion a spandrel window and if it can be black or clear. Boardmember Shuff stated if they remove the signage the applicant can choose to make that a spandrel window as more of an architectural element rather than a signage element. Beals confirmed the applicant can choose to do something else at the bottom. Beals would need to confirm if there are any transparency requirements per the Land Use Code separate from the sign code. There are also some limitations on spandrel glass with architectural design standards. Another option is to place blinds or a sunshade in the window as long as there is not signage printed on the window side of the blind. The variance is only for these two window areas. They can also shrink the design as a whole to still include the color stripes on the bottom. The signage can also be changed out for other images for the life of the property. Boardmember Stockover stated if the windows were blacked out, then 100% of the windows would be covered again. Beals clarified if the windows are blacked out we would need additional information on what was used to cover the window. If that meets the definition of a sign, or is out of compliance with other Land Use Code standards, then it would be addressed accordingly. Boardmember Meyer argued that the bottom row being spandrel glass would be part of the window assembly as a whole. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. 3. APPEAL ZBA190041 –TABLED to the end of the hearing, waiting for the applicant to arrive. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to table ZBA190041 to the end of the hearing. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none. 4. APPEAL ZBA190042 – APPROVED Address: 4030 Big Dipper Drive Owner/Petitioner: Tyler Shurigar Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a 192 square foot accessory building to be built 12 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback. A similar variance request was approved in 2015 but expired after 6 months. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting some members might remember this item from 2015. This property is zoned U-E and has a larger setback than most districts. The structure would be placed just north of the house. Multiple drainage easements are present on the property and the City’s storm water department has approved the placement of this accessory building. This was a condition of the last approval as well. Applicant Presentation: Tyler Shurigar, 4030 Big Dipper Drive, addressed the board. In addition to the staff presentation, he would like to board to know when this was previously presented 2015, they were also discussing the construction of a 4 foot high retaining wall. The retaining wall has now been built and the shed would be behind the wall as to not interfere with the existing drainage. Boardmember McCoy requested clarification on the location of the front door. Mr. Shurigar confirmed that is on the west side of the property along shared access. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 October 10, 2019 Boardmember Long commented he was present in 2015 when this was originally approved. Also, there are not a lot of opportunities on this lot to move the structure and there are no neighbor comments. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve ZBA190042 for the following reasons: the appeal is not detrimental to public good, the typical half lots in the U-E zone do not include additional stormwater infrastructure outside of drainage, the primary structure was built closer to rear of the property than the front of the property, the existing grade increases the difficulty in finding a suitable location for an accessory building; therefore the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. ***Secretary’s note: 10 minute break as the applicant for ZBA190041 had not yet arrived*** 3. APPEAL ZBA190041 – TABLED Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to table ZBA190041 to a future hearing. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none. • OTHER BUSINESS This month is the board and commission dinner, please RSVP by the 23P rd P. Next month’s meeting we will be starting at 8:30 a.m., but we will be spending the first hour with our council liaison having breakfast until 9:30a.m. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. Please submit the requested survey to us if you have not already. ***Secretary’s note: the applicant for ZBA190041 arrived at Council Chambers*** 3. APPEAL ZBA190041 – DENIED Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to un-table ZBA190041 with the applicant now present. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none Address: 1201 W. Plum Street Owner: Plum Street CO Owners LLC Petitioner: Timothy Eunice Zoning District: C-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B Project Description: The variance request is to allow 5 existing non-conforming flush wall sign cabinets to be replaced with new cabinets, the maximum allowed is 1. The proposed replacement signs are 3.5 feet, the maximum height allowed is 1.5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting it was redeveloped in 2014 with 194 dwelling units in a 5-story building. The property and building are both L-shaped. Previous signs on the building were approved prior to the latest sign code update. In this zone district, only one wall sign is allowed and it must be on the wall with street frontage, in this case that would be on West Plum Street. Currently, there are at least 2 signs along West Plum and another sign on each side of the building. The code also limits the size of the sign to 1.5 feet and the existing sign cabinets exceed this limit. Since these are legal non-conforming signs, the owner does have the option to reface the signs without a variance. In this case they are requesting to remove the non- conforming signs in their entirety and put up new signs. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 October 10, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked how sign code addresses sign height when it’s located on the side of a tall building and how the sign is legible from such a far distance. Beals referred to a picture and explained the lettering on these banners are about a foot and a half in height and they are still legible. The sign code limits this zone specifically for this type of use as it’s more residential than commercial. Boardmember Meyer questioned the existing signs and asked if they met sign code when constructed. Beals confirmed this was the case, but the new sign code was adopted almost a year ago. Meyer would like to know the difference between replacing the sign cabinet versus refacing the sign. Beals explained the cabinet of the sign includes the entire structure, and if someone chooses to take down the non-conforming sign, they do not have the opportunity to replace it with something new. If something new is put up it needs to be in compliance with current code. If you keep the structure of the non-conforming sign, then they could just replace the face of the structure, where the logo or marketing piece is located. Applicant Presentation: Timothy Eunice, with the Visual Edge Signs and Design in Centennial, addressed the board. There are currently 5 signs, the proposal is not to remove the chasse of the sign, but to modify a face to fit on the existing chasse. It would be no taller and no wider than what is already in place. Beals explained the existing signs have a unique shape and the new proposal would be going to a rectangular shape which would alter the structure of the sign. Non-conforming signs need to maintain the same shape and size. The 2 signs are generally the same size, but a different shape. Mr. Eunice stated the local almost diamond-like shape is part of the previous company’s branding, and cannot be reused. Union is a rectangular logo and the new sign would make a rectangle out of that current shape. They will not touch the base plate that is already in place, just mount a new rectangle on top of it. Vice Chair LaMastra stated this is ultimately adding square footage to a non-conforming sign. Boardmember Stockover requested the dimensions of current sign. Mr. Eunice confirmed the center of the current diamond shaped sign is 42 inches tall and the bottom corners will add another 6 inches down on each end. Therefore, adding over 4 square feet per sign. Boardmember Long reviewed the documents submitted for this variance which depicts a new rectangular box, with an X manually drawn through it, with the sign to be redesigned to fit the existing sign chasse. There are no plans provided for the new sign. Mr. Eunice stated the engineering wasn’t going to be done unless the variance was approved. It will be a piece of aluminum cut to make up for the bare spots, attached to the existing sign chasse, then the light panel attached on top and exterior cabinet chasse attached on top of that. Boardmember Stockover stated that they are overhanging the existing base plate on the corners. Mr. Eunice confirmed that is the case, and they are providing additional backing so there is no light leakage. Mr. Eunice stated 1.5 feet at 6 stories up is not visible to anybody. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra recognized the size issue at a distance, but this is also quantity. This becomes two issues: the number of signs and the logo itself. Trying to push this across 5 signs is not nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Long stated if a business is lucky enough to have this non-conforming signage, then they can design their sign face within those constraints. He is not inclined to approve this variance even with adequate plans, let alone without. Strict adherence to the Fort Collins sign code is a significant characteristic of our town compared to those around us. The only party that doesn’t like the sign code is the entity applying for the sign. Vice Chair LaMastra would recommend denial as presented. Boardmember discussion regarding painting the sign structure the color of the building versus the structural alteration of the cabinet. Boardmember Shuff stated to work within the current cabinet would be challenging, but there is an avenue to do that, and he cannot support the larger sign. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to deny ZBA190041 for the following reasons: an increase of 4 additional signs when the max is 1 is not nominal or Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 October 10, 2019 inconsequential as the appearance of sign clutter increases, insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard, a nonconforming sign can be refaced, insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. Boardmember Stockover commented he has moved his adult daughters often and he has never looked at a sign on a multi-family residential building. He uses online searches and reviews of the complex, awareness is now via computers not signs. Fort Collins sign code is very important, and he is concerned with this work-around of keeping the original sign structure. A work around should be bringing the sign into compliance. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED. • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 14, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190044 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 201 S. College Ave. Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano, DaVinci Sign Systems Owner: Fort Collins Museum of Art Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.1[G][3][a]; 3.8.7.2[G][1]; 3.8.7.2[G][2] Variance Request: This is a request to build an additional primary freestanding monument style sign at 201 S College Ave. This building is in the (D) Downtown district and would require the following 3 variances: 1) Exceed the limit of 1 primary sign allowed per frontage. The proposed sign would be the third freestanding sign. 2) Exceed the height limit of 7 feet when setback 0 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is 11 feet tall setback 0 feet. 3) Allow an animated/wind driven design, such designs are prohibited. The proposed sign contains a "spinning" wind driven element. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is in the Downtown sign district. This district limits the number of freestanding signs to one per street frontage to a public right-of-way. In general, all sign standards are to prevent the proliferation of signs. Currently the property has two freestanding signs and only has frontage on S. College Ave. There is a tenant directory freestanding sign on the east side and there is an Agave leaf that was originally installed as art but was found to also be a sign. A sign permit was issued for each. The maximum height of a sign is determined by both its setback from the public right-of-way and the overall square footage of the sign. These dimensions help signs to provide the necessary information without become a distraction. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The existing number of freestanding signs exceeds the standard by 100%. • One of the current freestanding signs could be redesigned. • Animated signs are prohibited City wide and are found to be distracting at any size. • Insufficient evidence has been provided to determine if the proposal is not detrimental to the public good. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA190044. Larimer County Web Map This map was created by Larimer County GIS using data from multiple sources for informal purposes only. This map may not reflect recent updates prior to the date of printing. Larimer County makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the Date Prepared: 9/30/2019 1:48:06 PM completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented. 0.0 0.0 Miles 600 0 Legend 1: Notes Scale Addresses Subdivisions Platted Blocks Platted Blocks Buildings Garages Tax Parcels Platted Lots Recorded Dimensions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he Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will meet on the second Thursday of every month, providing that there are discussion items appearing on the regular monthly agenda. The Board may also meet as needed in order to convene special meetings. The primary purpose of the meetings will be to hear and decide appeals of certain administrative decisions made by City staff and to authorize variances from the requirements of the Land Use Code. It is estimated that the Board will consider approximately 50 variance requests in 2020. The Board will review proposed Land Use Code revisions that may be necessary as the City continues refinement of the Code through the annual code update ordinance and will also explore updating the By-Laws for the Zoning Board of Appeals. No other special projects or issues are anticipated at this time.  )257&2//,16&2 6&2//(*($9( &RS\ULJKW'D9LQFL6LJQ6\VWHPV &RS\ULJKW'D9LQFL6LJQ6\VWHPV &RS\ULJKW'D9LQFL6LJQ6\VWHPV ¶´ ´´ k$/80,180647)5$0(6.,11(' :,7+k$/80,180$//),1,6+(' %/$&. kSROLVKHGDOXPLQXPIFROHWWHUV VWXGPRXQWkRIIEDFNJURXQG URWDWLQJDOXPLQXPSDQHOILQLVKHG EODFNZLWKVWVXUIDFHRSDTXH ZKLWHPILOPJUDSKLFV ERWWRPRIOHWWHUWRKDYHk SODWHZLWKDQFKRUEROWV $%29(*5$'(&21&5(7( )227,1* ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´¶´¶´ ¶´ 237,21$/6,=(/$<287 &21&(378$/3/$&(0(179,(:2)352326('6,*1$*( 237,21$/&2/25/$<2876 6)121,//80,1$7('(175<6,*16&$/(´ ¶´ $ 48$17,7<0$18)$&785($1',167$// ¶´ ¶´¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´¶´¶´ ¶´ )D[   'HQYHU0HWUR   '(19(5 0(752 &+$0%(5 2) &200(5&( :25/'6,*1$662&,$7(6 ZZZGDYLQFLVLJQFRP &KH\HQQH:\RPLQJ   &RS\ULJKW 'D9LQFL6LJQ6\VWHPV