Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-12-1984AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran,
Ed Schaffer.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held
May 8, 1984.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow Expansion
of a Non -conforming Use in an R-1 Zone, Applicant -
Phil Ritze.
7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Build a
4-plex in an R-2 Zone, Applicant - Tom Chock.
8:04 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow
Outdoor Sales and Outdoor Storage in a B-3 Zone,
Applicant - Martin's Farm Service.
8:19 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Erect a Larger
Pylon Sign than the Maximum Sign Square Footage Allowed,
Applicant - First National Bank.
Additional Information Items
8:34 P.M. 1. Previously Tabled Variance Request to Allow No Curbing
in Certain Arcao of Parking Lot, Applicanto - Jay Morrell
and John Plaisted.
8:49 P.M. 2. Planning Commisoion Diacuesion - Allowing Apartmento in
a B-4 Zone.
9:04 P.M. 3. Set next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission for July 10, 1984, 7.30 P.M.
9:19 P.M. 4. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - Ma4TICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
May 8, 1984 - 700 P.M.
Members Present, Jim Ridgeway, Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffor,
Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present, Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway, at 7,30 P.M.
Motion by Richard Carlson, aecondud by Ed Schaffer, to approve the
April 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting minutes.
3. Public Hoarinq - Variance Rosuest to Allow Inns than Minimum tut Square
Footago Allowed for a 12 -unit Apartment Bulldinq. Applicant - Bill Murphv.
Bill Murphy wan preeent to dincuoo hie proposal with Planning Commission
memboro to build a 12 -unit apartment building. The apart-saent building
would have eight 2-bodroom unite and four 1-bodroom unita . Mr. Murphy
is requesting an 830 aq. ft. variance to build eight 2-bodroem unite
and four 1 -bedroom unite. But be would comply with the square footage
requirements if he built oix 2-bodroom unito and six 1 -bo droom unite.
Chairman Ridgeway opened the public tearing for public input. Mr.
Dan Doran quoutionod on the parking requiremonto and would like to can
that the 12 -unit apartment building conforms to the square footage
roquiromontn, therefore, having oix 2-bodroom units and oix 1-bodroom
units. Zoning Adminiatrator Andoraon anowored Mr. Doran' a quootion
on the parking rcquircrenta toying that a 12 -unit apartmo nt building
in to have 24 total parking apaceo with aix of them being oncl000d,
which would moan oix garage apacco and 18 open spaces for the on -cite,
off-atrcot parking roquiroments. Karen Hannon, neighbor to the prop000d
apartment building cite, quoutionod so to the traffic that would come
in and go out of the apartment building, noting that the street pact
her place is not a through atrcot. They would have to go back out and
around tho block to got back acreoa the railroad tracks. She aloo
quootionod on City storm cower utilities, if they would be cufficiont
Giro to handle increa.-od water runoff. Zoning Administrator Andaraon
countered with the City storm cower projoct,whon it wan put in with
the curb and guttor,wao co docignod to allow for complete dovolopment
of all the Iota in the area. ?..%in lot, being a vacant, unimproved lot,
would not need much uurfacu water drainage at thio time bpOcauee moot
of it would filter through the oxiating ground. with an apartment
building and a hard surfaced parking lot, we aro going to have a
significant incroaco in water runoff. All the water that would row
off the building and/or parking lot would be so directed to run out
onto the City atrcot which would go dam the curbing to otorm cower
water catch basin. Mr. Ron Potura, another neighbor around the
D
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/8/84
affected prospective 12 -unit apartment building, questioned as to
the typo of people, the age group of people, Mr. Murphy would rent
to, the type of construction, grade and quality of the apartment
building. Mr. Peters had no objection to an apartment building
in there as long as like the current Ridgemont Apartments, when they
wore built, had some problems and now the problems have been fully
addressed. It was a very nice neighborhood out there and now the
problems have been resolved, and he would like to see plans of the
types of construction, grade, and quality of this apartment building.
Mr. Murphy showed Mr. Peters and explained briefly to him the type
of construction that he is proposing for his 12 -unit apartment
building and also answered Mr. Peters question that he would be
renting to all different ago groups. Edna Katilinek, another
concerned citizen, questioned as to the playing area for the kids
in the proposed apartment building. Mr. Murphy countered that there
would be a small swingsot put up there for the apartment building
if it were rented to couples with children.
Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to deny the variance
request of 830 sq. ft. for less than the minimum amount of square
footage required for a 12 -unit apartment building. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow no Curbino in Certain Areas
of Parking Lot, Applicants - John Plaisted, .lay Morrell.
Jay Morrell and John Plaiated were not present at the meeting and
had not submitted to Zoning Administrator Anderson their proposed
areae where they would like the variance to not have the concrete
curbing. Zoning Administrator Anderson tried to point out to Planning
Commiosion members what he thought were the areas that they were looking
at for no curb Lig, but with no definite plane oubmittod whore they would
like no curbing in the parking lot, motion by Joyce Dowlinil, sucundud
by Don Cochran, to table the variance request. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Simple Subdivision Request - Tom Chock.
Mr. Tom Chock was not present to propoco his aimplo oubdivioion request
to Planning Commission members. Zoning Adminiatrator Anderson indicated
to Planning Commission membera that the plot plan as presented was
pretty much self explanatory as to Mr. Chock's request. Mr. Chock was
requesting to oubdivido a residential 66 ft. lot in half with half going
to an existing 4-plox and the other half going to another existing lot,
66 x 165 for a proposed now 4-plox building. Commission members quoationed
Anderson as to whether the 4-plex would meet the cetbacka and other
coning roquiremento. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that
it would. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlcon, to approve
the aimplo oubdivioion requeaL. Motiun carried unanimously.
19-eln
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/8/84
G. Information Planning Commission Discussion to Hear a Rezoning Request
to Rezone from R-2 to R-3, Applicant - Gordon Link.
Mr. Bill Link, son of Gordon Link, was present to present his proposal
for rezoning of residential lots from R-2 to R-3. The reason for
requesting the rezoning is that he would like to build an 8-plex on
these existing vacant lots. Commission members had several questions
for Mr. Link, one being how soon he would like to got started with
his project should rezoning take place. Mr. Link countered he would
like to start construction yet in 1980, with a lot depending on how
soon the rezoning would take place if approved. Mr. Link also indicated
that the proposed 8-plex would meet all the setback requirements and parking
requirements for a proposed 8 -unit apartment building should it be
rezoned. Commission members asked Mr. Link if it would be possible
for him to wait for another couple of months for the now Comprehensive
Plan to be adopted, which would address some possible rezoning which
might be his area. Mr. Link questioned as to a definite time table
when we thought that this might take place. which is very questionable.
It could be as soon as the end of August and it may be at a later date.
Commission membo rs felt if Mr. Link could not wait for the rezoning
to take place possibly with the new Comprehensive Plan that he should
go out and talk with the neighbors that would be affected by his rezoning,
not just in the block in which the subject property is but in adjoining
blocks adjacent to his proposed apartment building site. if he got
a favorable response from the neighbors in the adjoining blocks of the
subject property, they would look at having a public hearing
after Mr. Link had done hie talking to the affected naighbora.
7. Informal Pldnninq Commission Diacuseion - Proposed Variance, Request,
Applicant - Phil Ritze.
Mr. Phil Ritze wan present to diacuoa his proposed variance request
to allow him to build a 40 It. x 72 ft. atorago garage on his fathor'o
property just coat of hie Dad'o existing garage. In doing no, it
would be a colored building, which the colors would reflect the
adjoining proportico. It would also be landscaped with decorative
rock and now troeo would be planted to kind of blend thio now building
In with the existing landocaping of the area. Mr. Ritze indicated that
all construction machinery that is exioting outoido, old iron, and
old ocmi trailara, would be removed and the cite would be entirely
cleaned up from what it In right now. Ilia ocmi tractors would be the
only thingo stored In the building other than other mieeelloncouo
equipment and/or material that Mr. Ritzo hao. The aomi truck tractoro
aro the only thinga that would be coming and going out of the now
proposed building . There would not be semi trailoro coming and going
out of tlmre. The only time the semi trailoro would be there io if
uuod to fix on a trailer and would only he there for a temporary
period of time. Caamiouion mtxnboro indicated to Mr. Ritzo that one
O -P
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/8/84
problem with his proposed site is that it is R-1 zoning and it does
not allow additional garages within an R-1 area. The proposed site
on which Mr. Ritze would like to build his garage is on his Dad's
site, which was grandfathered in when the R-1 Comprehensive
Plan zoning took place. Commission members felt Mr. Ritze's proposal
for his variance request would definitely be an improvement to the
area. Commission members would like to get public input into that.
Therefore, they asked Mr. Ritze if he would be willing to speak to
his neighbors prior to having a public hearing hold for his variance
request. Mr. Ritze indicated he would talk with all the neighbors
that would be affected in his area and do so before a public hearing
would be hold. Commission members asked Zoning Administrator Anderson
to check into the legality of the proposed variance with City Attorney
Gary Pringle. Anderson countered that he would check with Mr. Pringle
and have something back to them before the next Planning Commission
meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Don Cochran to set the next
tentatively scheduled Planning Commission meeting date for Tuesday,
June 12, 1984, at 700 P.M.
Discussion was than hold to determine a tentative data for Planning
Commission review of the now Comprehensive Plan. It was agreed by
Planning Commiasion members that a tentative data be sot up for
Wednesday, May 16, at 6:30 A.M. Motion by Cd Schaffer, seconded by
Don Cochran, to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary J0ua oon
Zoning Administrator
J
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/12/84
3. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow Expansion of a Non -conforming
Use in an R-1 Zone, Applicant - Phil Ritze. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ritze is back before you with a public hearing to be held now
on his request to allow him to build a storage building/garage to
store his two trucks, which he currently uses in his trucking business.
Mr. Ritze has been cleaning up the existing site where the proposed
new building is to be built, and also he is cleaning up the site
adjacent to that which his father, Mr. Charles Ritze, currently owns.
In doing so, he hopes to have all of the existing blighted old
construction equipment, trailers, trees and debris removed in the
upcoming weeks. The proposed building would be set back in along
the trees and would be obscured from public vision except in late
fall and winter months on the north side and the oast side and the
southeast portions of the building, with tho only sides exposed being
the west side and the southwest corners of the building. Mr. Ritze's
proposed building is to be a pull type construction with colored steel
exterior with trees and shrubbery planned to go in the front portion
of the building to make it blend as much as possible into the original
setting. City staff is currently awaiting the City Attorney's opinion
on allowing a non -conforming use to be expanded. City Administrator
Thomas Eidem will be meeting with City Attomoy Gary Pringle on Friday
afternoon at 400, with the results of their discussion coming back
to you in the form of a hand -delivered Planning Commission supplement
on Monday morning previous to the Tuesday night Planning Commission
meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Variance Request to allow expansion of a non -conforming
use in an R-1 Zone.
2. Deny the Variance Request to allow cxpanoion of a non -conforming
use in an R-1 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMEBATIONi
Staff rccoazcndo going along with City Attorney Gary Prirrllo'o decision
in regard to granting a Varianco to Mr. Kitzo. Ono thing City staff is
very coutieua about in wo would like to coo unusual roqueata like this
lookod at as cage examples, and that only, and addr000ing that in the
now ordinance adoption coming forth in the now Comprohenoivo Plan. 1
coo no problem with Mr. Ritzo'a request to put up the building in the
arca aesthetically. We fool it would blend very well with the neighborhood
out there. We are pretty much rolying on City Attorney Gary Prioglo'o
opinion on this matter.
P. SUPPORTING DATAs
Copy of the proposed location of the propucad expansion of a non -conforming
use in an R-1 Zonci Copy of the Oita planr Picture to be presented at the
Tuanday night Planning Commission mating.
MW
TO: Planning Commission Members
YRO/a Gary Anderson
RE: Phil Ritze's Project
DATE: June 11, 1986
Tom Eidem, City Administrator, met with City Attorney Gary Pringle
this afternoon. They have came up with probably the only alternative
to Mr. Ritze's request. We acknowledge the proposal that Mr. Ritze
is proposing. we see no problem with his request to build the
building. But according to our ordinance, it simply isn't allowed
anywhere within our ordinance and there is no way around it except
the following: to have Mr. Ritze's father, Charles Ritze, be the
applicant. The variance request would be to build an accessory
building in excdon of 1,000 sq. ft. with the information received
from Mr. Phil Ritze that the building is to be used for an accessory
building only for storage of recreational vehicles, accessory items,
and so forth, oven though right now we know that Mr. Ritze intends
to put his two semi -tractors in there along with other recreational
items. But knowing the information to be provided to us will be for
an accesoory building to be used for storage of accessory items,
recreational vehicloo, lawn aware, and so forth: therefore, if
something d000 come back to us on that, the application for the Variance
that was approved would be for the accessory building only for atorago
of accessory items. If there is no public opposition at the Planning
Commiacion mooting on Tuosday night, it is of the City Attorney's
opinion that there would be no problem in granting the Variance with
no uppooitlon from the public. If there is some definite oppooition
to Mr. Ritxo'e proposal, it would than not be allowed at all. Or if
you do fool uncomfortable with the public hearing that was hold for
expansion of a non-centorming use, you could call for another public
hearing to allow an accossory building to be built in excoos of 1,000
eq. ft. at the next July Planning Commission meeting.
Uary indorcon
Zoning Administrator
' n
emAm
t ZAA%C
r
r ` 1
�- SSD' 3oa 54op 1
z Z -
t V
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/12/84
v 4. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Build a 4-plex in an
R-2 Zone, Applicant - Tom Chock. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Chock is proposing to build a 4-plex in an R-1 Zone. A 4-plex
or 4 -unit apartment building is only allowed as a Conditional Use
in an R-2 Zone. In an attached site plan, Mr. Chock does meet the
setbacks as required by Ordinance in an R-2 Zoning. The units
proposed would be all 2 -bedroom units with detached single -car
garages.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow a 4-plex or 4 -unit
apartment building in an R-2 Zone.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow a 4-plex or a 4 -unit
apartment building in an R-2 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
City staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Request to build
a 4 -unit apartment building in an R-2 Zone.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the proposed 4-plex or 4 -unit apartment
building: Copy of the site plan of the proposed 4 -plexi Picture to ba
presented at the Tuesday night Planning Conunisaion meeting showing the
location of the proposed 4-plex.
- 2 -
IIER1411 NLMR
..ECAC
I BLOCK ADDITIOLO
iCRJPTION -,--.r2 _A01 J�glR-470L
4. ry. CW SITE AREA 11,2335 W. fl. OF AREA OCLLPIEO BY WILDING -
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
itis roftm NEED NOV CC lJ3tO MXM PLOT PLAMS DRAWN TO SCALA ARC IILCD WITH THE PCQMIT AFPL.IC.TlO..
"OR MCV
1. OUILCINGS. PROVIOC lrMZ FOLLOWING I: ,
rOR"Ajjomj LOCATION Or PROPOBCD CONSTRUCTION "0 CX I STIUM
l.PftovC.CMlFO; ... :"OW 6111LO.. SIT. AND C' .1. W1151OW3. SHOW CASHtNT3. r1413W CONTOURS 00 OPAINAAC.
1051 FLOOR
TOO"ll A GTRCCT CLCVAIIO" AMO $CWCQ CLCVATIO.. %HOW LOCATIOR or WAFER, 8tWC". GAS.
RD CLECIrRICAL lCRvICC LIKC11. {MOW LOCATION! Or *URvCT PINS. lPcC#ry THE ung or EACH OUILOI.;
No CACH MAJOR PORTION THERCOr.
TINDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH GRAM S)WE ClJOAlf, 101.0" fiY 101J,'
al
-------17.3,d stiva
:
ikvg ce110v IMI fhswvoolsdcoml'��
IWW M contfN.tho —h—
,U Dl -01 amoval.
-I--- -vr- mmu.vtr ��vxtyv =-aw vtrnrunrgrTvr-
A. ... ........................
MM .................
wC
I;: ust
NEEL- APPROVED uy- -- -VATS
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/12/84
+ 5. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Sales
and Outdoor Storage in a B-3 Zone, Applicant - Martie's Farm Service. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Martie, as part of his farm service business, would like to
be allowed to do two conditions which are only allowed as conditional
uses in a B-3 Zone. The first one is he would like to be allowed
outdoor sales. From this, Mr. Martie would like to sell cedar posts.
This is currently the only item which he sells which would be sold
from the outside of his building. In doing so, if approved, Mr. Martie's
location of the proposed cedar posts would be directly to the rear
of his building approximately 30-35 feet away from the rear of the
building and stacked in a neat pile. Also Mr. Martie would like to
be allowed outside liquid storage. From the outside liquid storage,
Mr. Martie would like to be allowed to sell liquid protein from an
approximate 6,000 gallon tank. The tank size is approximately
8 feet by 16 feet, which will either be a vertical tank, 8 feet wide
and 16 feet tall, or a horizontal tank, 8 feet wide and 16 feet long.
The placement of this tank would be directly behind the existing
building, to the rear of his building. If approved, the tank does
not need to have an area to contain a spill. The contents of this
storage tank is a liquid fertilizer, which is not harmful to the
land if a spillage should occur.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor sales in a
B-3 Zone.
2. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor storage in a
B-3 Zone.
3. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor sales in a B-3
Zone.
4. Deny the Conditional Uoe Request to allow outdoor storage in a
B-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONi
City staff recommends approval of both Conditional Use Requests for
outdoor sales and outdoor atorago in a B-3 Zone.
D. SUPPORTING DATAi
Copy of the proposed location of the outdoor sales and outdoor storage
area; copy of the proposed site plan for location of the outdoor sales
and outdoor otoraget picture to be presented at Tuesday night's Planning
Couaiacion mooting of the propoaod site.
- 3 -
1
t '
Nm 9♦
R8T4T� -- M16MMlCI
'mss
Conditional Lao Roqueat or
to alloy outdoor oaloo and
outdoor atorago In a 8-7 Zone.
wartie•o Yarm service.
D
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/12/84
6. Public Hearinq - Variance Request to Erect a Larger Pylon Siqn than
the Maximum Sign Square Footage Allowed, Applicant - First National
Bank. (G.A .)
A. REFERENCE AMID BACKGROUND:
The newly under construction First National Bank building is requesting
to be allowed to erect a larger pylon sign than the maximum square
footage allowed by Ordinance. Maximum allowed by Ordinance is
50 sq. ft. of sign area. The sign square footage which First National
Bank is proposing is 72 sq. ft., which is 22 sq. ft. more than the
maximum allowed. In looking at approving or denying the variance,
we should look at the actual size of the sign in comparison to the
lot on which their proposed building is undergoing construction.
They have no trees around there or buildings which would obstruct
the view of a 50 sq. ft. pylon sign. In having unobstructed view
along Highway 25 running north to south, I see no reason in granting
them a variance for a larger sign.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Variance Request to allow a larger square foot sign,
72 sq.ft., than the maximum 50 sq. ft. allowed for a pylon sign.
2. Deny the Variance Request to be allowed to erect a 72 sq. ft.
pylon sign with the maximum allowed by Ordinance being 50 sq. ft.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the Variance Request, sighting no obatruction of
view of a 50 sq. ft. pylon sign along Highway 25 running in either
direction, north or south.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the proposed location of the First National Bank pylon sign:
Copy of the proposed First Natio nal Bank pylon sign.
- 4 -
CC-)
HIGH WAY
•a
•
\
p
5
CC-)
HIGH WAY
•a
•
17, ,
Tioepcmp wa,
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/12/84
i
y - Additional Information Items
1. Previously Tabled Variance Request to Allow No Curbing in Certain
Areas of Parkin Lot, Applicants - Jay Morrell and John Plaisted. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUNDS
Mr. Morrell indicated to me that he would be in attendance at the
Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting to present his proposal
for certain areas of an existing parking lot at the new Mantis's
Feed Store business in which he would like a variance to be allowed
not to put in curbing in certain areas of the parking lot. Even
though a Variance was granted before on the Maus Tire building by
a previous Planning Commission, it does not constitute a Variance
to be granted here. We should seriously look at the curbing require-
ment for it and that Mr. Morrell conform to the Ordinance where
curbing is to be installed in certain areas of the parking lot.
one exception is that we feel that the curbing should not be installed
along our existing gravel surfaced Marvin Road.
In talking with Jay on Friday morning, he would not like to have
curbing on any portion of the parking lot, citing instances of no
curbing installed at the Glass Rut and Monticello -Big Lesko Pat
Clinic sites.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt
1. Approve the Varianco Roquoat to allow no curbing in certain areao
of t)to parking lot.
2. Deny the Variance Roquoet to allow no curbing in certain arcaa
of the parking lot.
C. STAPF RECOMMENDATIONt
Staff rocommends denial of tho Varianco Request for certain arcoo of
the parking lot to have no curbing with the only area in oxcoption being
tho arca along oida tho gravel surfaced Marvin Road.In the rent of the
arms of the parking lot wo recommend that he install the curbing.
D. i;UPPORTING DATAt
copy of the proposed location of the no curbing aroaat ccpy of a sito
plan with the proposed no curbing aroast picturoo to be preoonted at
mcoting.
5 -
Jr� t l , /, (•ri�f • f (.' (1 ..--�" � jLj�'b ;«...1_-%r 4rh •• r�. /11 , yr l `~�
` f•,• r'rbl, _l(±1 ([rr,a,..,�-...._•.£tr�......7 �r� `m...- r - _ I i
'tll 1;
Q ?�-� �•itr a i� '7' ,1 Cf�,+
177
17
-;, - F-3
HIGHWAY
NO. 94
t•. s '• :�ti r '(Ill.' :rtiv� ♦j,F+ ( r/�•+jr �+:(�• vt 1 � t� / ��*
::i y J�,; J j 1' �,� i i.' ')..t; �� •� J 11 f �,.��'I !'i.1 r rr l 1, �
�� r q.t.j iww+` w►
,dpi 'i � . �••,•� ! 1 r+^ { oto `\� OJr,' .��.- .�!"
n
r �• ail o\\q �o` ,
- � � st t '• ki'�W 1 .a
W"
VOLO coeA tots
�, ,•
t , 1 •
p