Loading...
Plan Commission Minutes 1988 08-17-88 c MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM AUGUST 17, 1988 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Harold Feltz with the following members in attendance: Chairman Feltz, George Stewart, Don Ament, Larry Langland, Mary Kay Price, Larry Bretthauer, Kevin Collman, & Dave Greiter. Absent were Clarence Holdiman, James Stafford, Rick Doetschman, & Don Schoenfielder. Also present were Mayor Davidson, Fran Klaus, Gary Bown, Bill Radke, Tom Grant, Tom Jim Clarage, Larry Small & Dan Kramer. Citizens in attendance are listed on the sign-in sheet on file with the minutes. The minutes of the July meeting were reviewed. The motion to approve was made by Larry Langland & the second was by George Stewart. PC88-32 -- PETITION FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING TO R-1 SPECIAL USE BY YORKVILLE LIONS SWIM CLUB, INC. - E. MAIN ST. Chairman Feltz asked for comments or recommendations based on tonight's Public Hearing & discussions of previous meetings. Larry Langland made the motion to recommend that the Yorkville Swim Club petition be recommended for approval to annex & zone for special use. Mary Kay Price seconded the motion. Dave Greiter asked if it would be a sensible precaution to recommend to the city that the engineer check the pool & make sure it is up to city standards with respect to health, safety, plumbing features & structural stability. Chairman Feltz asked that such recommendation be added to the motion. Motion was carried with roll call vote as follows: Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Collman - yes Greiter - yes PC88-33 -- PETITION TO REZONE FROM B-2 TO B-2 SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW APARTMENTS OVER A BUSINESS AT 101 S. BRIDGE ST. BY SANCHEZ & ADAMSON Attorney Tom Cross suggested that it would necessary to come back with a more specific plan. Mayor Davidson & Chairman Feltz agreed -- it was stated that the Plan Commission would most likely be in agreement in this type of improvement but a more specific & overall plan was necessary. Tom Cross noted that clari- cation on such items as windows, riverfront ownership, parking facilities & fire protection needed to be addressed. They would come back with a master plan & how it might affect the neighboring buildings. Chairman Feltz stated that the petition would be added to the September agenda. PC88-36 -- FINAL PLAT & ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY CRESTVIEW BUILDERS - WHITE OAK FARM - WEST FOX RD. (ADDITIONAL MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED) Attorney Kramer passed out the annexation agreement which contained the basic requests & recommendations of the Plan Commission & the Building and Zoning committee. The question on the private issue was raised. Attorney Kramer PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES 08-17-88 PAGE 2 explained that the necessity for keeping the road north of the tracks private was due to the ICC permit requirements. The Railroad will grant a permanent easement for ingress & egress over the tracks. The road will be developed according to standards and will be dedicated to the city within five years from the date of the annexation agreement. Questions followed on sidewalk, easements, and how the subdivision would connect with the city. Dave Greiter expressed concern that this development would not access the city properly. He also questioned the sewer situation. The Mayor assured that there would be sewer & water -- no septics would be allowed. He further stated that engineers were still studying the situation. There is an easement provided within the development for an interceptor line when the city is prepared to install it. Attorney Kramer stated that the city would not assume liability for the private road area during the five year interim prior to dedication to the city. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the owners. The annexation agreement also stated that the Homeowners Association will have full responsibility for liability involving the two lakes or any other recreational facilities. Jim Clarage expressed the opinion that the development appeared to be a top notch project. With no further discussion introduced, Chairman Feltz asked the Commission for a recommendation. Larry Langland made the motion to recommend the approval of the final plat & annexation agreement. It was seconded by Dave Greiter. Motion carried by roll call vote as follows: Stewart - yes Ament - yes Langland - yes Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Collman - yes Greiter - yes Feltz - yes PC88-37 -- FINAL PLAT - PRAIRIE LANDS UNIT 2 - E. SPRING STREET Attorney Tom Cross confirmed the fact that the changes as recommended by the Plan Commission has been made. The changes included the extension of the street to the north, the cul-de-sac was eliminated, & a dedicated easement has been provided for future extension of Center Street. Jim Clarage stated that in his opinion all necessary changes has been included. Chairman Feltz asked for comments or any recommendations. Dave Greiter questioned the half of the road that was not going to be developed right away -- who would be responsible for the cost? Chairman Feltz said that perhaps it should be the responsibility of the developer of the adjacent property. Mayor Davidson & Attorney Kramer suggested the possibility of a bond approach. This issue needs to be addressed by the Council rather than the Plan Commission. Attorney Kramer introduced documentation given to him by the County showing that there was a difference in boundary measurements of the northeast triangle of the development that would need to be corrected before the plat is finalized. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES 08-17-88 PAGE 3 George Stewart made the motion to approve the final plat of Prairie Lands Unit 2 with the request that there is assurance that the entire property is within & annexed to the city; also subject to the review of the approximately 150' strip of land bordering lot #22 for the proposed dedication of the street. The second was made by Don Ament. Motion carried by roll call vote as follows: Ament - yes Langland - yes Price - yes Bretthauer - yes Collman - yes Greiter - yes Feltz - yes Stewart - yes PC88-34 -- PETITION TO REZONE R-1 TO R-4 PUD SPECIAL USE BY HELEN JO CLARAGE AT 211 W. RIVER STREET. Jim Clarage & Larry Langland excused themselves from the Plan Commission for the review of this petition since they have a direct interest in the outcome. Attorney Tom Grant presented a summarization of the statements of the Public Hearing. He stated that the Commission now had enough information, both written & schematic to give preliminary approval or preliminary denial. The petitioner is not proceeding with explicit configurations until an indication of direction is received from the Commission. Chairman Feltz stated that the appearance of the building was attractive & could conceivably be an improvement to the area. His concern was in the area of parking facilities & the turn around area. Mayor Davidson agreed with the issue of adequate parking; he felt that the cottage is situated too close to the road & probably should be removed. He likes the concept of the PUD which gives the city better control. Mary Kay Price asked how Mr. Clarage could influence the clean-up of the property to the east when up to this point the city has not been able to do so. Mayor Davidson stated that he did not think that Mr. Clarage could sell anything unless the adjacent property was straightened up; if the project does't go as planned, it won't be developed at all without coming back to the Commission. Mr. Clarage stated that he was gambling on the fact that the area would improve he is optimistic that this will happen. Questions as to walk ways, garages & potential expansion of the sanitation plant were raised. Mr. Bretthauer asked how close the proposed building would be to the existing structure -- Mr. Clarage said it would be 17 feet. It was the concern of Dave Greiter & Larry Bretthauer that fire protection would not be feasible with all wood structures so close together & access difficult. Mr. Clarage stated that there would 2-hour fire walls provided in appropriate areas. Mr. Clarage again stated that he would not begin any construction until the adjacent building showed improvement. He stated that this would be over a half- million dollar investment & they would not proceed with that building in its in present state being next store. Chairman Feltz asked what changes needed to be made. Mr. Clarage would like to see it torn down. As an adjacent landowner, Mr. Clarage could exert pressure based on the fact that the building is not up to code. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES 08-17-88 PAGE 4 Attorney Grant stated that the petitioner was seeking approval of the basic concept (with the cottage removed to facilitate additional parking) . They need some indication that the plan is acceptable on a PUD basis. It is the desire of the petitioner to improve rather than add to the existing problems in the area. It would not be realistic to waste time & expense with further plans if the Plan Commission flatly objects. Mr. Clarage expanded on his thoughts for development from a planning stand- point & also reaffirmed his determination to improve the area coupled with his intent to pursue the issue with the owners of the building to the east. Dave Greiter voiced concern over setting a precedent for other such developemnts & whether it would be in the best interest of the community. Mr. Clarage stated his view on how this project fit into the concept of the comprehensive plan for development. He referenced previous discussions on improving and enhancing the downtown community facilities. Proper development of river front property would enhance the community. Chairman Feltz stated that it was becoming apparent that more rental type properties would be needed. Dave Greiter said that his concern was with provision of single family homes for those who prefer that to apartment type living. Chairman Feltz stated the in general the people coming into the community as well the economic situation would influence those types of decisions. Tonight 's issue is the PUD as presented. Attorney Kramer stated that additional public hearings would be held relative to this type of development before anything is finalized. Attorney Grant stated that they were looking some type of firm commitment at this for the plans as presented. The statement made regarding the building next door is not, however, intended as considered to a contingency to the acceptance of the project. Alderman Gary Bown stated that he did not see how the Commission could approve this PUD with concessions that would not be extended to any other developer. Attorney Grant stated that it would be unfair to attach any contingency reflecting the property next door to the petition. George Stewart asked Mr. Clarage about the "owner occupied" issue. Mr. Clarage stated that such a clause was too restrictive & would not be included. There could be numerous reasons for the owner actually taking occupancy elsewhere. Dave Greiter asked what would happed if the project fell through. Jim Clarage stated that it simply would not be developed; he is aware of the possibility that he could lose all around. Don Ament questioned the legal aspect of the problem. Attorney Kramer stated that it was a very time consuming process & numerous problems would be encountered. Kevin Collman stated the position of those citizens in attendance at the Public Hearing. It is his opinion that drastic changes are needed & the community appears not to be in favor of this proposed development. Chairman Feltz asked for some type of recommendation from the Commission concerning the petition considering that all available information has been presented. • PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES 08-17-88 PAGE 5 Don Ament made the motion to approve the rezoning from R-1 to R-4 PUD Special Use concept as ;presented. The second was made by George Stewart. The roll call vote carried the motion as follows: Price - yes Bretthauer - no Collman - no Greiter - no Feltz - yes Stewart - yes Ament - yes The Comprehensive Plan was introduced as the next item of business. Mr. Clarage passed out the packet for Phase 2 of the Comprenhensive Plan. He asked that the Plan Commission members study the information contained in the packet. This would include information on latest demographics updated by the census bureau and general community information such as age levels, income, travel time to work, etc. It was agreed that the Commission would review for the next meeting. The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Larry Bretthauer and seconded by George Stewart. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. --------------------------------------- Joanne M. Ellertson Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, HELD AT THE KENDALL COUNTY BOARD ROOM AUGUST 17, 1988 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was adjourned to conduct the Public Hearings on the agenda. In attendance were Plan Commission members as listed in the minutes and interested citizens as listed on the sign-in sheet. The swearing in of those parties wishing to speak at the hearings was conducted by chairman Harold Feltz. The first Public Hearing was introduced as follows: YORKVILLE LIONS SWIM CLUB PETITION TO ANNEX & ZONE TO R-1 SPECIAL USE - E. MAIN ST. Duane Orton spoke on behalf of the Lions Club. He stated that the city has always co-operated and treated the club as if it were part of the city -- the grass has been mowed, police protection has been provided when the County was not available, water has been supplied, etc. Being so close to the city, it seems natural to follow with annexation. One problem brought to the attention of the public was the fact that the Lions had not yet achieved a tax exempt status. They will continue with this endeavor. Larry Langland stated that in his opinion annexation was favorable with the members of the Commission. Chairman Feltz & Mayor Davidson agreed. SANCHEZ ADAMSON PETITION TO REZONE FROM B-2 TO B-2 SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW APARTMENTS OVER A BUSINESS AT 101 S. BRIDGE ST. Attorney Tom Cross stated that it was the intent of the petitioner to gain knowledge of Commission members feelings toward the proposed project. Plans include the p concept of four apartments on the second floor of the building. Larry Bretthauer asked about the elevator shaft -- Mayor Davidson stated that it was never completed but runs from the basement to the second floor. Dave Greiter asked what was currently in the building. Tom Cross answered that occupants included a contractor, a Service Master business, and an office in the front. Dave further inquired about the building in the back; he questioned the potential parking problem. He feels that there is a need to protect the businesses since that is how the property is zoned. He made reference to the fenced area now on the property. Larry Langland questioned ownership of the strip of land between the river and the building -- does it belong to the present owners or not? Tom Cross stated he would check into it. Gloria Vermaat' owner of adjacent building, expressed concern over the type of use (body shop) in the existing building -- Mayor Davidson stated that the body repair was no longer in the building. Leonard Weber, owner of the hotel, stated that parking facilities at present are not sufficient. He stated that he rented the fenced area for use of his tenants. If he did not rent this area, the hotel would be limited to approx- imately six parking spaces. PUBLIe HEARING -- PAGE 2 Gloria Vermaat questioned what would happen if the B-2 special use was granted and the owners wanted to change to office facilities instead of apartments. Chairman Feltz stated that it would have to come before the Plan Commission again. Mayor Davidson questioned the exit route in the event of a fire. Larry Bretthauer asked if a fire escape was provided in the plans. It was determined that none of the present stairways accessed the outside. Reference was also made to gas pumps in the area. Other questions included whether there would be vehicles in the building, further fire hazards, existing windows, and ideas on parking. HELEN JO CLARAGE PETITION TO REZONE R-1 TO R-4 PUD SPECIAL USE AT 214 W. RIVER ST. Attorney Tom Grant presented a color drawing to describe the proposed PUD development. The property is presently zoned R-1 & is not usable as such. The reason for filing for PUD special use zoning is to receive maximum input from both the Plan Commission & the City Council. Attorney Grant stated the following facts as part of the petition: 1 . The existing cottage would remain with the addition of a garage. 2. The development would consist of six condo units to be built closer to the river. They would be individually owned & the project would be in compliance with the ordinance density requirements. 3. Variations are asked for -- especially in the side yard measurements which would deviate from the normal 12 ft. requirement; they would be 41 , 51 , 11 ' , and 6" (this would be on the east adjacent to the drive & parking. 4. Off street parking would be provided. Each unit to have a 1-1/2 car garage & a total of two parking units as required by ordinance. 5. The cottage is presently 6.9 ft from the road & the petitioner would like it to remain. 6. Landscaping would be as shown on the color rendering. In addition, there would a provision for docks along the river. 7. The structure would be Victorian in style & be probably white or beige in color. 8. Unit price would be in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. Structure would compare to Oswego's Brookside Manor Condo developemnt. Each unit would be approximately 1300 sq. ft. Mayor Davidson opened the discussion by asking the intent of the petitioner with respect to the cottage. It was stated that it would most likely be sold off. Dave Greiter questioned winter access problems due to the slope of the land; Tom Grant explained it would not present problems -- slope factor is only 5-6%. PUBLIC'HEARING -- PAGE 3 Dave further questioned the fire protection problem arising from the difficult access. Mr. Clarage said the drive would be 20' -- twice as wide as the unit next to it. Insufficient parking facilities & water runoff were also cited as topics of concern. Larry Bretthauer asked about the height of the structure. Mr. Clarage stated that it would be two stories high facing the street & three stories facing the river. The building would be set back from the street approximately 1501 . The proximity of the lot line was questioned by George Stewart. Mr. Clarage stated that the property to the east was about 5' from the lot line. He added that the garages of the proposed structure would have a concrete step to be used as a buffer against possible damage from vehicles. Comments from the public opened with Richard Speckman, adjacent land owner. He asked that the letter of objection prepared by himself & his wife, Andrea, be filed with the minutes. Arguments against the petition are summarized as follows: 1. Additional 6 proposed units would add to density problem. 2. Inadequate parking facilities would compound present demands. 3. Winter parking/access would increase existing problems. 4. Additional traffic congestion would add to an already dangerous situation. 5. Location would render condo dwellings undesirable & would probably be turned into rental units by default. 6. The additional units would further devalue adjacent properties. Pam Bivens expressed concern over the maintenance of the land. Tom Grant explained the general condo agreements & responsibilities of individual owners. She was also concerned with parking facilities and garbage pick-up problems. Mary Frank referenced a similar development in Oswego & claimed that the upkeep caused continuous problems. Lou Riemenschneider asked the letter prepared by herself & her husband, Scott, be filed with the minutes. Main concerns included the following: 1. The addition of more people to an already saturated area. 2. The structural problems that have become apparent with the adjacent building complex & the apparent lack of control that the city has. 3. The enhancement of existing vehicle & parking problems. Mr. Clarage declared his position on the development of the property. He will not proceed until conditions of the adjacent property are improved -- only at that time will he begin to seek buyers & anticipate construction. Any legal avenues available will be pursued to achieve the desired goal. Dan Kramer assured those questioning the use of the property that the safeguard of the PUD is that the property has to be used as stated in the petition; any deviation from the original plan would have to presented again to the Plan Commission. It was stated, however, that units would be sold & deeded individually and the owners would not be restricted in what they could do with their unit -- rent, offer for resale, etc. PUBLIC'HEARING -- PAGE 4 Kevin Collman asked Mr. Clarage to explain the boat dock area. Mr. Clarage stated that the ground would be lower at the rivers edge & that there would be a wooden pier parallel to the bank. Mr. Collman also expressed concern over the sanitary sewer line running parallel to the river & asked if it could be a potential problem. Mr. Clarage assured him that it would not be affected. Dave Greiter referenced the area in which debris seems to collect; Mr. Clarage stated that he was aware of the problem. Chairman Feltz asked if there were further comments from the public; hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing session at 8:30 P.M. Joanne M. Ellertson Recording Secretary August 16 , 1988 TO : PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE Kendall County Courthouse Office Bldg. 110 W. Ridge Street Yorkville, Illinois 60560 RE: HELENJO CLARAGE PETITION FOR REZONING R-1 TO R-4 PARCEL NUMBER 02-32-231-003 214 RIVER STREET; YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS As adjacent property owners, this letter is notification of our objection to approval of the above referenced application. Arguements against petition include but are not restricted to the following: 1 . Additional ( 6) proposed dwellings would present intolerable density problems to already strained conditions created by the "York Valley" apartment complex. 2. Inadequate parking facilities will only compound present demands. Existing overcrowded parking conditions have created problems without solutions. 3 . Grade is unsuitable for winter parking/access; further increasing parking problems. 4 . Access to complex will generate additional traffic con- gestion to an already dangerous street condition. 5 . Location between "York Valley" apartments and Yorkville- Bristol Sanitary Treatment Plant Facility would render dwellings undesireable for sale as condominiums. There- fore one must assume they would end up as rental units by default. 6 . Additional units in an already dense living Bevel opem ent will further devalue adjacent properties. Rezoning and special use request usually refer to already approved/existing variances ; as in this petition, the "York Valley" apartment complex. The precedence set however in this instance is most undesireable. It should not therefore be the intent of the planning com- mission to allow a second mistake to be made. Respectfully Submitted, Richard and Andrea Speckman 203 King Street; Yorkville, Illinois Date /� August 11,1988 Dear City Councilman/Planning Committee Member; As a home owner and life long member of this community, it is of great concern to us that consideration is being given to the development of multi-family units on River Road, within the city limits. We are not strangers to the City Council, in that we have filed complaints in the past regarding the state of disrepair of the already existing apartments on River Road. We have also met with committee members when parking on Icing, River, and Church Streets was being considered. We think it is fair to characterize the home owners in this area as valuable members of the community, interested in improving their homes and property with the intent of creating the best possible environment to live and raise a family. When problems and concerns have arisen, we have exercised our right to voice opinions and bring to the Council's attention legitimate concerns. Once again, we feel it is necessary to voice our concern. Although we intend to be present at the meeting Wednesday, August_ 17, 1988, we anticipate many people voicing concerns coming from their hearts; and, as concerned as we feel the neighborhood is regarding the possibility of adding multi-family units to the area, we feel that legitimate. and rational issues may be lost in emotional reactions. The following are issues we have discussed and feel the Council needs to evaluate: (1) We have come to learn that two(2) bedroom units (i.e. the existing apartments) equal three (3) to four (4) cars per unit. Drive down kiver Road anytime, and you will see illegally parked vehicles in front of the existing apartments on Church and King Streets, as well as vehicles jammed into the authorized parking area on River Road between Church Street and Route 47. A majority of these vehicles belong to apartment dwellers - thus allowing no additional parking space to property owners along that stretch of River Road - as originally hoped. Next drive up to the city park. Those vehicles continually parked at the corners of West Main and Church Streets also belong to the apartment dwellers. Add an occasional semi trailer cab (running all night) and increase the City Councilman/Planning Committee ' r ber -August 11, 1988 Page 2 vehicles by at least eight (8) in the winter months, and tell us you honestly would not mind that in your neighborhood. How could this area possibly accommodate any more vehicles? (2) The city apparently has no control over the state of the existing apartments. Those areas that the city attempted to deal with (and copied us in on the correspondence) met with resistance and feeble attempts to comply. So, we have come to learn the best way to solve the countless problems a structure such as the apart- ments have created is to insist that no further apartment-type dwellings be allowed in the area. If the argument is that these will be condominiums, people will own them, they will be property owners; etc. , may we suggest you take a good look at the area! How long do you actually think condominiums crowded onto that lot, in that area, will remain condominiums? If the units are constructed, we see them being occupied by their owners for only a short time before the owners sense the hopeless- ness of the situation along the east property line and choose to improve their living situation by moving - either renting out their condos or attempts to sell it. We remember when the apartments were sold as individual units! Several of those units are still caught up in bankruptcy litigation - those are the units with broken windows and balconies that have rotted off their joists. The other units were all purchased by the same obscure company. How can the city guarantee that this will not happen again? We have dealt with property issues here. We have not asked you to witness the police cars' regular patrol of the area and the reputa- tion of many who reside in the apartments. Nor have we asked you to drive by any afternoon until well past midnight to witness the large groups of youngsters using River Road as a playground at best, but more often times using it as a launching pad for the destructive havoc regularly maintained (i.e. endless barrages of bottle rockets, M80's, firecrackers, smashed bottles, and various other debris in the roadway; throwing rocks at neighborhood homes and passing cars; etc.) We haven't asked you to imagine attempting to maintain a yard with some degree off privacy while apartment dwellers disregard both fences and hedges to walk through private yards on their way to spots otherwise easily reached by sidewalk or street. In summation: (1) There are endless "people problems" the existing apartments have created that we realize are here to stay. Adding more people to an already saturated area could only be seen a9 detrimental. (2) There are numerous structural problems at the existing apart- ments that even the casual observer can spot. The city has re- sponded to our past complaints, in this area, as best as they apparently can. In actuality very little has changed, bringing area home owners to the realization that the city has very little control over these type of structures. (3) There are ongoing vehicle and parking problems in the surround- ing neighborhood to which the existing apartments have contributed. City Councilman/Planning CcnLmittee Member August 11, 1988 Page 3 The city apparently has neither the manpower nor the resources to handle this problem. There is no conceivable way the area could absorb any more vehicles. We ask the Council and Planning committee to consider our concerns, drive through the area, park your car (if you can find a spot) and walk by the apartments; look at the area where the proposed building(s) would be built; then tell us how multi-family units could possibly be viewed as a positive addition to a neighborhood that current property owners are struggling to maintain control of now! We are very concerned and have chosen to live in this area. We cannot change those things that came before us, but we sincerely hope to have some control over the future of our neighborhood. Sincerly/ Scott and Lou Riemenschnei ec� 202 West River Road Yorkville, Ill 60560 PUBLIC HEARING -- REGISTRATION SHEET ay- / 7 -- �' � IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ARE IN ATTENDANCE AS AN OBSERVER, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR NAME & ADDRESS BELOW: A tzl ADDRESS 04�,A1 k sg"Pl f /? ' m 2o; a nU e►mQV c�1�flr (Al &A9f �a�hu {..gran a a05 e, ,)ems . ,15 Cjeovrl) �Qce PUBLIC HEARING -- REGISTRATION SHEET IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ARE IN ATTENDANCE AS AN OBSERVER, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR NAME & ADDRESS BELOW: NAME ADDRESS ee e ego o D � ` q ACV i