CPA 26-84 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
POLICY 11. CPA. 26-84
al ` •
CITY OF TIGARD
O
A
Ti
+ I
u
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
COUNCIL AGENOOA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December .L0 1984 AGE"OA ITEM #:
• r:r. DATE SUBMITTED: December 5 , 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: C.C. held public
hearing on November 26, 1984, to
�(DA TITLE:ISSUE/A GF_ policy 11.5.1 consider thiol . revision
CP21.._2 4,1.....�..,.• PREPARED BY:
REQUESTED Q Y
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On November 26, 1984, the City Council held a public hearing on revising
Policy 11.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting, the Council voted
unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission°s recommendation excluding lot
numbers 89, 40 41, 42, and 43 from policy 11.5.1. An ordinance adopting this
change is attached for Council consideration'
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
l SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached ordinance
1034
drIvj
rr .
jay
.Q ,
•
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 84--
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 11.5.1, VOLUME 2, FIND/NGS, POLICIES AND
,� IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGTE.S DOCUMENT AS ORIGtNALLY ADrIP?'F'D BY , ORDINANCE 83-52
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (CPA 26-84).
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City'
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and
WHEREAS, Policy 11.51. of Volume 2, Findings, Policies, and Implementation
Strategies was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and ,'
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was ::�tbmitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
•
WHEREAS, during the application of a particular land use action to the plan
identified' an area of conflict between the plan and the economic development
y needs of the City; and
WHEREAS,, the City finds that following meetincjs of the neighborhood,„ the NPO
and the property owners, the policy application as it relates to five specific
properties would cot further the intent of the policy as it was originally
drafted; and
y City Council
,ini« relating
da
WHEREAS, on Monday, October 29, 1984, the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for a review of Policy 11. .5
,1
35 area residents, the NPO and the property owner; and
•
WHEREAS, on November 13, 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
policy , erd
on. revisions and ,
to
11 �, and voted 3 2 with one, abstention to recommend
that the City Council revise Policy 11.5.1 as propos-4:
6, 108 the City Council held a public on November 2
, hearing on
revisions to policy 11.5.1 and voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance modifying policy 1l5.1 as recmmended by the Planning CoMmission,
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
• •
SECTION 1: Policy 11.61 Findings, Policies and Implementation trategies
Volume 2 of the City of Tigard Comprehenive Plan shall be
amended as set forth below. Language to be added is Underlined.
T AND SCREENING DE`T LEEN
11,5 w 1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE BUFFERlG r PEENING
w ' .I RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND AD3'CINING APPROVAL xwbUwTRIAt�
• AREAS
AS A PR CoNI)fltON TO DEVELOPMENT' APPROVAL A$
FOLLOWS
ORDINANCE, NO, ,4
Page
a. ALL BUILDINGS ON INDUSTRIAL LAND SHALL BE SET
11 BACK A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET EOM ANY PROPI.RTY LINE
WHICH ABUTS A RESIDENTIALLY PLANNED AREA;
h. THE SITE PLAN SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE LEAST
INTENSIVE PROPOSED USES ON THE SITE IN THE AREAS
WHICH ABUT AN ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED AREA:
b:' AND
•
c. BUFFERING AND SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN
THE 50—FOOT SETBACK AREA AS PROVIDED BY THE
STANDARDS .ONTAINED IN POLICY 6.6.1, IT IS NOT
TLE INTENT OF THIS SUBSECTION TO REQUIRE THE
ENTIRE FIFTY FEET TO BE LANDSCAPED PROVIDED THE
STANDARDS IN 6.6.1 ARE MET IN WHICH CASE A
PORTION OF THE BUFFER AREA MAY BE USED FOR
PARKING: EXCEPT
1. NO STRUCTURE PAVEMENT OR DEVELOPMENT MAY BE
LOCATED WITHIN THE BO- FOOT $ETBA�K AREA
SURROU'IDINC THE ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION;
AND EXCEPT LOTS #..89 40, 41,q 42, and: 43 AND
2. ALL EXISTING VEION SHALL BE RETAINED
AND MAINTAINED WITHIN THE 50-FOOT SETBACK a
AREA SURROUNDING THE ROLLING HILLS
SUBDIVISION EXCEPT BEHIND LOT S 39. 40,
41and 43 WHERE SECTION18.100;130,
THE BUFFER MATRIX APPLIES AND 13.100,080
APPLY
r -
Section 2 Inasmuch as it is necessary for this Ordinance to become
ffectiverior to signed p qn acknowledgment o.kn �rledgment of the Camprehensive.
Plan by LCDC, and emergency is hereby declared to exist, and
this Ordinance shall
become effective immc diatey upon passage
bythe Council andapproval by the Mayor.
Vote of all members' By ' Council pr+sent after
PASSED,
being read by number and title only, this day
A of a 1934
Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard
APPROVED: This. day of I. , 934
Mayor - City of Tigan
(dmi/(3834P)
4r.
P ORDINANCE NO. B4-.r
11 (14 2
4I 111
PPP,
Y f
' 4
.
. f.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: November 26, 1904 AGENDA ITE."t #;
DATE SUBMITTED: November ' 6, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: C.C. initiated a,Camp,
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Polic11.5,1 Plan ch3,2n_12/../2_to allowolic rev.
Review PREPARED BY:; WAM .
0 REQUESTED BY: City Council
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
- www~wwwwwwwww•w•••4wwww•wwwrrrr� `w�wrrrw.4 'L i
INFORMATION SUNMIARY .
The Council voted to initiate a comprehensive plan change 11.5.1. The
Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend revision to the policy,4
the policy revision would exempt the live properties odjoining the Western
International development from the policy while preserving the policy for
`• future application around the Rolling Hills Subdivision,
..•w..M.n•••wi•r.. , {w•i41*4.4 ..rrrwwrwi4r•. ..... tl•1ir.iw•.Jr.+ILMWw1iMr.w.,
Mw1+rY..1r.. wllwwwlwrw411rMrwr wwY.wrrwwV rwr I ��'
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDFf
1, Revise the policy as recommended by the Planning Commission
2. Leave tnepolicy as written. .
3 Resize the :policy with alternative modifications.
SUCESTE.D ACTION
The Planning Commission recommends that Policy 1,5,1_ be revised as shown in
g �'
the attached memo.
(WAM bs/O792P)
,1a
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Members of the City Council November 16, 1984
FROM: William A, Monahan
Director of Planning & Development
SUBJECT: Review of Policy 11.5"1
On Monday, October 29, 1984 the City Council initiated a Comprehensive Plan
Change to allow for a review of Policy 11.5.1 relating to bufferiteg and
screening of industrial development adjoining the Rolling Se Hills
.�iadiv3 pian:
Pursuant to this, a neighbor°`food meeting was held on November 2, 1984 at Phil
Lewis School , S:nput from the meeting was presented to the Planning Commission
at its meeting on November 13, 1984, The Council should review the following
information and make a determination whether the policy should remain as
written or be r.odified
,;:. Background Information
Western International nal Properties applied to build two industri l buildings on
land which is zoned for industrial, use adjoining the Rolling Hills Subdivision
below Cherry Street. Although the proposed use is allowed, policy 11.5.1 of
pability
the Tigard Comprehensive Plan restricts the of Western International
to place pavement for parking within the 50—foot setback between the
proposed
buildings and the rear lot lines of the residential los on Cherry
Western International would like to utilize a portion of the setback for
parking while building all structu.r.es at least 50 fees from the property line.
The Planning
Ingon the appeal tef Western's site design
review in5 September voted to require compliance with po��icy 11.5,.1 The
p
Council called up the item for review and determi:ted that the policy should be
upheld While requiring also that Western participate in the cost of a rail
crossing. P,, i,or to adoption final order,
of a however, the Council agreed
with the•
applicant
and a group
g fneighbors
��
the Rolling Hills Subdivision
that timeshould be allotted to areview of the policy. The Council then
voted to initiate a comprehensive plan change to allow a review of the policy
and buffer ordinance. Pursuant to this, a neighborhood meeting was held on
November 7, 1084 at Phil Lewis School involving staff, the owner, NPO #5, and
a the residents of R01i'tny Hills
Nehbor
ihood_;MeetinaNoyem' ` 7,, 108+
dent of the area. Followin
• The meeting way attended by 85 t, 3 presentations
by the applicant and NPS#, several sidents spoke on the issue, A copy of the
two page sign—up sheet. is attached. The residents were almost evenly.l, divided
in their views. Some want the policy maintained as itis while some favor a
ry. ,
w
provides for an exception for lots 9-43
� � modification whichp on Cherry Street, :
The univeri'al concern was that regardless of whethe not lots 39-43 are
exempted from the policy, there should_ be no prece( ial effect given the
decision. The neighbors do not want the policy to h.ve any possibility of ,,
affectingcitthe setbacks and buffering along the western portion of the
w
.. l; � cion
• A vote was taken just to determine if the policy should be modified along the ,-<
lines suggested by a former NPO member who worked on the original language.
He suggested the ',.'allowing (the underlined sections represent his proplsal) . ,
'Tile Policy reads as fIllaws;
11.5.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE BUFFERING AND SCREENING BETWEEN RE.1IDENTIAL
AREAS AND ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL AREAS AS A PRECONDITION TO
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AS FOLLOWS;
a. ALL BUILDINGS ON INDUSTRIAL LAND SHALL BE SET BACK A DISTANCE
OF 50 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE WHICH ABUTS A RESIDENTIALLY
PLANNED AREA;
,
b. THE SITE PLAN SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE LIWAST INTENSIVE, PROPOSED
IIILSES ON THE SITE IN THE AREAS WHICH ABUT AN ADJOINING
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED AREA; AND
c. BUFFERING AND SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE 50—FOOT
SETBACK AREA AS PROVIDED BY THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN POLICY
6.6.1. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS SUBSECTION TO REQUIRE
THE ENTIRE FIFTY FEEl TO BE LANDSCAPED PROVIDED THE STANDARDS
IN 6.6.1 ARE PIET IN WHICH CASE A PORTION OF THE BUFFER AREA
MAY BE USEP FOR PARKING: EXCEPT
1. NO STRUCTURE, PAVEMENT OR DEVELOPMENT MAY BE LOCATED
WITHIN IrdE 50—FOOT SETBACK AREA SURROUNDING THE ROLLING
HILLS SUBDIVISION; AND EXCEPT. LOT IPS 39, 40, 41, 42, ,
and 43_AND
2, ALL EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE RETAINED AND MAINTAINED
:` WITHIN THE 50—FOOT SETBACK AREA SURROUNDING THE ROLLING
HILLS SUBDIVISION EXCEPT BEHIND:..LOT #'8 39,40 41, 42,,
and 3 _WHF E SECTION 18..10O.13O THE. BUFFER AT
M RIS(
APPLIES AND 18,100.080 -- . � �. :
100,080 APPLY
The Buffer Matrix requires a tweet@�M footscreening while 1:,13.100,03000.G30 presents
the standards for s acxpg and/or fencing,
hedges, etc.
The first vote was 10-8 in f,avar of; '
g
this lan ua a however, at the request of
, . a resident sulking clarification, a secondvote was held to determine the,
split between th se who wanted
s �it the policyto remain written and those who
wanted it modified, The final vote. was 15-14 to retain
as
the policy
A
.. Given the closeness of the vote and the inherent inequities involved in the
voting byonlya
i
that they consider
the concerns and determine, whether or not the the commission
an of the neighborhood, I recommended to . ���o should
policy
11 be modified to allow an exception for the 5 lots listed along the line of the
11 revision suggested by the neighbor. Another concern voiced by other residents
of the subdivision involved the buffering of lots which are next to a
commercial area, These residents would like to extend this policy to require
a fifty foot buffer surround the entire subdivision. Clearly this is not the
lnt,lot of the Code, however, these neighbors chose not to vote on the issue
uniess equal protection was put into the plan policy for those lots adjacent
to commercial,
My memo to the Commission suggested that theyconsider whether the policy as
u
g p y s
written serves the purposes for which it was originally draftd as it applies
to the five lots in question. I pointed out that information has been'
presented by the property owners of lots 80-43 to show that they are in a
situation due to topography and existing vegetation which could be used to
11 . justify an exemption from the policy.` To do this, the Commission would have
to modify the plan policy to allow for it, the other necessary action will be
to eventually modify the code to bring the plan and code into compliance. This
cannot be done until it i known what form the policy will be in after Council
review.
l'''''' Planning_Commission Meeting
The Commission met on November 13,
1534 and heardtestimony from the NPO, the
applicant, and neighbors. The testimony was consistentwith that given at the
Neighborhood Meeting. One new piece of information was submitted by the
applicant in the form applying the variance a memo criteria to Wt.stern
International's situation and hypothetically to property on the western
portion of Rolling Wills. The purpose of this analysis was to show that the
property involved in this dissuasion differs from that to the west of the
subdivision, th"Mefore Any decision made on this property should not have
precedential ef'ect. A ,:opy of the memo is attacted.
IIThe Commission considered the proposed revised l,',nguage and voted 3-2 with one
abstention to recommend that the City Council revise Poli-„. 11.541 as proposed
Action Needed
The CityCouncil should consider the plat Iring Comms s.:ion`
� s recommendation' and
11
determine if Policy 11 5,1 should be revised .
(UAM:bs/O793 P
. IX
9
- .w+ 1+x«w.vw...,._. „uu..cw..y .a.....w a.xwu. rc ♦ x ^�+'A C
.4:
ra
a TIGARD PLANNING Ct1i iISSION
REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 13, 1984
1. President Moen called the the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. The meeting. ,,,
; was held at the Fowler Junior High - LGt Room 10865 SW Walnut.
2, ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Owens, Fyre,
Butler, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Campbell.
ABSENT: Commissioners Leverett and Bergmann.
STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A.
Monahan 'arriving at (9:45 P.M.); Associate
Planner L}: en Associate Planner Newton (arriving
at 9:15 P.M.); and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
o Commissioner Butler was concerned that item 5 4, on the October 3rd
minutes, the definition for Wetlands, was not correct. (Staff will
, review the tape.) President Moen felt that the options for iter: .r ,
on October 2nd, should be included in the minutes.
Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to adopt
{ minute*s from October 2, 3, and 29th, moAify+irig the minutes from
October and, page 7, to include the option;t. Also, exempt item 5.4
on October 3rd minutes to be reviewed by staff and brouk3ht back tr
the went meeting.
5, PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENT
•
o Louise Stewart, 11990 SW 72nd Ave. , was present a7td stated why she
would like to become a member of NPO # 4.
o Geraldine Ball, NPO / ,4 Chairperson, stated that Mrs. Stewart had
attended the last two meetings and the NPO unanimously supported her
appointment,
Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to
forward a recomme; dation to City Council for Louise Stewart to be
api.li3inted to NPO # 4. Motion, carried unanimously by Commissioner
pr'.asent
6,2 REVIEW GRAFT bRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN . WASHINGTON COUNTY
o Glen Grant, Kramer, Chip & Mayo, consultants for Washington County
Drainage Master Plan, provided materials aid gave a slide shy
Presentation- Questionsand d3scuSsi�n followed. No actidn was
.1
necessary. „'..
. PLANNING r' BION MTNUTtB November 13, 1904 Page 1
5.7 REVIEW OF POLICY 11.5
President Moen stated that he would be abstaini.n7,j from voting on this
issue as his employer abuts the Rolling Hills Neighborhood, however, he
*; would run the meeting.
Director Monahan reviewed the memo regarding the policy and the meeting
had occurred with the Rolling which Hilly residents to discuss the ,
policy. He suggested the Commission take public testimony then make a
recommendation to City Council regarding the policy.
•
•
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o aebr. Nauber. �-�., 14365 SW 80th Place, NPO # 5 Chairperson, reviewed the
ylanguage with the
historyof the �'oi.�.c She stated the NPO felt the lan u
vegetation needed to be clarified, however, they felt the 50 ft.
1'' buffer should be upheld with no exceptions.
`.: a Tim Newman, Western International, 1805 NW Glisan, reviewed the
Western International proposal and the problems which had resulted
I,, from the policy not being incorporated into the Community Development
Code.
o Alan For., Western International, submitted a letter which addressed a
hypothetical variance if the policy would have been incorporated into
on and landscaping which would
the Code,, He reviewed the elevation
screen the project.p j He explained how they had mei- with the abutting
f neighbors and had worked out an agreeable solution until the policy
had surfaced during the public hearing process, He supported
modif in the policyto except the 5 abutting properties from the
y• � !�
polity.
o Fred Jen;; en, 7450 SW Cherry, explained he had originally appealed the
Director's Decision on the Western International Project. He
explained how the abutting tiieighbors had met with the developer and
worked on concerns regarding landscaping, proximityof the buildings,ldings,
building heights and etc. Now with policy 11.5.1 as it is, it
precludes any workable solution. di r
pre �l �� not feel the intent of the
policy was to maint !n a nuisance H(blackberr t v►ine$). He supported
changing the policy make the five lots an exception to the policy,
o Rick Albers, 7490 SW Cherry, lives directly behind Belknap
Industries aid supportd' changing the policy as proposed.
o Tohh Torpling, 7430 i,W Cherry, stated that the abutting property
owners were united in changing: the ,policy, The developer had beet
over bacPwardS to work with the property owners to come up with a
wortable solution. He addphci that the Sewer line that would be put in
by Western tntern4►tIonal would not be free. they would have to pay
to connect to the system.
PLANNING Cott SZON MINUtES November 13, 1 d4 Page
. a .+�+MWA¢Jluin
� .. • u � :YGn+xi1"Mw:v.v..x. R ar ..,.v u14 '. 1 _ , � '•
I:1p
yr, /
o Jim Wryn, 7570 SW Cherry St. , felt the policy had been written in
good €aith. He was concerned thrit the residential properties be '-
protected He was also concern about what would happen if a sewer
line would have to be run down Cherry Street. Would " the five ;
property owners be exempt from paying their share to install the ,.
system. ‘s4;
o Betsy Chick, 7595 SW Cherry, was concerned about the adversary
situation being created. She was concerned that there was no ,
assurances given that this would not be sett ..4g a precedent. She
Policyintegrity /'
supported leavingthe clic intact to maintain
the ante r�.t of the -
neighborhood
o Harry Chick, 7595 SW Cherry, opposed changing the policy as ,'
proposed. He felt the policy should be changed to include other
portions of the Rolling Hills Subdivision.
o Greg Edwards, 7545 SW Cherry, stated he had bee a resident of w
Rolling Hills since 1964. He opposed changing the policy. He felt -. . -
the policy had ben put in the plan GO that it could not be changed.
,.' o Craig Hopkins, 7430 SW Varns Road, John S..Swart, 15900 SW 76th, and ,-
Sharon Takahashi, 7610 SW Cherry supported the ianO's position. :',
Bill Beker, 7730 SW Cherry, stated that the intent of the policy was k
not to protect the blackberry vines, but to protect the Rolling Hills
:,I neighborhood.
REBUTTAL
o Fred Jensen responded to the comments made by the opposition, .;
,
o Alan Fox reiterated that if the policy would have been in the Code ..
they would have had grounds for a variance, ' rt•
rappropriate for
o Ores'idents el who abut SW thehr Commercial did not
�.l it was
y
to testify against the
property owners w'o abut the Industrial none, because the policy does
not affect them and the topography of the land is different.
PUBLIC H5ARINC CLOSED
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION
', o Commissioner Vanderwood commented that she was the President of NPO
felt' a precedent would be
5 when this policy was; established. She did
. modifiedpolicy as proposed. w think the
set if they the
language needed to be cleaned up regarding the vegetation and
possibly including the Commercial land in the policy.
U
RL NNINC COMMISSION MINUTES November 13# 1084 Page
a
ii ,dint
•
o commissioner Campbell was concerned about the language. She did feel
that a desirable buffer was needed. She was not sure if she was ;.;,
prepared to make the change proposed, felt more information was
needed.
o Commissioner Butler was concerned that one neighborhood received
special setbacks when all the he other residents of Tigard had to live
with what they get in the Code. On the other hand, they did get it
into the plan`, so, it should be left the way it is with no changes or ^'
exceptions.
o Commissioner Eyre had felt that we had a good compromise which
factored in the needs of the abutting neighbors and the developer and
protected the integrity.. of the neighborhood: After the public
testimony he was not sure, He felt the developer had done alot to
mitigate the impact on the adjacent property owners. He was
concerned about the way the neighborhood was, becoming divided. He
proposal if they could itthey
a precedent.
were note. setting
p
was in favor of' the make clear that
• Commissioner Peterson felt the developer had made a real ei er•t to go
• g ff cted and they are in total;
,•. alone with the neighbors who., are most d�, ,
agreement. He felt that the people had to understand that this is
not intended to seta Precedent. He was in favor of changing the
policy.
•
' o Discussion followed on what recourse the developer had if the policy
was not changed. ',
.;ommissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded z;.o
recommend to City Council to change Policy 11.5.1 , as proposed.
Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioner present,.
Commissioner Butler and Vanderwood voting no and President Moen
abstaining.
5.8 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT' ZOA 7-94 CITY OF TIGARD
o Associate Planner Newton reviewed changes being proposed by staff to
the Community Development Code•
PU8LIC TESTIMONY
•' e Ball, NPO 4 Chairperson, made the following NPO
• Geraldine
recommendations:
shall
5��txon 18,66,�e54F thea minimum �landscape requirement
be 15% not 20% on newly r;eveloped
ro ert
p p y
Section 18.12.,,050 A. 3.
Some maximum: time period should bo
included
•
PLANNING COMMtOSIOk 'MINUTES November l's, 1904 'page
y•
L. L.,..... w...i /r e
IP k Ct. Se_ /9/4' ? 'W
/71 / '
I
60 m"64,17-4 1.„) .) 1 l 0-. :''
I .','?'1' 1` -1--cd ►b z - 6.-
1
,4 ,...l e
Ge.0 v,e2 e.., At a AT el -7 s" ',r s.bv. 1,/tiv,fi, r
l<9.4-t4 6 ,� 6
�,s V -e. 7
........... ,
, 21 c /a,(.0,e3 4,›-ie,=. 2 y„9. feo (1,1e...-e.,,e7' r/ K .
I a `" ,
T I7.4/. 0 S ....
.....,,,,.......:
- 41,01_,-,,,,J. ------•.,, -__ ,.-,- ,,,,____;,./0. 7-y--..se) ,,..5-- e ...) ..er___,..-.--ect______ ....-,<, ...
:::
t ., „._ )\.\,),,\„ 1 cO 3u)
' ce„,(ist.,,,,,,,,,... i /.?„,‹I''/4-ife- '
,,,,, 7.,/.74 , - e Ai, .
, i ..ia..,,,„
6 Oka/IL
( citi/7 two, ,- -7 7&54"--4:52,ki ,
. 0)
., ,e.e44, ,g, 4/444,-eit 74 7‘jr- .Ar. e e 1.4 ea-4,41,6t., .
e, 190 ,)31.. ..Z:Z" 7e 7 57,-",*'''''‘4644-,,e-/.4k- .
A4ty<1._ A 7?ciaj- *-Sr-* W ' diV1 it'i y
. 6,,, 00,1624,1,e_. >74/5 a W. d a riis ,
/ dr; ,; '''r f'06-c)-te,,/, 04,--e,:&64.0'
1 I( lid''' '4 i /if'ttstrl 7C130 S Le6 krcet-vie x
- 0. P., 4ahro 7 5 7c- ,.. w. ,/,/a,,e-1,4 7‹.
' it.", / '
~ d a.J � �
ew lt, .0-0
44,,,,,t0fie,
' llq 40 a. ., '�
•
, 4A1-
- / lifte,"
''...' _ att,...
. . ... 7515 Ste-)L. S'164-
. belle/Afroe.,aPfezee 4/3t236 SO 76 /Coe ,
:: , ...45,6 4/44. , ) 4,074 )4 tiie,
. le5',4 at. Vd;"4,' #40;de... 7 i..,„:5‘..t. t.'.,5'% Lit.,-- e6,coot,00 ,04;i0.0,H ' eri;/ ti‘-iiitee5e-4_,0 7:tzlYdici?*60 ‘../ie .,;e:zt/ , ,,
/ .
•
6'0/77 " .
.47*'. •-'1 c' /2 1 a ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1' n'
I ,
/6:2/0 G„,r6t .,440,..„,10_,....lt , , ,, , „ . . , ,
. 7 r,..? ,s-. c,7) 6.. - ' 1 ,'
'''''F1 /241-1-1--1 ' '''e.---Z, '
:40i6 c
} � r a, Y 77O✓l t/,L47 ! C•t.0 a
75V., , ::.
. d/z-e-tli.L... ' od1P ' '
6 f
,e,c,/,'„,e,„
. . f
,47' 7c749 S,A,1. C.4' ' . - .,
X - ,
1; 6 ,
1 ,, s -. )###.A.t",#L.' '''''At.,.. -
.
4
•
d
a,