08/15/2005 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the
Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Anderson, Buehner,
Caffall (arrived late), Duling, Haack, Inman, Meads, and
Munro.
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,
Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer;
Mike Mills, Senior Engineering Technician; Jerree Lewis, Planning
Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 12th. There will be 2
public hearings for planned developments that night.
Commissioner Meads advised that the Park and Recreation Board has approved criteria
for evaluating properties to purchase (or consideration of purchase) for parkland. The
Board also approved a resolution for City Council saying they would like Council to move
forward quickly to acquire these properties. She noted that the School Board is
considering selling some property with the idea of having it become parkland. She also
reported that David Bragdon from Metro discussed an upcoming bond measure with the
Council last week. Bragdon will meet with the Park & Recreation Board next month to
receive input.
President Padgett reported that the Chamber of Commerce will have a luncheon this
week. Tom Brian will speak on water acquisition for Washington County.
Commissioner Buehner advised that the Planned Development Review Committee will
meet with Council the 3rd week of September. She reported that the City Center
Advisory Commission is continuing to meet. The Financial Strategy Task Force starts
meeting next week.
Commissioner Munro reported that the Downtown Task Force has started to review the
draft public involvement plan and is looking at defining the urban renewal boundaries.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 1
President Padgett said that he contacted Congressman Wu's office regarding moving the
post office. He was informed that if Tigard wants to move its post office, the City would
have to pay for it.
Commissioner Duling advised that the Committee for Citizen Involvement meets this
week.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the August 1, 2005 meeting minutes as
submitted. The motion passed unanimously by those Commissioners present
(Commissioner Caffall arrived after the vote was taken).
The July 11, 2005 minutes were amended to reflect that the applicant for agenda item
#5.2 (Oak Street Townhomes) had requested the application be postponed, subject to
submittal of a new application. It was moved and second to approve the minutes as
amended. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioners Caffall and Haack
abstained.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00001/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2005-
00001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2005-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2005-
00001 & 15NARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00001 MAPLECREST SUBDIVISION
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 13 lot Planned Development
(PD) Subdivision on a 3.63 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with
detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are proposed to be
between 5,854 and 16,415 square feet. Sensitive Lands Review is required because
the proposed site contains slopes greater than 25% and a drainageway. The
applicant is also seeking an adjustment for the proposed pedestrian pathway width
from the required 5 feet to 3 feet. LOCATION: 13255 SW Greenfield Drive; WCTM
2S104DB, Tax Lots 5000 and 5100. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District.
The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes
with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic
and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380,
18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775,
18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
Commissioner Buehner advised that she had attended the neighborhood meeting and
that she was familiar with the site. Commissioners Meads and Munro reported site
visits.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the City.
He noted that the application was for 13 single family detached homes on 3.63 acres
of a heavily constrained site. There is a stream going across the property with a buffer
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 2
and there are also very steep slopes. It is heavily forested. The applicant wants to
minimize land devoted to streets, maximize the buildable land, and be able to save
trees in the process. There will be a private street serving 12 lots which includes a
turnaround that does not meet fire standards. The applicant is proposing an
amendment to address the fire standards. The private street continues through the
lots and connects with the adjoining property to serve future development.
The applicant is proposing reduced setbacks internally. A variance is required for a
connection path between the proposed street and Rockingham Drive. The minimum
required by code is 5' and the applicant is proposing 3', per CWS standards, to
minimize the impact to the creek buffer.
The applicant has addressed issues raised by neighbors, including storm water events
in the creek and large trees in the south end of the site. Staff finds that the proposal
meets the standards and recommends approval.
Pagenstecher advised that lot 8 is a flag lot and the applicant has proposed a 5'
setback. If the developer wants to exceed 25' in height, there must be a minimum of
50' between the property line and the structure on the adjoining property outside of the
development. The zone standard is 30' for building height; the applicant is requesting
35' because of the slopes.
Dick Bewersdorff noted that the applicant will address drainage issues. There has
been significant flooding downstream on Wellington Place because the storm drain
inlet was too small. There is a current CIP project which is out to bid to remedy this
problem.
Staff advised that lot 12 has access from SW Greenfield.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Dale Richards, Winwood Development, 12655 SW North Dakota, Tigard 97223 and
Greg Kurahashi, Kurahashi & Associates, detailed the project (Exhibits A-C) for the
Commission. Kurahashi advised that they have reviewed staff comments and have
diagrams regarding the fire access issue. He stated that they can provide a 25' width
access for lot 8.
Kurahashi said they will increase the overall radius of the cul-de-sac bulb to meet fire
access requirements. As a result, lot 6 will be smaller. He showed the end of the
private street where it could serve as a possible access to the property to the west (tax
lot 4900). He noted that if the neighboring property were to develop and access the
private street, the property owners in that development would be required to join the
overall Homeowner's Association so they would share responsibility for maintenance
of the private street and storm drainage system.
Regarding the setbacks for lot 8, Kurahashi advised that in order to protect the tree
roots, the building would be moved back from the trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 3
Kurahashi explained the storm drainage system and provided details of the catch
basin. The current undersized catch basin will be replaced by a larger one.
Other than the items mentioned, Kurahashi said they accept the staff report and feel
they can meet all the requirements. Staff advised that when the applicant comes in
with their final plan, the lot sizes will be checked to ensure they meet the required lot
sizes.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR
Paul & Victoria Etchemendy, 13255 SW Greenfield Dr., Tigard 97223, testified that
they have owned the property since 1973. They described their vision for the
development and noted that they were pleased with the developer's plan to save trees
as much as possible. They believe the subdivision will enhance the property and
maintain integrity of the land.
Robert Ludlum, 14065 SW Fern Street, Tigard, OR 97223 advised that he owns the
property directly to the west of the proposed development. He said he is pleased with
the way the Etchemendys plan to have their land developed. He reported that he has
had problems with runoff on his property caused by other developments. He referred
to a letter he had sent to the Commission on August 2, 2005 expressing some
concerns (Exhibit D). He would like to have the access to SW Rockingham Drive
dedicated for future use to his property. Staff responded that it is required to be
dedicated as well as funded — it's a condition of approval.
Mr. Kurahashi advised that staff would like to see the stub at the end of the cul-de-sac
improved all the way to Ludlum's property. Mr. Ludlum agreed, saying it would keep
abutting properties from extending their landscaping into the right-of-way.
Commissioner Inman asked about the last point in his letter about development that
creates instability. Ludlum said he just wanted to make sure there was no large cut
into the hillside that could cause instability. After talking to Mr. Kurahashi, he doesn't
think it will be a problem.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION
Larry Hutchinson, 13287 SW Clearview Way, Tigard, OR 97223 testified that he lives
in Benchview Estates, behind lot 8. He testified that his main concern is about the 5'
setback for lot 8. He believes having the house that close could undermine the slope
of his lot, especially if they remove the large tree. Staff checked the code and advised
that sideyard setbacks for flag lots are required to be 10'; a 5' setback is not allowed.
The staff report was erroneous when it stated that all standards were met.
Mike Clark, 13217 SW Wellington Place, Tigard 97223 expressed concern about
drainage. He handed out a letter from Doug and Julie Riggs and Stephan Rehr-
Zimmerman (Exhibit E) complaining about insufficient drainage in the area. He
showed a video (Exhibit F) which showed flooding in 2004. He testified that the
flooding is not a result of the drain being plugged. There is so much water, that it
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 4
floods before even reaching the drain. He wants the City to address the flooding
before allowing more construction.
Paul and Jeanine Murphy, 13350 SW Hillshire, Tigard 97223 testified that their
property is above the proposed development. The creek is behind them and they
have water issues. They are also concerned about the trees being taken out on Bull
Mountain. They have had water under their house and their lawn is a swamp year
round. If trees are removed, their lot would be at risk for erosion.
John Skidmore, 13265 SW Clearview Way, Tigard 97223 stated that he considers the
current proposal an improvement over the previous plan. He noted that if the setbacks
for lot #8 are increased to 10', 2 Douglas Firs over 30" in caliper would be within the
setback area. He believes that the majority of all trees on that lot will be removed. He
would like to maintain a contiguous greenspace area for a habitat corridor. His
testimony is included in a letter (Exhibit G).
Dick Bewersdorff explained the tree removal program. He advised that the City used
to have a process where the applicant was encouraged to save trees. The Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) recently set down some new rules regarding tree removal.
Applicants are required to say what trees will be removed ahead of time. They cannot
go back and change their tree plan. This forces the developer to propose to cut all the
trees. If a tree that was scheduled for removal can be saved, fine, but they are
penalized if they have to remove a tree that was shown to be saved.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
Greg Kurahashi advised that the soft path is a balance between environmental issues
with the need for pedestrian walkways. A 3' pathway is required by CWS to cross the
creek without having to ask for special variances from CWS procedures. President
Padgett asked if the Planning Commission could add a condition that the path be 5' if
the applicant can get approval from CWS; otherwise the path could stay at 3'. Staff
answered yes.
Regarding a tree corridor, there is a CWS requirement for an overall 50' buffer corridor
along the creek. This matches a corridor coming down to the site and tying into the
wetland. The developer tried to keep the corridor open. They try to save individual
trees on the site and still be able to provide for housing. They may be able to save
more trees, but if they show a tree being saved but can't, they will be penalized.
According to staff, the penalty for not following a tree plan is a $500 fine, value of the
tree, plus $125 per caliper inch for mitigation.
Kurahashi ran part of the video again (Exhibit F) to show the storm drain. He advised
that the drain must be maintained and kept free of debris or it will flood. He noted that
they are not responsible for creating the amount of water that is there now. The water
is coming from existing facilities that don't have detention systems. He handed out
pictures of the existing drain (Exhibits H & I) and discussed what they plan to do about
drainage for this development. With the new system, the 25 year release rate will be
the same as when it was just forest.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 5
The applicant advised that he can meet the condition to increase the setback for lot 8
to 10 feet.
Mike Mills, Senior Engineering Technician, reported on the City's storm drainage
project for Rockingham Street that is currently out to bid (Exhibit J). The City
anticipates the work beginning at the end of September and completed by the end of
October. He explained the,City's procedures for storm drain maintenance.
Commissioner Inman asked if there is a water main on Rockingham that Mr. Ludlum
could access when he's ready to develop his property. Kim McMillan said she didn't
know for sure, but believes there is a water line in Rockingham. She does not know
about the pressure. Every new project has to deal with that issue. If there isn't a large
enough line, they extend or upsize lines.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Caffall thinks the Engineering Department will take care of some of the
drainage issues. The developer has a good proposal. He noted that the land owner
could have gone in and logged the property. He is happy the owner will not do that.
Commissioner Haack acknowledged that these are tough sites to develop. He believes
the engineer and developer have thought through much of the issues.
Commissioner Anderson agrees with the drainage issues. He doesn't think this
development will make much impact. The Capital Improvement Program will hopefully
address some of the issues. He is for a 10' setback on lot 8.
Commissioner Duling said it was admirable that the developer will keep as many trees
as they can. Speaking from personal experience, she noted that sometimes
development can make things better for drainage.
Commissioner Inman feels that, for the most part, the applicant has addressed most
concerns. She asked about extending the private road to the property line. She also
asked if there is a condition of approval for offsite drainage improvements. Kim
McMillan advised that the applicant is required to take care of the drainage for their
development and can have no negative impact downstream. The applicant has offered
some extra features that are on their plans—what they show on the plans is what the
City gets. The City asked for the street being extended to the property line so that
people wouldn't assume it was their private property. This development will incur the
cost for the street extension.
Commissioner Munro concurs with the other Commissioners. She also concurs with the
10' setback for lot 8 and the street extending to the property line.
Commissioner Buehner agrees with everything that has been said, however, she would
like to add a condition that the pathway be 5' instead of 3'. She would like it conditioned
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 6
that the applicant apply to CWS for a variance and if they are denied, the 3' pathway
would be acceptable.
Commissioner Meads said she is fairly satisfied with the runoff problem. She thinks the
developer has a good solution for containing the water. With the size of the lot and the
height of the house, she has reservations about lot 8, even with the 10' setback. She
would rather they not build on lot 8 and perhaps expand lot 7.
President Padgett said he favors the mandated setback of 10' for lot 8. He doesn't
think it's necessary to require non-development of lot 8. He would like to add a
condition so developer must apply to CWS to widen the path to 5', but that if they are
denied, 3' would be allowed. He also thinks they have done a decent job on the tree
plan.
Commissioner Buehner moved for approval of Subdivision (SUB) 2005-00001/Planned
Development Review (PDR) 2005-00001/Zone Change (ZON) 2005-00001/Sensitive
Lands Review (SLR) 2005-00001 & 15/Variance (VAR) 2005-00001, based on the
staff report, the testimony at the hearing today, and the additional conditions of a 10'
setback on lot 8 and for a 5' path subject to the application process with CWS and
their approval of the 5' pathway. If they will not approve it, then it would be 3' wide.
Commissioner Caffall seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8-1.
Commissioner Meads voted against the motion.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
JerreetL wis, Planning Commi sion Secretary
kid
ATTEST: Presi,l-nt Mark Padgett
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 15,2005—Page 7
EXHIBIT A
LARGE EXHIBIT
MAY BE VIEWED
AT CITY HALL
EXHIBIT B
LARGE EXHIBIT
MAY BE VIEWED
AT CITY HALL
ExHIBIT C
LARGE EXHIBIT
MAY BE VIEWED
AT CITY HALL
p
RECD AUG 0 4 2005
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard,OR 97223 08/02/05
RE: File Title: Maplecrest Subdivision FROM: Robert and Jo Ann Ludlum
File Nos: SUB2005-00001,PDR2005-00001
Applicant: Winwood Homes
Jurisdiction: City of Tigard(City)
Dear Planning Commission:
BACKGROUND: We are the owners of a 5 acre undeveloped parcel uphill and contiguous to the
west side of the proposed subdivision. The applicant's representative, Greg Kurahashi,has been
most helpful in explaining the plans for the subject property while they were working through the
preliminary approval process with governmental agencies. So far we are generally supportive of
what we have heard about the development plans for the subject subdivision.
ISSUES: We are concerned that the City's final(assumed)approval of the proposed subdivision
could negatively impact the value of our undeveloped adjacent acreage. We would like the City
to insure that its final approval does not contain components which when carried out would result
in the subject subdivision limiting future development or market value of our adjacent property.
Some of the areas of concern include:
• egress/ingress to our property via SW Rockingham Dr.;
• ability to develop SE corner of our property due to lack of access and utilities;
• altering drainage; and
• development that creates instability in our property
REQUEST: Please insure that the City's final approval addresses our issues,including the
specific ones noted above.
Thank you for your consideration.
-74 teteAcr-L1
Robert Ludlum Jo Ann Ludlum
CC: Gary Pagenstecher,Tigard Planning Staff
Greg Kurahashi, Kurahashi and Associates,Inc.
/2 o l5 Sl cl ��rn ST
1 1'lard, Q q7,=)a-
August 11, 2005
Tigard Planning Commission
13125 SW Hall
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Dear Commissioners:
We are unable to attend the August 15 hearing on the MAPLECREST SUBDIVISION
proposal, but very much wanted my voice to be heard. Our concern relates to the
Community Development Code's provisions C L.®„ }.C.,r l sect;. , B o - 6 0 0
As you will hear this evening, our neighborhood on Wellington Place(directly north and
below the proposed development)has suffered from repeated flooding due to the
insufficient drainage in th e_area. On numerous occasions, the four houses at thoOotatla
end of our neighborhood have come within an inch of having the retaining walls
overflow. The other houses have seen severe trash, rock and dirt accumulation, as well as
light damage to vehicles. And the fast rushing water has posed a safety threat to children,
pets, and even adults.
We have no objection to the Maplecrest property being developed in a responsible
manner. We do strongly object to the seeming unwillingness of the owners' engineer to
even acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. At the first public meeting on this
issue(which, like this one, was inconveniently scheduled in the middle of summer
vacations),the engineer reacted with disdain or hostility to our comments. He denied that
there was any flooding problem. This is contradicted by the evidence we are presenting
this evening, as well as the records of the city which will indicate the massive cleanup
that city crews have had to perform on numerous instances after the floods occur.
As residents and small business owners in Tigard,We strongly object to this approach by
the City and the Developer. And we ask that you insist that the City and the developer
resolve these severe drainage issues to our satisfaction before you allow any further
progress on this development.
2)&0..2'
s
Sinc ly,
Doug and Julie iggs tephan Rehr-Zimmerman
13123 SW Wellington Place 13119 SW Wellington Place
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon, 97223
CC: Tigard City Council
State Representative Larry Galizio
EXHIBIT F
LARGE EXHIBIT
MAY BE VIEWED
AT CITY HALL
1:t
John and Lara Skidmore Cr
13265 SW Clearview Way
Tigard, Oregon 97223
City of Tigard Planning Commission
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
August 13, 2005
RE: Maplecrest Subdivision—2005-00001
Dear Commissioners:
We are adjacent landowners immediately to the south of the proposed Maplecrest subdivision
and have been aware of and active in review of this proposed subdivision in its earlier form
(Blue Heron Hollow). We have attempted to review the materials mailed to us from the City of
Tigard (City) as well as some documentation from Mr. Kurahashi of Kurahashi &Associates. In
order to get more information about the proposal,we have also gone to City Hall to review the
documents on file there. Unfortunately, all pertinent materials relevant to review and comment
require significant time and resources to assimilate and analyze. The file for this subdivision is
at least 6 inches thick, and with a 25 cent per page copying charge, anyone not directly involved
with the project is at a distinct disadvantage with respect to the ability to understand the proposal
and to provide comments.
Based upon what we have been able to review,the new subdivision represents an improvement
over the previous version largely due to the reduction in the proposed number of lots from 17 to
13,and the commitment to retain certain trees adjacent to the Benchview Estates properties.
However,we remain concerned that the proposed subdivision still contains issues and variances
that may not balance the interests of the city or the neighbors surrounding the land under review.
These are described below. We also remain concerned that the City has not fully considered
alternative uses of this land and the adjacent lot to the west for purposes other than maximum-
density residential development.
Lot Number 8
Benchview Estates, a subdivision directly to the south of the proposed Maplecrest Subdivision,
has a permanent set-aside of some acreage along the slope just to the west and south of the
proposed subdivision. This is a heavily forested area with a portion of Krueger Creek running
through it. This set-aside provides significant buffering for a number of lots within Benchview
Estates. Additionally, it provides important greenspace habitat for wildlife that inhabit Bull
Mountain. This greenspace currently extends eastward across the back portions of lots 28-30 of
Benchview Estates and terminates in a clump of very large Douglas fir trees on Mr. LeBrun's
large lot to the east. We think that it is important ecologically,aesthetically and functionally to
maintain at least some of this corridor.
Based on the materials we reviewed,the builder proposes to cut nearly all trees on lot number 8.
This includes at least three 30"or greater diameter Douglas fir trees (1422,1423,1424). These
trees contribute significantly to the buffering affect of the existing tree corridor both within
Benchview Estates' lots and the Benchview Estates permanent set-aside. These trees also
provide the northern anchor for the strip of greenspace that runs from the western end of
Benchview Estates' permanent set aside to the stand of Douglas firs on Mr. LeBrun's lot.
We do not support the lot frontage variance proposed in the subdivision. Section 18.810.060
requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets.
We do not support the 5 foot setback on the south side of lot 8. This directly affects lots 28-29
within Benchview Estates and appears inconsistent with the City's ordinance requiring at least a
15-foot rear set back. If it is determined that the area in question is designated a side-yard, it
then appears that it is inconsistent with requirements under Section 18.410.040.4(a),which
require "that no side yard is less than 10 feet."
In short, Lot number eight is an attempt to squeeze too much housing into too little space. It will
require the cutting of nearly all the trees on the lot as well as other variances identified in the
Staff Report to the Commission. The excessive tree removal on this lot appears to be counter to
one of the purposes of planned developments and that is to "preserve to the greatest extent
possible the existing landscape features and amenities..." (18.350.010(4)
Trees to be removed
The materials we reviewed did not clearly identify trees to be removed and trees to be retained.
The whole process for tree preservation is confusing, and it appears that some of the City's
policies regarding tree preservation make it so difficult for the builder to retain the trees,that
builder's opt instead to remove the mature trees and then purchase and plant many small trees.
Many small trees cannot replace a stand of mature trees. Given the existing drainage and slope
issues on this property, as well as the aesthetic impacts of the development on this neighborhood,
we think it is important that as many mature trees be preserved as possible. We strongly urge the
City to require the retention of mature trees wherever possible, consistent with Section
18.350.010..
Alternate Uses
Lastly,we are disappointed that the City did not consider or pursue alternate uses for this
property, such as a park,while the earlier proposal was withdrawn and prior to it being
resubmitted under the current configuration. We contacted the City about this,but could not
convince City planning staff nor the parks director to make even a site visit. In addition,this
undeveloped land was not included on the City's inventory for future parks even though it is one
of the last significant tracts of land that is undeveloped on the entire north side of incorporated
Bull Mountain. I question this proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
Metro's Goal 5 objectives.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Respectfully submitted, ....
�� • /
John and Lara Skidmor
H
„ , . ....--.-— 'vf,,,:,' .-...ii......:: i_,k :.; #
; , .;'- :,; i
,..4::x � � ��rr , * t
ftw
r 'i a�s g.
�€
`�A r .t' `tF
+ p b °i c<� a mod ; jR " "' r ri;7 ea ^� w JR� aiom . a le € x , y
�
*;� `� r x ' .. , � i'� Y 'p": , ;-,'rt , ° ,p p r - g vf� � s ` .. ,f"_A t i ' s . , 6 fw.. . t% ' ' r S t y .€ * p 6 , y: r W *` -c h e r # hw & l� �9 * " a r' x �� et d � " � r}'y �Xg } � " y 'ley 4 � 'y ** -:,i•,'' '"a � % a t � ya v t � F 4' 'M -d . 4. d )�4 r�x v !„ > i + � �r� L T��l A4 n ' +,'';'. ''''.477:-••41C.-r,'' ! � g � 1 m y a 51' -fV Y n: g 4r •" , � � R c tea z f e r; � i'' � � '� '�� r n a W ` r „r ' P 1•
.* r vx " " t ;s ,L h #'.'"'Y---..: mq. f Y aGs �+ 5` �; � b d' 'r� ,a , y„ ` ' Y 4y, •' rr *� # 4 *.',..':$7,,I'-,*, 5 v ? g -S" y r f 4' `� ��{, � G � *�w& 5' ,- ; f,'„',- -',:...,•,1-,'"'.'.'' Vi d.r � 5 a � ` ;; �' �4% �� r w$` h �7 ,! p ? ^ N„ R ,t� b�' ryj�'ry , r 9 "k_' p - r -.,r z * � 5 r i a r, A r t v r 4'r.i_� F,r k : a4t �" &3 m . 9•��3 �' s 4� � #fi, q ; �a tr" �� - Y Aft r. v "':',2'•'a e, r� A r° p a ,wk !?..!7,- ..' s M .S Sd_ F 3, fi k . _ � w�, ; 'u '11;17 ;4.;14/4's k M * Y r F w F r 5 ° ,2 e '�= �3C -„. 1 " " �atea”,. � 5 �' aRV ar _st.,r2n.,+ '`v a.. 3* 9;�'` a d t�m .. ..a3 �
_. " h ,.idrm,
3r _____ ,.' T y e+' R{ +:''' do-', -- r �^. rR :a '' 11.!r r � '' 1•k F - , p i' fl , tt ,.,_11._,,- L� r r•
$4 ti\ "�i'L'•,p r. 441. , ro- v "ts1'.- n . r 1•- r
1Fp1 4.,.,"=r.yJ'Cs�\ �r Is.1" Y i `i �S. •r.. 5., . �` �,Q-- y -f* L _ ` ` '+ ., t •$l i_./fY•'-i',1_.1, t •��j✓.,A.( ■ .I•
FAH 1. ^" LM„r1 f4+. - 1 \ _ ''''".?,1r;.'e -t X 4 r ';t4.7 a p s ,fr}
r• f Ft, - :b � �1 b it j - . -
a i S W..1� s T V ,:-..,..-<,-4:.- ' of 1h,�1t ^ ., ` -4•t
yAt� r�+�'k #L `� • 4 o-
S' 1 } t� �'' s " <.• �t "F,x>I ^y . • rya•
sY1 3 r - t ',4, Ci i!0. •d a'� `Y
1, 1 l+; ` k! `f.-=. tit j ip. ,Y7It ,..1 YW- I •r._.
Y . ~^- +5• 1j �i..0 r 4uf 1 A - - _ `Si ,fig. __ , r..
�, I! ,i + �i ..a,.^A 47 ifs i } a�,•:.«.^.ii••f ' ;,,,,, J 1*,)` � airy Y� x " a c� d'a3,,�.
71� }w�/ r try r xtv . 5 y • �. {,� s. "� M it•
,f, s} \ b -w F ...3a•.:'anti -r "� :f+t f' •r ; • -
t 3 r
}x}
.'icy Yt aA 8i Rg3;y h7
'fias^t. �. Y
.��.n. 5 t yp fir ' :4 ✓.e'e.'' w;'..) .,_. . ...._r
l r3' } S µ_. �5 - a tiQ r:., �' a �'' kl y.. f �,s �..:l w�,. �-.
-:., Y,.� �,� yi -y,,r�.;r -n �,.j .+i� bpt r t'.il"L�' +:.:
'. L'.. ) C�• t.z ,4,'� . r r� _a 'A4 t't aka 4 .1.: �'- 'Ly .+ s.
a y F }c Jx..'S i .°--: .+4+fR.� J„ ,€• 1'' .. 4,..l;p : . -.r
� s' ��.�. ErdJ e`: k 2rte v L ,.:i t'r `pag. ..4'YaJS'`. `t .:Al;
4:. � .`-a / t 4 4. . 'tr'J(A k '.� ,:1.;. d xi T !n� e,
��'ia.?'t /!'!,/ . I •n 4�f C'��a7 � ,e, s �, ,..r: ( . w . 4` ,
.Y ,.: L S ifs' �*+•, a ,� ._•
'�►.-
i: , �y ,� � f 9,.red.,.:�._ ' '' f .,:: .�` ?•.n N t� �— y SZ +7'�s�5 r'4 r v' r r• ! .� f 9 . L i•F, 1 ✓F• M 1L rl^ ';'::'1A° F 3Y.`, F .. . s
o ).-,. ."--,-T--, _11%.1 4. Srf 9 {�, F .r 7 Y