Loading...
03/03/2008 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 3, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, Walsh, and Vermilyea Commissioners Absent: Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II 3. COMMUNICATIONS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Vermilyea, to approve the February 19, 2008, special meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, and Vermilyea NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners Caffall & Walsh EXCUSED: Commissioner Hasman There was a motion by Commissioner Fishel, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve the February 25, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: President Inman EXCUSED: Commissioner Hasman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 3, 2008 — Page 1 I LLRPLMOoreeMPCWC Minutes 2008Mpo 3300 Oren Minutes doe 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a 3. 19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72Nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. President Inman opened the public hearing. Commissioner Caffall reported a site visit. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He drew attention to copies of submitted comments — one for, and one against the zone change. The comment against the change was from Susan Bielke (Exhibit A), and the comment for it was from a neighbor from the parcel to the south of the applicant's property (Exhibit B). There were some questions asked of staff by the Planning Commission. The recommendation by staff to the Planning Commission was to give 3 different alternatives from which to choose in the form of alternatives: Alternative #1 : If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review and applicability of the revised PD standards are not necessary to this particular site, approve the change as requested by the applicant. Alternative #2: If the Planning Commission feels that Commission review is important but the application of additional open space was not intended for commercial/industrial development: A. Have the applicant prepare an amendment to the code eliminating the open space requirement for commercial or industrial land; or B. Wait for review of a staff proposal to clarify the applicability of the revised open space requirement to commercial and industrial land. Alternative #3: If the Planning Commission finds this particular site, because of its unique nature and the intent of the PD provisions, warrants Commission review and applicability of the PD standards, deny the applicant's request for removal of the PD overlay. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 3, 2008 — Page 2 I LLRPLNNoreenWC PC Minutes 200BVpc 3.3-08 Draft Minutes doe APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION The applicant introduced himself as Lans Stout, a planning consultant in Tigard [the applicant's representative.] He noted this same type of zone change was discussed last August [at which time the overlay was removed] . The applicant itemized reasons why he wants the PD overlay removed in this case. He pointed out what he considered to be conflicts and inaccuracies in the staff report. He took exception to the comment on page one that stated, "Removal of the PD overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process to meet current standards." He said they are not trying to get around the public process. He noted the public hearing process is embodied in a Type II administrative staff review on the Tigard Triangle design standards. He said if a review body, an applicant, a neighbor, or an interested party feels the need to appeal it, it still will go to public hearing. He reiterated they are not trying to escape the public process but are trying to focus on the issues. He went through other pages of the staff report pointing out statements he considered inaccurate. The applicant showed a preliminary exhibit of another property as an example of how he could lay out a development. (Exhibit C). After a lengthy presentation, Mr. Stout said this is an important and complicated issue and suggested that the findings made last summer also apply to this site and the PD overlay be removed from this particular property. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look into a larger legislative fix so that this does not have to be done again on other properties that historically have had this PD applied to them that were not subject to the interactive process. There was a time for questions from the commissioners. Some of these questions & comments follow (answers by the applicant are in italics): • Did I hear you say that you were not able to locate any legislative history with respect to why or how the PD overlay came to be? This is true. I did not find it when I was doing this last summer for the other project. I didn 't go back and reinvestigate it this time because staff informed me there was none. • Do we have a copy of what Clean Water Services [CWS] presented to you? I don't know what the standards are — whether they are high, low or medium. The city does. [He went on to explain the process.] • Did you say CWS had permitted the wetlands for you already? Yes. Permits are in hand for the corridor, DSL, and Clean Water Services. • Are there any height restrictions on the site that would prevent going up rather than out if it were necessary to have the required open space? I don 't believe there an height restrictions in the Tigard Triangle standards that would be a factor. Parking is what's going to be the issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 3, 2008 — Page 3 I LLRPLMDoreenlPC1PC Minutes 2008Vpo 3-3-08 Drell Minutes.0oc • So assuming no change is made tonight, and you have to live with the PD overlay, you cannot lose any parking. Presumably, you are not going to build a structure, which means, somehow you have to come up with a way to deal with it within the footprint of the building itself, correct? I think that's a safe assumption. • You have not developed a contingency design if you have to apply the PD? That's true. • Do you have an intended use for these buildings? I'm a little bit out of my area here because I'm not the developer — I'm just the planning consultant - but I believe what they're talking about is some extra retail -probably some medical offices and some general purpose offices. • So your parking requirements are for retail — people coming and going often? The parking requirements are based on what the code requires for both retail and medical offices. President Inman gave a general reminder to the commissioners that this is a zone change and encouraged them to avoid getting too specific on the actual plan. There were no other questions for Mr. Stout. PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Inman opened up the meeting for testimony from the audience. There was no public testimony, either for, or against the zone change. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Inman closed the public hearing at 8: 17pm and said this was the Commission's opportunity to deliberate and discuss where they are. Commissioner Walsh asked of the group "Does anyone care to go back and ask questions of staff at this time?" There were questions regarding setting a precedent should two approvals of removal of the PD overlay go through. Staff answered they don't think so. It was noted that, theoretically, an applicant could always come to them and say, "Look, you've done this twice before. Why can't you do it again?" There is no requirement to do it again. No precedent is set. After a few more questions of staff, the commission deliberated at length. A portion of the deliberation follows: One of the commissioners encouraged the others to think about what they want the Triangle, ultimately, to look like. To think about how do they want to see development progress — the kinds of development they want to see . . . and is there a danger of getting too locked into this one parcel. He noted, "This is obviously what's before us tonight, but I think it may be the circumstances have changed from 1984, and even since 2006, in terms of what the original purpose was for the PD overlay. The fact remains it is a tool we have at our disposal to help try to guide the nature and character of the neighborhoods. I think that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 3, 2008 — Page 4 I LLRPLMCOreenWCWC Minutes 2000Upc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes dot is a good thing. I am uncomfortable with one of the options, which is to just do away with the overlay. I think that would be premature at this point. I'm leaning towards not removing the overlay from this property." Another commissioner said she was struggling with the fact that if we do not have the open space requirement in the PD code, she would see this application again as a PD and would not have the opportunity to participate in the process. After much deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea: "I move that we deny the application to remove the PD overlay on this parcel with respect to zone change application ZON2007-00018 in light of the testimony and the deliberations we've had tonight and the staff comments and recommendations. I move that we deny it." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doherty. Some discussion ensued regarding identifying findings more clearly. Commissioner Vermilyea withdrew the motion and Commissioner Doherty withdrew the second. After further discussion, Commissioner Vermilyea put forth a new motion: "I move that we deny the application of ZON2007-00018 based on the following findings: On the basis that the Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not; that, in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the unique nature and intent of the PD provisions, Commission review is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards on this particular site. For that reason, I move that we deny the application." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fishel and carried as follows: Ayes: President Inman; Commissioners Doherty, Fishel, Walsh, and Vermilyea Nays: Muldoon, Anderson, Caffall Abstained: None Excused: Commissioner Hasman 6. WORKSHOP WITH LAND USE POLICY INTEREST TEAM Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, suggested that, [due to the lateness of the hour], they postpone this workshop to a later date. The Commission agreed this was a good idea and they moved on to the next agenda item. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 3, 2008 — Page 5 I LLRPLNDareen1PCWC Packets for 2008WC Packet for 3-17-08 Workshop tpc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes doe 7. OTHER BUSINESS It was noted the next meeting would be held on March 17 and will be a workshop. 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Sp - . ' . 'st II ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU I'ES — Match 3, 2008 — Page 6 I V.RPLMOoreenWCWC Minuses 2003Upc 3-3.08 Draft Minutes Uoc Exhibit A March 3, 2008 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon RE: Proposed Zone Change for Fty - 2007-00018 I am writing to comment on the proposed zone change from General Commercial (PD) to just General Commercial for the above Fry property located at 12625 SW 170`h Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. My comments are as follows: I have lived in Tigard since 1990 and have been very active in helping to shape and plan our city's future by volunteering for numerous citizen groups. Several years ago I was one of the citizens who was an active member of the Planned Development Committee, a group charged with reviewing and rewriting the PD section of the Comprehensive Plan (CP). Our group spent many, many hours for two years working on this section of the Plan, with a great deal of discussion going into how the PD works and how it could be made better, including allowing more flexibility for land owners and developers than the old version. The final result of our efforts was eventually accepted and adopted by the City of Tigard for the Comprehensive Plan. The current PD section (18.350) of the CP provides ways in which development is consistent with the CP and has very flexible standards which do consider and mitigate for potential impacts to the City. One of the reasons Tigard has a PD section in the CP is to provide and protect the natural areas and opens spaces found here, while at the same time allowing for some development in these areas. When we rewrote the PD section, we made a special effort to make sure these natural areas would be protected since they are also required to be protected under the State of Oregon's Goal 5 and Title 3 processes. These natural areas provide significant benefit to improving water quality, wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic environment of Tigard. The Fry property currently is entirely an open space tract that has a portion of a perennial stream as well as adjoining scrub/shrub and forested habitat on it. For it's location, this habitat is very significant as it offers breeding and nesting sites to a host of wildlife including native songbirds, frogs, etc. in this area. The PD overlay for this and other sites is specifically there to help protect these important resources in Tigard while allowing for some development. It is very important and crucial that the Planned Development overlay on this site stay in place, as it allows for development while at the same time protecting the sites'significant natural resources. We therefore request that the applicant's request to remove the PD overlay be denied since it would negatively impact the site's significant resources and would not meet the requirements of the PD that help to create "unique neighborhoods". This area of Tigard in particular is in need of sites that retain their natural features while allowing some Exhibit B To: Gary Pagenstecher, Staff Planner From: John & Debora Scott George & JoAnn Nordling (Elmhurst Street Residents) File #: Zone Change 2007-00018 File Name: Fry Zone Change This letter is in response to our conversation of February 29, 2008 where I explained that due to other obligations we will be unable to attend the Public Hearing meeting scheduled for March 3, 2008. Our neighbors, George and JoAnn Nordling are currently out of the state and will be unable to attend this meeting as well. Both of our families have had discussions and have some concerns about the proposed development plans for the lots surrounding our properties. In our discussion of February 29, 2008, you indicated that we should voice are concerns in a letter to be presented to the committee that is overseeing the Hearing. This letter is to address the concerns of both families that will be affected with these zone changes and the development of this property. As with any project, we understand that site plans can change as they have with the Fry Project. We were initially told that the types of establishments on the property behind our homes were going to be single-level buildings, including but not limited to small commercial retail establishments. At the most recent neighborhood meeting, we were shown proposed plans for a two-level medical office building as well as a potential drive- thru banking facility. Our concern with having a multi-level building behind our homes is the visual access into our respective yards and the lack of privacy that this will cause. Some of our concerns include whether there will be any height restrictions placed on the type of building(s) that will be constructed on the development site. Is there potential for this multi-level building to be higher than two stories? If this building is a medical building, is there potential for a Heliport as indicated in the letter from the city? We also have questions regarding what types of buffers will be placed between our property lines and the newly developed property? Who makes the determination on the types of buffers that are placed? Is this buffer issue an agreement that must be made between the development company and our families? We also have concerns as the wording contained in the letter from the city indicated the potential of an "adult entertainment" business being allowed by this zoning. We have concerns with the possibility of this type of establishment being built due to the fact that there are small children in our households. We do not want our children put at risk, as historically drug and crime rates increase when there is an "adult entertainment" establishment opened. Will the city allow such facilities to be open in the Tigard Triangle? If the change in zoning is approved and development is to be started, a concern we have is the amount of noise that preparing the land and the subsequent construction will cause. Will there be "quiet hours" in which no construction or land preparation will be made? U a l�5t a yt �+ F"�tr .Y�pyf, d' Y +t,t{; vy `,tf rr & a 1� + rr` i r V t r 1 e It 1� t•5 3 'a.. •v =• 9, 1r i' 1 ^}� i i¢ ,,Ji , Si �' n�L y ,-,, s f r r T 1 4 !Li r �rtyl�o £ a u 1 rd '7Y€i{ >• 3i t i� 3nf x le d d} z j�G -.4,>—Y� '. ` .'lq`f,�,{{.rt t� 4 ,;gt t tk �1 r, - � 1 i� tat ?G - w i I R? V� 'irk-' ° rnJ`'+fi'p a YPAdg- S '3+tIf,��"r?£ 4 l' �3{firp'�'f .t.,;.:' ' Ir t it +mac t_t p . S t !E� 'Y 5 �k� . ,.'s' 1 `&t trirtib-s� s ek� } e jLS .. .++) _.', : .1_. 1+ .„ It ' t q e u r T - „ '' s i ip1 ''• ' A y "M1 ' t � 4y4a t �y ++ ,S + � 44 i I I -, 7 lee pek+r 4i'.'"' " Ili - S, 4v " } �. n 'IN He < r ik.pt Y. , _4f e1hM . x f. r" r ' - "L i � ti >@. , �R Uzi i` >r - _ , � to ' „ t o r n.. ; � w 4, r _.,4;� .`� ��«,Ir yllSi „Let trr'14r r p•I k3N r i t 1 "it,' ;! Rt t61 `t la S '4 nrn4 t z ., rk•tr N ' � C. •° d a . , �' 44n 4 'r vo 'fa,s gb w a t 4, `''+�,p ., y7trif . �f$�rsp � � A Iw3F � tv 7 A�IEi�tJ 'J3r-:2ik a a 1 u A 5 t # f4 rE „ftrY t' . "i 'YT �FUiea AIM w , - 'S4 ✓.s.. -f °� X� 4 � k , n . s' ,�x1 } § 3 + r i k P r sr iv r ` p 1 1 � , AID Y '}3k f 9 t , }`.d ~r`+ %yt� y 'v .j'w . z a✓£I t w y� r r ib< 54 b' 10' r.. b � � � �" s A �„ M s' :[ ^ `F 4 �ql [[ 1iA-�St h < s 4 " 1 � tV 9. t o � f _ gg y$�" .i:*- 1E ktiJff�w$l ft� r S 1 y f ip t -! .14 � " y+ yvIN , it .fit APpCY;*{ M Cs �i y 1 14)jl XI i i F m d"4 �Ai ( a 4 r* Y'at+�t'd�fi aiY b ,y 4'st'fy}f� tifs t5 2 •il y ;7 :L Xi i, IY ' $ #T ' .' ',str+. -.firs at" 4 ,1 �vs ' J li i _9 m �'. w r - t °4 i �t b'4r t F i r Ii r ' 7 S ac 'yfn \ 4, t .Y c . cCt i F�l x o 1 � �Yd �. { �It y ' ik), 45- � p ! i I ' i .iaV t tli= P . 1{ii ,F It. ' y [ ,,{ K 4 11 e'f•1 4.1— .3r T � t 'Y'tr r t R' yC -; ! t .,l (f I4,- s k .. k3' Z J a k .,. Y4 a'CR / ,}y 7 4 Tril £ f' ° " ` p' ' r 4a 1 r k � s1r 3i I {ij 4. �r Y �.'b, r E0 r 1y5 ��� H ° p y r j ,tJ ,A 'n'ti •r& kt , `'f' k�'A ` . 44 ) � � '°.a r aim ' !'i r' It+ I � ! " +�' �S,s p W `octt���3tFz C t l `3 rim " t l s dC+ qt s.� y y� w # VII _A:g.• �,, apfi i Y 4t^nS`,d'uw '`'11 A ., J . ri,,c rr ,r 1 i;,r. ' 1 - S.•f. 'Ifilere, M �r.40, ' t t .� : 2 'C.Z y r1 i'3f 77 y r aY K . r. 1 5 e, - , 0 i €Y d tt tf� Y Y -R' r i s G {{s� ¢f,+ � ,qr �`i qy} ' �fi � r ' ( y 4� 'g Hy', s !'' .., 3 ' ,Y1 a .: ' y' -1 t4;1 t4a1,, - 'a ,!°444`F rfii° (' 7 1 tP ■•f X a .>� b° §`! ' ' .k t -3 , 1 t + 5t '4` t 1 x - Mr t f >Y 'f i t ' k# Y 'w r F,�' L t ' )r ,� t'rFy . J r < -a L 4"r lfT `7" • e^' '..a - L iii `''1` , 5 t t k 'k Y �1 tai e N ?fr A{ xWt e tern `�,� S i , -+ __•.:ri Ft . p PJ i. 4., -44,7.:,. er � k �x`t'� 1 *"'".' S .. 4� 1E k•el 1r; a 4"�t t` } , . b grade; „4,2 t �fx i '{t' F r a "i ' § OJT g 11 i 4 �,YS� '" J k§ : ff /144,444, ?di b t �441t � 1 _ ,,,,..tb i t s G •ril' i ; 11 �' r 3� Fr. !{`v' Yrt +rRr tt�fivh f `[ a tt SA' 1 i r � ,Y i r 3 r ' 1i n ° E i k , L i -:1 x . .. tgsgt k> dR '�„>: x s C . �i E. S� y9rr7, w /5 ' tt`` �3 t . + / , aE i I I s r 1 & }1 ` � . krn 'h , - y a,+i^,e t .£y sI. i ny gas t�`4, sA t z+ t H t k 5�� if. 1 9 :”„ r' t;t' � �'Ei r� :/, r '4,,1 .7, , l4 &ttr l ^ ve , g-� Ft 1 t.tiw#tciiv T tg a et 4 d{ M Iii ri'Frti . r . . ' 1 t ° e 6� J ' �- P*./ t 4 x Ntrf } �' 2.k ' i 4 '. E. ?, '.9. -. '- { £ rf s 44 Ivi 1 i r . a ..-]s .A4 C i, i y ` -'rf ...' We' b .�Iyry},i ,y ,N -:—.2.i.' " 1 't jF ∎ . # 4 i 11.4b4 5 t1 �Y :0 '0' zY i iP '�,i�'W :•_ �I t $i■ le i '' ) )r {y}�r a1 r ;ka, C�r�{�s T s yp , ,- ae 1 f4l x • tog E� •'tn ! '} , y AA, 'J sVrylt p3 ,Yy7i it �#„ -" x 7 r =I1 %LLAly-#f lik IT I .5/�E n 7 - { de 4 - 1 . •?; 9 p t+s' . i,. A ,4t-. n- t `$ 'd 147: L`�r4. 7 r4 ;yew be ll x c } rA i Sq i Wt ? ? �ti y 'aNr3 tF > 5 k .* ust, t w v . °rtC cva 'k r�. sir s - r111 ' � +,::,•.- ', d 'Y s 1 ro Sr 'A1�y ��i1T'�„ - ktt 4 1,.,c S 1 7 4- 1 ; l .i3 z � „1 A a 1 vt€ emi 31 k h x -e x f . T't.2t:'IcA/ -- e $ iw "! * r. 4 r $4} 5 v e¢'f`'-' I tit*h pi``ztr t * "tilt+ f1 , ,}s4 + °7 51 .uvi 7t� t y t '� 3 4 t1 Jg3 1 'F'$ � 4 `� `r� , ?PA rf t t�tl+t' >J Sis 44F ; y . d f St h r 1 3�I I j�t't x ,r t 7P tf '` i k- I r f 1 g "r'. sS , nll - _ I hfl{t 3",�'.17.,`rf i€itF -.. I 1 x . 11 .lb z e L t° 3,1` I 1itifir k a VI 42 6 X e 15 1 .` ; y :77 pp s r r,Nr <c � i Y 't A r'`#t r ft� to :i {' t'F Al z< rtt _ i a "N ti?rt R 7 •- # 4J &I p id{y+ .E: ti°}��1 (`'It7a{ "v, l§ k - '. � 7'r r < taF4 + �xr µ§,. _-niA-t li 1- Y - ,t k ' --- '. If r .Ir11e � y�alt#"i#- - tp:, ife'}i �"t -1t f HSa '11' .1a 1 4 3 -I r t i +1- e ; P ,. gr 3�{w k.0 >{ 4 b!l fit A- 5 - ",. 1 a - . AT . `"h i n- aS .� �a C'a z" 117. ,� { t s, 4 4i - a I S E t i zrs^4,J ... % 1fr 1, 1P r�`4/1 ,0414444‘,S.44471$@t" i 'n 'u° `jj 4`,fr''$' =7rt 7tf i '+ �e'st yt `` #itsv a5 }' t, f ti Y r" 2fy Fi a ' 411;+ ,A14-; rw-�'Y Y b` ��t f 3 ., ✓ 5 c a b 9 l , 4,45.144?" ,3 , i' ! . I { [ 4 ' SC 51* a 1 p¢fbf, cis J 4 M.i 5 4 .4 s- td I! i 51 + 1 i as L r ..„11, .. 5a�„ 3 5 ,, ii„, i 1Y ti z -, s �rcn$3 ti p N 2 4 1011r l i£},y i£ to t+.ts> e.' s Y ', 4:5 p 5 4it d:1%!1PS 94.,. =,,k� X5i`# "Ys s Cf N sle v v.. o• - 13®4 :� N . Ffi " +,�}£"�`a"` r 1'1:Y.t�'�,{iY;' . ,+y� tk„�5'^ ' rAV s. n r�,t;e�-'al,.x 6.i yytt, rh, +'r `4 ks20 1 'pt'f t - t� >na ' { 1 fi3 f f 5 5": • 7 { - i&l' Y {45 ,2}yy a( ,- ak ,,t r. x To } f .r. - `t t o f Y q 5 I rr.J' > "' t„ 4$ t 'Yt 1/4-1 . E, i 4 € -- is i N= rr 1F'2"3F ` f -t es1 y i??vtt+ - f - lttr t 4i sy�- .CiAR' Y ' tt : lf y.Y;,1,; ;kit kt'e� t+ T ,, 10 3t [rJ 4;1:4 R 3a1�, dr olLc43 pa4:1j . 10if ' .` - -L-2c: ` t ^il c YS .4 � : 'a; 4 ' l vt - f ........45,rr�; s{k,, , riv,fr , ,, ,:& , 0,„*eaQr ,,, „l g��,j e\F ,e ,, l S t „ . l Ja i s i Y`E` ,tS'•� S�1a4 F °j`}fix t4 1 i 'F 'yF. c „lag, {}t Ihx 3 i t ipf<>'''4t�t 7dZ r 1S rM _ 3 .f E' sl ,r1 :4-t,} ,F `" v. 1 4,4 skit' tyr lis lip i'.i.}`k� t l n '7 {.lid .1, {otF k tt 'rl r�w,,k 6 9 7 e,, 1 `' "1 �e,'�1 . el s1F:{yp '•. s 7'C. .tit-fAr f 't.& ` [ (;°i r ZE '7 •+`, 1 `+l d ,. It 24 d, 1. t + , Tf - t d 5� }f 4:'* T3--P..:`(''F!:' _: r et'2+ t. :`azrs.t F`xt:,,,'3 f4 # 5. .4 ->�i'wA.F'r,ti k.tthsk., .1 `ke.tt..e.„b elrtl„a__ ,r✓ . .*its .' .�,CS� r1C : t* 71 f 2t >'::� ti .