Agenda Packet - 1986-01-06 AGENDA ,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPI'ENT REVIEW BOARD
COUNCIL CHAM3ERS, CITY HALL, 351 FIRST STREET
January 6, 1986
7:30 NM:
iF****,****y{,{,*********,MN4MM*************************NN•*****Mk********** ****{,**********************%Mw%
ITEM MEETING FORMAT
,. *******************4*******NYMHFN¢*****YY4MON11********************Mk***MiF****#*,,,{,*****{,********,,NYMUMM4****
I. CALL TO ORDER I. Staff Report
II. ROIL CALL 2. Correspondence
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Applicant's Presentation
4. Public Testimony from others In .
December 16, 1985 support of application
5. Comments or questions from
IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS interested persons who neither are
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS proponents nor opponents
6. Public testimony from those In
I A. DR 21-85/VAR 54-85, a request by Terry opposition of the application
d Lucy Prince to construct a secondary dwelling 7. Questions from Development Review
unit end approval of a Class I Variance to the Board
Transit Standard at 755 5th St. 8. Rebuttal Testimony from applicant
(Tax Lot 8900 of Tax Map 2 IE 33B). 9: Closing of publIc hearing t
10. Board discussion/action
044 B: VAR 53-85) a request by Barbara M. Bragg •
The DeValo mont Review Board's
and Richard and Virginia Walters for approval p
of a variance to the street width requirement decision on these matters may be
of 20': The site Is I.•aated on Iron Mt: Blvd: appealed to the City Council: For
north of Andrews Road (Tax Lot 3500 of further Information) contact the Lake
Tax Map 2 1E and Tax Map 500 of Tax Map 2 lE 3C8). Oswego Planning Office, 636-3601
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order •
- VAR 46-85 (Glen Chllcote)
- SD 31-85/VAR 44-85 (Moore)
- VAR 49-85/VAR 51-85 (Morrow)
VIII. ADJOURNIENT
The Lake OsWego Development Review Board welcomes your Interest In these agenda Items. Feel free to came
and go as you please.
Board Members! Richard Hutchins, Chairman Staff: Topaz Faulkner, Director
• Robert Blackmora Bob Galante, Development Review Planner
3 Richard Esllck Lori Mastrantonio, beVelopment Review Planner
Curtis Finch Gar, Mlniszawski, Associate Planner
John Glasgow Renee Dowlin, Assistant Planner
Vern Martindale
Anthony Wright
3573P
3712 .
•
e w
r
o-
' n
\\:`
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Developmept Review Board Members
ii N
FROM: Renee DoWlin, Assistant Planner '
h SUBJECT: 755R 21-85 Fifth& VAR Street4(Tax(Secondary
3DIIDwelling
Unit)
8900)
DATE: December 27, 1985
DR 21-85 and VAR 54-85 were tabled until January 6, 1985 to
give staff additional time to have a legal interpretation of
parking in the required yard and to research the history of the
secondary dwelling unit; however, in the process of doing the
research, staff has determined the Development Review Board
cannot properly consider the request for a secondary dwelling
unit at the proposed site. Tax Lot 8900 is a 6000 square foot
lot located in a residential zone requiring 7500 square feet of
lot area per dwelling unit.
LOC 48.515(1) states if there is an area deficiency (the lot
does not meet the minimum lot area per unit), the residential .
use shall be limited to a single-family dwelling.
Consequently, as a single family dwelling exists on the
property, no further permitted or conditional use may be
requested.
Staff has notified the applicant, and recommenas the Board deny •
the request for both the secondary dwelling unit and the
variance.
For Your Information:
Should the issue of parking in the required yard surface
again, both the Deputy city Attorney and the city Attorney
agree that LOC 44.382(b) allows parking in the required
yard. While it may not et:plicitly state "or in the
required 'yard", the intent is clear. (The Parking and
Loading Standard (7.020(2) states, "parking may not be
located in the required yard EXCEPT Where permitted in LOC
44.382... )
LOC 44 is the Subdivision Chapter, and is intended to apply
to only single family homes in residential use districts.
rld:kh 3''‘`7 3
.
140 NORtII STAtI'mat'PoSt ma ROX t1,9 r'MI OSWtGO,MI MN 97014 0011 b ill-11d11
, /
ADDENDUM STAFF REPORT
December 27, 1985
FILE NO: SD 21-85, VAR 51-85, VAR 53-85
APPLICANT FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: John M. Godsey
PROPERTY OWNERS: Barbara Bragg and Richard and Virginia Walters
APPELLANT: Jean Siddall
LOCATION: Part of the east side of an unconstructed portion
of Iron Mountain Boulevard, north of Andrews Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Map 2S lE 3BC, Tax Lot 3500
Tax Map 2S lE 3CB, TAx Lot 500
NEIGHBORHOOD: Forest Highlands
REQUEST AND PREVIOUS ACTION
The requests heard before the Development Review Board included an
appeal of an administratively approved lot line realignment and two
minor partitions dividing two parcels into two lots each; a variance
• to the centerline radius requirement of 100' , and a variance to the
• street width requirement of 20' .
At the December 16, 1985 hearing, approval of the lot line
adjustment and two minor partitions Was upheld and variance 51-85
Was approved. Variance 53-85 regarding the street width variance
was tabled to the January 6, 1986 Development Review board hearing.
ANALYSIS
At the December 16, 1985 meeting, the Board tabled action on the
Variance to the minimum street width requirement of 20' and
requested that staff determine whether or not a variance is allowed
under the Uniform Fire Code to vary the 20' minimum street width
requirement. Staff requested a response regarding this matter from
the Fire Marshal, which is indicated in Exhibit BBB. The Fire
Marshal has indicated that an appeal of the 20' street Width
requirement can be made; however, the Fire Marshal would recommend
denial of such a request.
As indicated in the draft December 16, 1985 DRB minutes (pages 6-7) ,
Conditions 1,4,5 and 12 were amended and Condition 10 Was deleted.
Staff continues to support requiring a pw-hway whether hard or soft
surfaced. Staff believes that such a paLHWay Would provide an
incentive for safe city-Wide use of a trailhead to Tryon State
park4 This pathway Would provide linkage between the City
377 it
•
•
•
•
Addendum Staff Report
SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85
December 27, 1985
Page 2
pathway system to a regional public facility. In addition, staff
believes a pathway in this area would implement the Comprehensive
Plan policies, in particular those relating to Bikeways and
Pedestrian Pathways, pages 90-93, Exhibit DDD,
EXHIBITS
AAA Letter from Jean Siddall, Appellant Received 12/16/85
BBB Memorandum from Fire Marshal, Dated 12/24/85
CCC Draft Portion of 12/16/85 Development Review Board Minutes
DDD Comprehensive Plan, pages 90-93 Regarding Bikeway and
Pedestrian Pathways
• •
9
LMM:kh/4552
3775
.
O . 124145 i
December 16, 1985
To: Development Review Board
From: Jean L. Siddall
535 Atwater Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Re: Continuation of the October 7, 1985 hearing for
File No. SD 21-85
,s Bragg-Walters Minor Partition Application
.
As stated in my letter of July 19, 1985 (Exhibit ). my September 17, 1985 letter of
appeal (Exhibit CC), and my testimony before the Design Review Board on Ocroc,), 7,
1985, my chief concern is with the damage the proposedstreet development could do
to my property due to the unstable soils on which the street is to be constructed. I
question whether the Bragg's "right to develop" their property includes the right to cause
damage and undue hardship to neighboring properties, especially when there is the
alternative of accessing the area proposed for development through the Bragg's own
property on Andrew's Road.
Since the most recent staff approval of this developmentD ks 5 detailed in ther November
ve ber 22,
1985 Addendum Staff Report, is still predicated on Mr.
port
(Exhibit H), that "in my opinion the existing fill is stable", and that "no slumps ...were •found between the road and the creek," despite my evidence to the contrary (Exhibits .
EE, FF, GG, HH, and II) I have asked Dr. Leonard Palmer, Professor of Geology at
Portland State University, and author of the paper on "Landslides in the Columbia River
Gorge," to speak to you on this issue and hopefully clarify this subject. He also is a
Registered Professional Geologist. I do not do this lightly, but as I mentioned at the
•
hearing, I feel the future of my house is at stake.
I have a great many other concerns about the "grading plan" submitted. It still does notaddress
how to put 20 ft, of pavement plus path in 16.5 ft. of space. The path is put atop gabions and hung out over the slope with no base. The problem of erosion caused by development v
', ,
is not addressed except by a ditch north of the road terminus and rip-rap within the park,
which I ea. There are still
find learnest request this proposal nrot be approved until the to problems be
problems are
resolved. It Is my
resolved.
EXHIBIT
id
Ate......
•D 2/ r,
111 Jai 76
•
i .
n
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lori Mastrantonio },
Planning Department
, FROM: John McCauley „//ti
Fire Marshal W/,`
SUBJECT: SD 21-85 (Bragg/Walters) •
DATE: December 24, 1985 e -
This memo is our response to your verbal request for the Fire
Department's position on SD 21-85.
The Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 addresses this very type
of situation and sets a minimum road width of 20' all weather
driving surface. .
• Lake Oswego Code Section 44.382 (Residential Streets) also
gives a minimum of 20 foot width for residential streets.
The Fire Department believes these minimums were set for
specific reasons and that was to assure access and promote
safety. To allow a variance to reduce this street width would,
, in our opinion, have a detrimental effect on both. We base
this opinion on the following:
1. Our equipment needs a full B' 2" to pass other
vehicles, If other cars parked along the road ,
Were not parked just right, our access would be
denied. The standard answer for this problem .
is to require the road to be dedicated as a
fire lane. This may cause a continual police
problem because people will not pay attention -
to the "No Parking" requirement, If we post
"No Parking" signs, they seem to disappear.
The police cannot ticket them because the
proper signs are not displayed, • '
I Would like to give the following eXimple of just how thi EXHIBIT
problem happened locally,
175
1411 NCIk111 51A'1l SMMIIi . I'OSI OUR BOX lb4- 1Aki OS14'IGO.OkICiON 47014 MOhill 11d11 51,2I-�'S
1 1 i.
'G2.4F r '
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD December 16 1985
l
The r, �:^,lopment Review Board meeting of December 16, 1985 was called � .
to oru , by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7:30 p.m. Board members in
attendance were Chairman Hutchins, Anthony Wright, Robert 8lackmore, ,
Vern Martindale, and Curtis Finch. Richard Eslick and John Glasgow
were excused. Staff present were Assistant City Attorney Sandy
Duffy, Planning Director Topaz Faulkner, Development Review Planners
Robert Galante and Lori Mastrantonio, Assistant Planner Renee Dowlin
' : :.
and Secretary Marian Stulken.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
b The minutes of October 21, 1985 were presented for a second vote.
Mr. Blackmore moved for approval of minutes as amended at the prior
meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and carried
unanimously.
The minutes of November 18, 1985 were presented for approval. On
' <I page 5, under PD 3-85, insert "buffer line in the area of the" after
"Condition 9.b.)"; next to the last sentence should read, "The main
question was whether the buffer line should follow the line
' -,,:.• . designated by the Audubon Society Is a buffer line." •
' Mr. Finch moved for approval of the November 18, 1985 minutes as
i a• amended. Mr,. Blackmore seconded the motion and carried unanimously.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None �,f
PUBLIC HEARINGS
r
SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85, an appeal of an administratively
'N'n,''* approved lot line realignment and two minor partitions dividing two
ar�cels into two lots each. Action on this request was postponed •ti
r m he October 7, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting. The
applicants are also requesting a variance to LOC 44.385 regarding the
minimum radius of curvature of residential streets being 100' and a
, variance to the street width requirement of 20' . The site is located
at the eastern side of an unirproved portion of Iron MoUtain Blvd. ,
north of Andrews Road (Tax L . 3500 of Tax Map 2 lE and Tax Lot 500
of Tax Map 2 lE 3CB).
t
It, Chairman Hutchins reviewed the hearing procedures for the benefit of
the audience.
Discussion of Whether the developer or the appellant Was the
applicant in this matter and What additional information Was .
., requested at the prior hearing. Since the new information was
requested from the applicant, the concensus Was to hear testimony
,,, from them first.
*
, 4 EXHIBIT
CCc
• ovn Z 655
37179
ice. :
i
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD December 16, 1985 ,
PROPONENTS r'
John Godsey, Consulting Engineering Services, 12655 S. W. Center,
Beaverton, OR representing the applicant in this matter. Mr. Godsey *,
referenced the written response to the Board's request for further
information and the plans that had been prepared addressing the
• concerns of the Board. He explained the sketches and plans and their
impacts.
Mr. Wright stated that due to the temporary and long term stability
of significant cuts in an area that does exhibit some signs of creep,
he feels that some further soils investigation by a geotechnical '
engineer not a geologist should be required. Discussion followed
between Mr. Godsey and the Board regardingproposed
the grading of slopes, the road andfurthe p rsoilsinvestigationalls,
Gus Bragg, 1235 Andrews Road, Lake Oswego, Mr. Bragg, his wife and
Virginia Walters are the ownera of the subject property. He gave his
views of the new information submitted.
OPPONENTS
Dan Chew, 1231 Bayberry Road, Lake Oswego representing the appellant,
Mrs. Siddall. He submitted a statement from Mrs. Siddall and read it
into the record (Exhibit A14A) . Due to the unstable soils in the area
• Mrs. Siddall's has asked Dr. Leonard Palmer, Professor of Geology at
Portland State University, Registered Professional Geologist and
• author of the paper on "Landslides in the Columbia River Gorge" to
speak to the Board regarding this issue and clarify this issue.
At this point Assistant City Attorney Sandi Duffy stated that the
applicant gave no new information regarding the soils and what Mrs.Siddall has testified to ie basically oriented toward soils and now
she is injecting an expert on soils and there is nothing to rebut;
therefore, it is beyond the scope of what this hearing is entailing.
Ms. Duffy stated that the Board requested new information but the
applicant brought no information forward regarding soils; therefore,
the scope of the hearing is limited by what the applicant brings
forward. Further discussion occurred regarding what information the
Board had requested. At this point Mr. Hutchins stated that they
would not take testimony from Dr. Palmer because he would not be
•
specifically responding in rebuttal to the information presented by
'‘' the applicant but would ask for testimony from Dr. Palmer later if
needed.
Deidre Marriott, 420 Boca Ratan Dr., Lake Oswego came forward and
stated that it was her understanding in talking with staff that if
.
3564P _2_
3 70
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 16, 1985
Mrs. Siddall would have a Registered Geologist come to the hearing
that he would be able to testify.
Mr. Blackmore, at this time, stated that he will be asking the Board
to hear Dr. Palmer's testimony when the hearing regarding the new
information is concluded; and at that time, the Board will make a
decision on whether it is proper to hear testimony.
Dick Moran, 7th and G Street, Lake Oswego. Mr. Moran stated that the
previous hearing did not include an application for a variance but
this hearing does include two variances; therefore, he feels this is
a wide open hearing and wishes to give testimony.
Ms. Duffy stated that it is wide open as far as the two variances
applications but in reference to the new information submitted by the •
applicant, testimony in rebuttal of the applicants testimony can be
heard at this time. Discussion followed regarding what was noticed.
Chairman Hutchins asked the other Board members whether they felt
that the information they had received was significantly different
than what they were discussing in the prior meeting to warrant
reopening the hearing to hear testimony of the new drawings and
plans. The concensus of the Board was that it was not but that there •
was now two variances and testimony on the two variances should be
taken. Discussion followed and the Board asked staff to present the
report regarding the two variances.
• Ms. Mastrantonio gave a brief summary of the staff report and
reviewed the changes to the original conditions of approval. Staff
recommends approval of VAR 51-85 and denial of VAR 53-85. At this
time, Chairman Hutchins had questions of staff regarding the response
that was requested from the Fire Marshall regarding the street
width. Ms. Mastrantonio stated that the Fire Marshall indicated, in
his memo, that a combination of the 16 foot wide street plus the 5
foot Wide sidewalk does not constitute the provision of an all
Weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet (Uniform Fire
Code). The Fire Marshall's opinion is that this does not meet the
requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. Even if it was posted "No
Parking", it would cause enforcement problems and create a hazardous
situation; therefore, he does not recommend approval of the 16 foot
wide street with the 5 foot driveable pathway strip. He does
recommend approval of the 20 foot street With the 5 foot walkway.
Discussion followed as to whether it was necessary to consider the
variance to the street Width, since the Fire Code states that it has
to be 20 feet. After discussion With the Assistant City Attorney and
staff, the Board considered the testimony regarding the variance to
the minimum radius requirement of 100 feet.
-3-
3564P
3'i'81
...... .ter•. .......
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1985
PROPONENTS
John Godsey came forward to clarify the applicant's stance on the
variance to the curve radius.
OPPOSITION
Dick Moran came forward to address the variance to the curve radius.
He stated that he does not believe that this the minimum variance to
provide access to this property. He expressed concern regarding the
liability to the neighbors in the future and gave his recommendations
of how the road should be built and of conditions that should be
imposed if the Board approves this request. He suggested access to
the four Jot,". through Mr. Bragg's lot which contains his house and •
garage.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Godsey came forward in rebuttal to Mr. Moran's testimony
regarding the application. Mr. Godsey said that the requests are
appropriate as the lot line adjustment was to be done first which
resulted in no contiguous lots owned by the Braggs, followed by the
two minor partitions. .He also addressed Mr. Moran's concerns
regarding access through Mr. Bragg's property. Mr. Godsey indicated
that access couldn't go through Mr. Bragg's property without removing
part of the existing residence.
Since there Was not further testimony, Chairman Hutchins closed the
public portion of the hearing for Board deliberation.
Discussion followed between legal counsel and the Board regarding
procedure for this particular hearing. Ms. Duffy stated that the
Board should go ahead and get Whatever information they felt they
needed in order to make their decision and that staff and legal
counsel will advise on what information can be used in making their
decision. Therefore, Chairman Hutchins reopenod the public hearing
for further testimony.
Dr. Leonard Palmer, 3344 S. W. Evergreen Terrace, Portland, OR. He
addressed the topography; the material which the slope is composed
oft the process operating on those slopes and the Ways in which those
processes will interact With the structures as they are now developed
and as they would be with the proposed project. Questions and
discussion followed between Mr. Blackmore and Dr. Palmer regarding
the affect the road would have, if it Was built, on Mrs. Siddall's
property and whether Dr. Palmer had reviewed the information
previously submitted by Bill Doake. Dr. Palmer stated that he had
reviewed the information and that he felt that Within 5 years or so,
there Will be a major instability on the east side. He does not see
the kinds of data that would be necessary to guarantee the stability
-4-
3564P
3782
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 16, 1985 t
`Th of the downside of the road. Mr. Blackmore also asked whether the
road would increase the risk to Mrs. Siddall's property and Dr.
Palmer said that it definitely would.
• Mr. Hutchins asked whether the slope of the land in that area going
to he significantly affected by the longer wall versus the shorter
wall? Dr. Palmer said that he is unable to decipher the difference
between the cross-sections he measured and those that are shown on
the topography; there are major topography concerns that are not
shown on the maps. He said it is not possible for him to evaluate
the impact on the site without showing the accurate topography.
At this time Mr. Godsey came forward in response to Dr. Palmer's
testimony. He said that with additional geotechinical information,
the areas with slippage can be made to comply with the City's
construction standards. Mr. Godsey stated that he does agree with
proper construction of the roadway and channelization of the
drainage, the impact on the fill slope can be decreased and he feels
that the ways in which to reduce the erosion have been addressed.
Mr. Blackmore, at this time, asked Mr. Godsey and Dr. Palmer what
types of surveys might be done in order to add a condition of
approval and what that condition might be. Mr. Godsey stated that a
condition of approval could be required that a mutually agreed upon, •
and funded by the applicant, geotechnical consultant could be
obtained to come up with a design that could stabilize and benefit
the area. Dr. Palmer agreed that a geotechnical engineer and a
geologist should be consulted and to specify what kinds of reports
are needed. Other questions and discussion followed between the
Board and Dr. Palmer regarding the topography of the area and
roadslides.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Hutchins closed the public
portion of the hearing for Board deliberation.
Mr. Finch expressed concern that the variance to the street width
would aggravate the problem since there seems to be a soils stability
problem. He feels that the width should be 20' if the State Law
requires it. chairman Hutchins asked Ms. Duffy if State Law requires
that the roadway can be 20', and they omit the sidwalk making it a
20' wide walk and drive, would a variance to the Sidewalk Standard be
required. Ms. Mastrantonio said that a sidewalk is not required by
code. The reason that staff recommended the pathway was that this
area is designated for a pathway on the Intra-City Pathway Map in the
• Comprehensive Plan and because it is an entrance to the State park.
Chairman Hutchins expressed concern that the additional soils
information asked for at the prior meeting had not been submitted and
that testimony indicates that additional soils stability information
is required in order to tell whether or not the road will hold up. A
brief discussion followed. Mr. Wright stated that he feels that a
-5-
3564P
3"'8 i
DEVELOPMENT .REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
December 16, 1985
detailed soils investigation is need for this site with appropriate ed"°1
review by a Geological Engineer with appropriate geological input and
that the Board should make a specific request stating what
information is needed to address the soils problem. chairman
Hutchins stated that approval could be conditioned
a proper
ocon it
report be submitted so that the City Pe the street
stable public street.
After a brief discussion between staff and the Board regarding the
legality of a 20 foot road, the concensus was to table action on VAR
o
53-85 and requested that staff determine whether or not the 20'
minimum road width requirement of the Uniform Fire Code can be
varied, and to vote on each item individually.
VAR 53-85
Mr. Finch made a motion to table VAR 53-85 to a date certain of
January 6, 1986. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and
carried unanimously.
VAR 51-85
Mr. slackmore moved for approval of VAR 51-85 for allowing a curve
radius less than 100 feet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and
carried 4 - 1 with Mr. Hutchins voting in opposition.
•
SD 21-85
Review of the conditions suggested by staff followed.
Mr. Wright, at this time, suggested that Condition No. 4 be replaced
With the following:
That a geotechnical investigation (inclusive of a
discussion of all related geotechnical features by a
Registered Engineering Geologist) be performed that
properly investigates the site, adjacent roadway and
bank slope with soil borings and appropriate tests. A
recommendation should be developed for, but not
necessarily limited to, roadway construction, roadway
retaining structures, stream bank stability, temporary
and permanent cut slopes; disposal of cut materials, up
slope retaining walls, foundation support, surface and
subsurface drainage, and soils inspection during
construction.
Condition No. 1 the last sentence should be changed to read:
. , . 4 . Road shall be changed to avoid
duplication or confusion.
-6-
3564P 3 8 el
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES December 16, 1985
Condition No. 5, replace "easterly side" with "both sides".
Condition No. 12, add "Except as shown on Exhibit RR.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Blackmore made a motion for
approval of SD 21-85 with Conditions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13,
14 and 15 as stated in the staff report; and, Condition No 4 as
suggested by Mr. Wright, with the deletion of Condition No. 10,
Condition No. 11 as read and Condition Nos. 1 and 12 as amended.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and carried unanimously.
-7-
3564P
3``$85
A
SB_rz a I a i I a I I I I I I I 1 ► 1 ► 0 I I ►
QS
• dQd
9br.,C
1191HX3
0c V1 IA tj 6. a .lit
i GG
o ^
r g u.wic 3 ^ �^ gas
.3. tea_ r t'tm7 3 ' Y ' Y4i.c 7 .cbc
Yu .4 V U
m ov•3 ^ v
.O C C i'FF0 W < Lis . 1w E '8 . 8. u ncC
V! Y
3 d•'. 4'. �WH�OW Go A .x 0 y Q. Cam•.^-, n OV A ^
Z_e ^?: <=�L zz= ns' _ y c.4a of c'5�
N 1114.► 1'�'< `U ypi 00 ^ c ° .4 Y c n 6-
YWY , 00 _��~ `V E :�! t aE ; von t4
an
c :c i
.... . 0,- Z ag cu �= E
nna.a.- m0.- 2= E o Y - , i mi. n. oy'4 vo
^�d a ZZ p Y c n ", , n n E
- .E .0 HAD-<m •g E m w m.. 3 �s .o c ^,c
W4 .MHO 0. U r405SW U 3� UI
iaN .d O - c =� n ° R + , .
M _ 0 0 3ES g Io .Q �n'•`gZ••a.; 1
xv ° mEE <
,as.c G o. W Esu y. L`°' a a =r°0: 3 coN.ca o."
Nlic
v C U OL U S Y• W �y C
9 s_ gs W - W Y.su c u 0824 4 ud gri
m 0 u -:VC til ~ El K.
O ig L .4
I-•r
'Croy t _` 101 n._ tv"O Y C" OG
g n
.
_ OYYLd75AV
O#'m `30 y._: Av ° uY O0O c C y •y °' .c2-`.c Y C . ;I., u.: •bt O
Ya ^ ° me uty.cvf s � a c,xcoLs �=5 -, 2. sroNd W ; '.. ^
n. `_ ° . oE C Tore
E1.2"A::, -5 0 Oy o Ov 2 n ` 7 _ o asy u3 cV `OuO~ y .g Y ~ n cN_ 4, a > e a< ^ yil0'3,1eoL3 c ° ccr c aZISSz2gvcvaA � "0 m,dt vst%vro. yc �gv5d -22 -
yY'r . ;Y...9ecCy O;EtU .ncl7 V.'s emz.' to - h- opo
.= Y$a:'fl_'3 c 3—1,.o � 3 L c n y c q� ; G Y o ° o, O•° e _ E 1'
sc ° � c° b.y-. YroYoa ° c 11_n ` oc oYc�t•° °•ai � " {OG '_ c..cGc
511 aC ° .Y. ".t� CO q01 ill vVO.gyl. '`_V ~��V US QyUg
E .°^2T'Nn•YnvO— aT� a ryb ^ un ^ c 'a yNtL7
Y ^ .n 3 ay ..o 3 Y�i X ^ 3
� �0 ;mu c X ^ 0 ` O n g ti C ., 'M" �°c' 6. ro= ` n -g c c
n � a;Gy�v." ya ay ."tl, 'tyuF >,Ycn ��j cn o3E t/ a 3
I ;.."1 .4CuXC.C2 W C ro0 1yb � 3�` Leo �E �o� �, ^ a0
•�n '•8-j-5 O ga 1 3;re J .i= m v v N v E Ov a,ybyyy u E -4 c ` 2
C13 .`aO W 'j.cGCOn m TL .~Y. n 'yam o 'aYN� N 4t CnC � Oxn
• C '1 •p °'V 3 Q ^t ' N N y.N m •D C L °.d•..y 0. Q B. . fi n .g O.- O
noM0000 VOA° o g1 vv._ �a�s'.. .S c?e Z^ a.u° co•4
,may ^.- d y O z s c o = Y y ^- :.a yy n C,.Ml . n r.
yn4'7 � 6i gycM S `O y'O = C 'b �„ ,COc `a`� +� •fl• o S
nA Y E'y_d aL 0 > > aE ° C C O r °..� c o� �. n p9 4` a.-s g .
a< a! E C p n Y 44 Y ab ^ 81,. .E 4 ."g .0 d pry^�i .1 O # Z
c Y.° a Ya�
.0 C of y 0 `S �, yyt� '
r ea ° vv �,v�.. � � v v Yy •a'ji'�t.$ ca y oc YT7�ii
#l-n•�uodj.no ° ` o r- *.' N°.. aoy 3pco `co v .. $�-�' 21 A, eaa -.
-2;.,s5. 'O ,0. y 61 OIL Eq� ,^Y , CbV Zoo...dti .511. ..w. G.�a ^t G.1C
C C Y C v • s c E 1 n v 0•'S n t< y,o f,�E a l•p' 2 c E' n ^
nd0 �'�_ `�i _LdoE? 00o Z �- cr-�Y 2- o s G
o „ c�ttZ ° l .aZEe oat Uo2ao' uat �ni ° g aCL 0. 084 °�'° S
u e43 a $ ''mob •q Y t v- N.,E a 3 3 `o o L Y_ .c ' Z, L `-
i i 1 rt 4
.. /id i it `..:1 1
ill
,
z. kV.
' c ;1
'I IS 4
MM 44ipnomu
1. . 1,e.
&wtl
- , :n
/..ii� ' ilk::::. A 'A UP! I z'
;:: It ,� ilin
0 I. I w� .««
.---' yag ` 1
*tifil.112 f %NI, 01001\
4 Sijk .. ,...,,
....,2r. g,,,,,„,,, . /
tlff"L"rak., 11.43 .111k '71111Mgrelfr f
.!
r".... '.. riksx.S. rkrill...,, V ! ,z,„h .,_.. •. vo --: ---
. .-1.11411-ai lir: gligt‘litil ./Aiim...,,„.'-- .P.
�i, � 11�� �1 a
1 n
Iiittim.......,
mil
1111
MI Al
f „'r g
I
1
1 . n
. !
38,..E
s '. 01
_ 'pp ^yS.y u. oftJ e
!' O C Y 'L c O. 0 O "
Ii ?P• 3o 1. 11
C« wa ` E.; 3dJi< ii 2I 'ac
• C'-y iJ YC <yyJ�I"" CY O I
O '.�.aAd � aCl.Oc W_ C" ��y. tW�j C �_ Ea n
al aoi = E b •p v V Q< W W ; g C u s
6.CC g#-. g b�v � O z°'p m t .$' ` g '9 Cb
g' � W c ,..wv a <zp"EG e"ii . 4, I: 41
31 a�
>V Ica° • ��9- < 5 �< f. •6 „t1 = g am+ o ,d
o ,o $?,o. a.00. < o�v3,5 V c � U�3c «pO " «t_ n o. No.00mO. Q ? e e ^��jGE3jf�j _z
N.- N u u ;'O N COO " d .� /• +�1 i7•C
of Ae• •. E ova < W .� b"nt° � � Y';,' '' " mom * m r LYiu u Inc!mac.
AL'°a °u� N° G W �I uE6 `.; V US Sri.ctSvai .
5• p• Cl. C7d0 W W z i. F 0 § 6i fY
W cll.O ti a _3 � s 1..r. A
a
• v 4
L, u al al T C 9 Cp _V O N E` q' •& •• ." A
. . a o L v .2 A
v u O c tore' 'E o 5' A - " c -
O a A T 3.8 Y 'Q � ...p Q 0 „C 3 5.O ' pj 43aa m 4 CO. .".0 m"' .. NW .J G E
. C E m o b « R.
N« .My.A a 'c° 'Ec y dal ^ o V.
t
E o• E -o A a 11 Uc� E c ' = a.
" o c co a ° d O0 o . 4J O.'' ° u Eo 'c a
o y a %y g v m ° A 01 $ u o vCo c E E E °c
• s- 71 n 9 0 A•.(7, a !•N O. a' c a Nt 'A E O
E PE.. oN o .O e
g ;; 3t a.3d c !o 3,3o • a103 r..Sao E W r 3
mr E o�;+s« -43 'L � o '�, o• ° a"a me°yA fig; " " a
M y
E y " m �o ` a,'t
beI
C° eo E . d C o : . 0 as fl a° oO0
a E c -, ` . A oc u A uc e ys o = yO "
y21 ro cum. E A O -am ' y O '
C c A� iS U b u a °D' o
. . O. a "� E <°e „De_9 ow:' oa•V E ' Z kC� a > , �vman p °
�t 3 % ^a` O wal ugc. t can° ` 50 . hg1 go T E '"2.t. "! -ac ' � oba ESEo.yO a
� cogb � wa ".aaccvie
„cr..-em " 3oC° " • .. is
d a
,..-::;4.v :If- o m t�.�C u I uDI L NCbCZA 'tau > "
,,• D•-oB` d .. n $ A o • a8$- aC c ,r .6C C..Va • AW ,nL 'C Vc !•7 AZ O, L,,7 . •+ d^ C. O Cp ' # ti. , alu1d '
•
d 6$
ryAaJa3CN ag w OA A ,_ a
g
•
4 -
• , ti d1 2 O C , al C
= I 6 v E . c d yv ZO a �v
y 07 , q O p O a ^ �f W N O = a
c o E o, O. t Q 04: d u a$
c.
V 1A N,A tg O .^ ,. >. .0 d O A�1 O 0. d�
,. tor ,10
Ti III
u m o I
° E 3 Eo<v ^:°O n i L'8^ A N OVi jai'�`.p^ CU1i]C O L 3 v 3 • 0 a.^ ` .0 U .�
o p, QYE = ed do „ d 0 Ndv zv o
• d ` w p y^ '41N eu .....2
ro .D N C 2'C00 O^. y 1p W•O y p'� O
U, ^
• d L a=.a 0-5 .. = m �•D .= C ^ E d c d y o9 A
to
U aJ�'b O : W O.tu '61 3 al v. CO V 0 7 W Y�
Eae ^L.►- > oc;•'gartl c ,c.n v a, 0- Or' A
00 '" =3 yc,o .. ou ..m 2 ,G EA `Hv�<= Y ai
c aci c52 F. w°o:nu2 c ,r^ s a 250-' 3 ^
«.� E'e o ,A 0 0 a2.r u c 0 3•._'o c W v c—EA a
1j n�:9oOw� yNa c .� `-' c s1=ycQ ^ ctd
1 d',,, , N 7•° N C,;..0 r E tea., C c 22-'� d 0= y
•0, 2 ZAct'mo° IdII
< a+._ pcmm E�"= 3� Evrcallc E a�Na^�w 0z > 00roc
v c c u' .....
. rA ti'; O ra .0 ° ve
v M
to OL.. m m
`CC
>. O N A y t+.Vt< C.Y
v va O ,r
v ` v v� AE ��Z .t L
�� •
• o a ti a T °u c c ro E t++Nl� c
aaa v > 3 E aIv 0 et,r Z16 M
ay c o� �E cm yN OWOC IS p.
aE c � a �F m °i ::s OLNW do
• �� o 3c aE r CN •Na >1.7�W ti
^ ;.c -, cv ,-z- - Ti. r = V><� a •
C
• 4N T- nN Ti A U
d y id o0
t° w a
• 2.
• `3 a1 a .-.c u4 v .Ea qE. IL).=Z
u `.' .co .0E5mu ,oyo �-0 c� Lei ^�
.+ o E 3 uE 0:ca.n�yy am o0
t
vyA d 3v 2a3�� vEt' 'Eo=i ct .+ l7 6 L^
Ea.'- d ^ u d A� oo�= Mt >�� tc m„ O Z �j
x ^a a ;Y 0 v ci•-.c° c as p a,._ c w o D. < O.1 41
a"+ cNoa ...c ° =' No „ c3o.4 > nca@ Eo gv n zone e
A z e C . x r=a , re C 1.L d O I u rra 0" O y ,< W W Q c, }., if.
a4'Qo �^yn a e.s oG v ='a C �° ^ `- C 0.o d o 'E rca C4 O Z O u o
C Y °•iri ^ 2 ate! 0 ^ 7 �•« a 7 'O C 0 C Z H 5<.=. d C
HH
• `al9itE =- al Q e$° 't , 1.1 ' i ,'ll a� l �4 10g
tit
i^ c u e W W }QQQ�
4fi.,., E N.0 n — M R.G t.9 L b: 0�1L -.G 17 .^ S 'y:,;.
Mg b v m
• .. 0 . . r4 0; a o u
.
_. , . . +