HomeMy WebLinkAbout011091 Min Ag y r
' ownseft
Planni*ng Commiksi*on
540 Nater St.,-Port Townsend, WA 98368' 206/385.3000
i4eeting of January 10l 1991
Chairman Ron Kosec called the meeting to order at 7: 37 p . Other
members present were Alan Carman, Lois Sherwood, Karen Erickson,
Sally 14cDole, Jim Tavernakis and Jim Roberts. Also present was
Rick Sepler, Planner d
T Approval of Minutes: Dated ]december 13t 1990
Ms. McDole moved to approve the minutes of December 13 , 1990 as
distributed. Ids. Sherwood seconded and all were in faror.
III. communications:
M '. ' '
ernakis stated that hehd received some information which
1
was addressed
to the chairman of the Planning commission. The
information pertained to a meeting on bonding. He stated he would
report back to the commission with any further information.
I . old Business
A. Vantage Homes, Sub-Division Application 9009-03F "Parkview"
1. Staff Review
A memo from Michael i I dated January 1 , 1991 , was distributed
the commission informing them that wetlands have been identified
on the proposed site, The memo recommended that the hearing b
postponed until revisions and correction have been received.
letter from the applicant, Lee Wilburn, was also received. The
letter asked the commission to schedule the hearing for a -la►te
date to allow time for the possible amendments to the environmental
check,ist o
Public Testimony
Lee Wilburn told the commission that the city Attorney had stated
the plat could not be acted on until the proposed amendment to the
environmental checklist is completed, He stated that a wetlands
study has already been completed and mitigation have been prepared,
The project must now get back on to the agenda of the
legislative/environmental committee to amend the environmental
checklist.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1991
Page 2 of 11
Mr. Carman moved to continue the hearing for the Parkview
subdivision to March 14, 1991. After some discussion, Mr. Carman
amended his motion to continue the hearing to February 28, 1991.
Ms, Sherwood seconded.
fir. o'Shea from the audience asked if the hearing would definitely
be on or after the scheduled time.
. O'Hara asked why the meeting that was previously scheduled for
the 31st of January was rescheduled for January 10, 1991,
Ms. Bloomfield responded that the hearing was moved when another
application was postponed.
Mr. Kosec asked Mr. Carman if he would like to -restate his motion
to specify that the date of the hearing be spe ific. Mr. Carman
stated that his intention was to continue to a date specific, that
being February 28, 1991.0
roll call vote was taken and all were in favor of the motion for
continuance.
Mrs. O'Hara stated that the wetlands study was done on Tuesday.
She asked the commission why it was not made known until today.
Mr. Sepler stated that questions should be asked of the commission
at the time of the public hearing on February 28.
Be Summit Communication, Inc. , Conditional Use Appy.. 9010-04
I. Staff Review
Mr. Sepler previewed draft findings and conclusions for the
conditional use. The applicant, owns and operates the cable
television franchise in Port Townsend. The antenna tower which the
applicant proposes to raise in height is located at 35th and
Rosecrans streets. Mr. Sepler reviewed both Draft A which
recommends the application be granted and Draft - which recommends
the application be denied.
Mr. Sepler stated that the electromagnetic levels produced on the
site would be well below those established standards in King
County. . Jefferson County currently does not have any standards.
.Mr, Sepler circulated photographs of the immediate vicinity of the
proposed site.
Ms. Mc le asked staff about the trash on the site, Mr, Sepler
stated that this is one of the neighborhood concerns and that a
condition has been included requiring that the site be cleaned.
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1391
Page 3 of 11
Mr, Tavernakis asked staff what the time limit on the conditional
use would be. Mr. Sepler stated there is no time lit. Mr.
Tavern kis stated that it would be helpful to have the current
contract available for review. Mr. Ta a nakis asked if the
applicant can guarantee that the reception will be improved. Nave
they done any studies for alternative locations? Are the King
County locations of microwave units an equal distance and in
residential areas as this one is Mr. Tavern kis stated that the
public access to cable is required by law. He ,also asked how the
contract is tied into the Conditional Use.
2, Public Testimony
Burt Green, regional manager for Cable ,v. , stated the microwave
equipment is the best solution to getting improved reception on
stations 41 5 and 7. The company was anxious to get the equipment
up and neglected to contact the city for the necessary permits. He
apologized for this, He stated that he wound life to have a 1 -
.year limit on the Conditional. Use Permit and could not recall any
wast infractions with the City. Mr. Green reviewed possible
alternatives to extending the existing tower including locating the
antennas in Seattle on top of the Columbia Tower or extending
antennas in Seattle he stated that he believed this was prohibited
in Seattle) , The antennas in Seattle he stated are primarily on
hills. He stated that alternative sites in Port Townsend are
financially unfeasible right now, He stated that the improvement
on channels 4 ,5 and 7 will be a improvement.
Mr. Kosec asked if the proposed use is conditional in all zones.
Mr. Sepler responded that it was.
Nor. Green asked if someone could meet with him on the site t
specify where trees should be located.
Tarernakis asked if the use category in the zoning code was
specifically created for this application the first time around.
Some discussion followed
Some -discussion followed over the rationale for the restriction of
the 1 -foot height limit on the trees, Mr. Sepler stated that the
height is suggested to allow for a fairly dense buffer.
Mr* Carman asked if it is possible to require as a condition a
hedge which does not meet the restrictions on hedges in the zoning
ordinance, Some discussion followed.
Judith Tavenner, a long time neighbor to the cable t.v. antenna,
toted the cable t.v. company is a friendly and good neighbors.
Laurie Stewart asked the Commission if the original conditional use
l
Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1991
Page 4 of 11
permit included warehousingr storage and work yard? Ids, McDole
stated that this should be further reviewed.
Robert Force, Video Instructor from Chimacum High schoolstated
that he has been on the air wi th student generated programming with
the company. He stated that the improved technology will provide
n investment in the future of communication in' the area and will
assist in making us a part of a global information society.
Francis Natal 1* , a neighboring property owners, stated that the
subject antenna has nothing to do with the satellite links Mr.
Force discussed.
Robert Force stated that this project is a step in the right
direction. summit Communications is a company ithat .is willing to
invest in the community and this investment is likely to continue.
Dr. Philip specer, a scientist, stated that he recently recovered
from a bone narrow transplant due to cancer, and that transmitting
towers have been linked to incidence of cancer. He stated that
there is a need for better service for teleco munications and that
in the future there may be a need for a better transmission site.
Dr, specer did not want a transmitting tower to be allowed on the
subject site, He stated that there are alternatives to the project
proposed. He suggested fiber optics. Nr, specer stated that the
future of the town is better served by an approach which encourages
Summit Communications to locate in area in which they can grow.
Nr. Chuck Henry. -neighboring property owner, stated that he is the
first house to the north of the antenna, He stated that this is a
neighborhood where everyone cares about each other including the
cable t. # site, Mr . Henry stated that he would like to be rid of
the "ghosts" on channels 4 , 5 and 7, but not at the expense of the
wealth of the neighborhood. He stated that he is not concerned
about a receiving antenna but would be concerned if they started
transmitting from the site.
Joseph James, is an immediate neighbor of the antenna, he stated
that the trash level on the site is a problem. He also stated his ,
Concern for the expanding use of the property. .
Francis Natali recently bought four lots adjacent to the site. He
stated that he has never had problems with the neighboring site,
but would oppose a project which involved transmitting from the
site.
Ms. lc le stated that a junk bus in the neighborhood was actually
on Ir, all"s property.
Catherine Jenks stated that an interesting article on
Planning Commission Meeting #` January 10, 1991
Page 5 of 11 q
r
electromagnetic transM ss on appeared in the July 9 1990 "New,
Yorker" magazine.
Mr. Specer stated that EPA is also ding a study on microwave
transmission
Laurie Stewart a neighboring property owner stated that habitual
speeders pass by his property. He stated that ;,with the growth of
the community the site will likely expand and increase the
dangerous driving ponditionse Kr. Stewart stated that he is mildly
opposed to the conditional use permit*
Mr, Green stated that fiber optics and other alternatives are not
practical alternatives to improving the signal. He stated that the
intention is to receive a low power beam not to transmit,
Mr. Specer stated that he also believes that If the tower was
receiving unit only there would be no health impact.
Ir. Henry stated that maybe a condition could be added to the
fi
Planning Commission Meeting - January to, 1991
Page 6 of 11
may be in and out of the site.
Mr, Stewart asked the applicant if this was the only facility in
the area. The applicant responded that there is another site in
Hadlock.
Mr. Roberts stated that he would like to f ind a way to limit growth
on the site.
Mr. Tavernakis stated that when a conditional use permit comes
before the commission it should be reassessed' and brought up to
current standards. Mr. Tavernakis suggested some conditions that
might be included in the recommendation: annual review of the
permit or any other specified review period; d condition stating
that the permit is valid under the ownership of Summit
Communications only; and that the site is allowed for receiving
signals only.
Mr. Sepler stated that it may be better suited to review some of
these issues in the contract rather than the cohdit oral use. Mr.
Sepler recommended against yearly review but stated that review
upon change of ownership is feasible.
Mr, ar an' suggested that upon transfer of ownership from Summit
Communications that the City Council review the conditional use
permit. Mr. Tavernakis asked if this would bring up public
testimony. Mr. Carman stated that public testimony would occur at
the City Council's discretion. Mr. Taverna is stated this is an
option if notification of neighboring property owners was required.
Ms. Sherwood asked the applicant 1.f they have alternative space for
storage, and asked what would happen if there is an increased need
for storage, The applicant responded that Summit Communications
wants to be a good neighbor and suggested that a penalty for
trashy site might be appropriate. He stated that a yearly review
was not a preference. Ms. Sherwood asked the commission members if
trash was adequately addressed in the conditions.
Mr. Sepler stated that the requirement for screening is
appropriate.
Mr. Specer asked if the antenna is being addressed only or does it
inlude the operations of the cable toof
Mr. Roberts stated that he would like this to be a receiving site
not an operations site.
Ms. Sherwood stated that cable storage is a logical extension t
the use of the antenna. She stated that visual screening on the
site would provide protection to the neighborhood.
i
Planning Commission Meeting - January 1 , 1991
Page 7 of 11
•
Interjections came from the audience about the issues of traffic
and trash relating to the subject site.
Ms. Mc ole stated that it would be difficult to regulate traffic.
Mr. Sep .er stated that he recognizes the concerns but felt
regulation would be very difficult.
Mr. Roberts stated that he knows there will be growth in the cable
company, and that he does not want it to all be at this location.
Mr. Carman stated that the physical size of the site may limit the
growth of the operations in it self.
Ms. Sherwood moved to recommend approval of conditional use permit
9010-04 accepting the findings of fact and conclusions as drafted
with the following amendments; adding a conditions to limit the
operation to a receiving station and making it clear any change in
operation on the site would require an additional conditional use
permit; and revising condition number 4 to recuse an approved
landscaping plan which would provide a visual screen along the
entire perimeter of the site, She re commended:' that the condition
not specify the type of planting.
Mr. Carman asked the commission if the conditional use should be
limited to Summit Communications only. Mr. cosec asked if a
condition should be added for a time limit on the conditional use
permit. Ms. Sherwood stated she does not see a need for a time
restraint. Ms. Sherwood amended her motion to add a condition that
made the conditional use permit specific to Summit Communications,
and assumable only after ratification by public hearing in front of
the city council.
Mr. Roberts seconded.
Ms. Sherwood stated that number 4 conditions should be changed to
plant and maintain a visual screen as specified in the approved
plan.
Mr. Tavernakis suggested that storage facilities, restrooms, truck
storage, business offices for the future should all be pursued in
another location.
Mr, Sepler suggested that the concerns raised by Mr. Tavernakis
during the meeting be put into the forms of a memo to city council
for their review when the lease comes up for review.
vote was taken on the motion on the floor and all in favor.
k
h�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1991
Page 8 of 11
C. Summit Communications, Inc. , Variance Appy,, 9010-03 Staff Review
. sepler reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions. Two
drafts were distributed for consideration, Draft A recommends
approval while draft B recommends denial, Mr. epler stated that
specifically the variance is required because the previous variance
was for 60 feet and the current variance is requesting a o-foot
tower. Mr. Sepler stated that the proposed tower would be for a
receiving tower only.
Ms, Sherwood asked if the current tower has aviation lights. The
applicant stated that he believed the lights were required at 100
feet.
Ms. Mc ole asked if the tower would be secure. She expressed her
concern that it Might blow over in a storm with the addition Cif
microwave dish near the top. The applicant, represented by Burt
Green, stated that when the tower was constructed it was designed
to accommodate a -foot microwave dish. He stated that a stress
analysis is being dome on the tower now, The tower is built to
withstand a --mile-an-hour wind with 2~inches of ice.
Public Testimony
The applicant, Burt Green, stated that the stress analysis study
will be submitted to the commission when it becomes available.
Robert Force stated that he is in favor of the expansion because it
represents an advancement in radio technology.
Joseph James stated that the extended tower would loom over his •
property and takes away from his privacy. He stated that trees
around the site may require the further extension of the tower in
the future, He stated he was also concerned that the company may
feed. the need to expand in the future. He stated the variance
should be denied.
Ms. Mc le asked Mr. James where his house was in relation to the
tower. Some discussion followed over the locations of neighboring
properties.
Mr. Henry stated that a recent storm caused the loss of neighboring
trees. Now that the trees are gone, an 8 -foot tower and dish are
in his view. He questioned the need for the extension, Mr, Henry
stated that the 80-pfoot tower causes a safety concern for
neighboring properties in the case of heavy winds.
Mr. Specer stated that the higher tower diminishes views in the
Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1991
Page 9 of 11
neighborhood. He stated his concern over the threat of falling
trees or earthquake on to the tower, He was also concerned about
aviation safety.
'rands Natal thanked the commission for there service to the
community. He read a letter signed by neighboring property owners.
He submitted the letter for the record, He stated the extension t
the tower changed the neighborhood, He believes that the appraised
value of the properties will go down if the tower is extended.
Ms. McDole asked the applicant what was on the tower in the wast.
The applicant stated the antenna appears now as it has in the past.
Ms. Sherwood asked for the dimensions of the tower at 75 feet.
The appl i cant stated the base will be 14--16 feet wide, t the top,
at 80 feet, the width will be about 3 1/2 feet.
Laurie Stewart stated he has a view to the west. The tower has no
visual impact at 60 feet but at 80 feet it has an impact. He
stated that before the 80-foot tower was torn down due to the lack
f proper permits it was ugly, He asked if the dish has an affect
n a non�subscriber Is reception. His basic objection is that the
dish is ugly.
Burt Green stated that the site is a receiving 'station only and so
should not have an affect on the non subscriber's reception.
Some discussion followed between the applicant and Laurie Stewart
concerning the directional signal of the antenna.
Committee Report Tavernakis/Roberts)
Jim Roberts stated that he would like to see the engineers report
concerning the stability of the antenna. He also stated his
concern about the visual impact.
Mr, Sepler stated that a condition could be added to require a
engineers stamp on the plans upon application for a building permit
for the antenna.
Mr. Roberts asked why the antenna would have to go to 80 feet, The
applicant stated the extension is necessary to receive a signal
over the trees in the area.
Ms, IcDole asked if any additional noise would be created. The
applicant stated he chid not think so.
Tavernak s asked what would happen if the variance were denied,
The applicant responded that the project would have to be dropped
Planning commission Meeting - January 1 , 1991
Page 10 of 11
until another practical alternative came up and reception would not
be improved as planned,.
Some discussion followed over alternative sites for the tower.
Mss. McDole stated that a satellite dish for her business is altered
by neighboring trees.
Jinn Tavernakis stated that an engineers stamp is an absolute must,
He stated that he could not make a motion for approval, He stated
that other property owners do not have the right to install a dish
and the conditions are not beyond the control of the applicant.
16
Ms, McDole stated that the Columbia Tower installation was a factor
beyond the control of the applicant which. necessitated the
variance.
Mr, Carman stated that everyone in the same zone has the sate right
to have a tower.
Mr, Sepler stated that it right be possible to allow the tower in
10-foot increments.
Mr. Carman asked the applicant what increments -the towers come in,
The applicant responded -foot sections.
Mr. Roberts moved to recommend draft A, of the findings of fact and
conclusions for Variance application 9010-0 , recommending approval
to the city Council. He recommended adding a conditions that the
stamp of a qualified structural engineer be on the plans at the
time of the building permit application.
Mr, Carman suggested that the added condition read: "A structural
inspection and certification be made by a Washington registered
structural engineer for the entire installation including the
existing tower, the additional tower extension, and the proposed
microwave dish individually and as a unit) . The certification
shall state that the installation is capable of withstanding the
strongest known (historical) wind/ice/weather loading event or
industry standard whichever is greater and is designed to meet
existing geo-stability standards appropriate for the geographical
area. "
Mr. Roberts agreed to amend his motion as stated by Mr. carman.
Mr, Carman seconded the motion.
Ir, Ksec called for discussion on the motion.
Lois Sherwood stated that she is still undecided on the issue and
states that she feels that a dish up in the air seems worse than if
Planning Commission Meeting - January 10, 1991
Page 11 of ll
it were located in someone's back yard.
Some discussion followed over the size of the disk.
Ms. McDole stated that there are a lot of "ifs" n this project.
. McDole stated that many of the bones were built after the ,
installation o f the cable company.
.
Mr, Tavernakis stated that the applicant wants to do something that
is not quite within the rules and must ask thy' neighbors through
the variance for permission. The neighbors are saying they do not
want this structure,
Ms, McDole stated the satellites are ugly regardless of where they
are located.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 with Ms, Sherwood and
. Tavernakis dissenting.
New Business - See Agenda
VI, Announcements
See Agenda for upcoming schedule.
Some discussion followed over upcomi
Cl'ty of Port Townsend
Planning Commission
540 Fater St., Port Townsend, VIA 98368 2061385-3000
IED�
A r
Regular Meeting January 10, 1991
ROLL CALL--_-.,--------- 7:30 P
II * APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dated December 13 , 1990
III, COMMUNICATIONS:
A. current mail
IV, CLD BUSINESS:
Vantage domes, Sub-Division Application 9009-03 ,
"Parkview"
"
1. Staff Review (McConnell)
2. Public Testimony 17
Committee Report (Tavernakis/Sherwood) 'RI2,8.
4 . Findings and Conclusions
Summit Communication, Inc. , Conditional Use 9010--04
1. Staff Review epler
Public Testimony cery
3 , Committee Report (Sherwood/Roberts) pfp
4. Findings and Conclusions
co Summit Communication, Inc. , variance Appl . 9010-03
1. Staff Review epler
2. Public Testimony pop?'ez
3 , Committee Report (Tavernakis/Roberts)
4 . Findings and Conclusions
V, NEW BUSINESS
A. William White, Conditional Use Perot 9012-03
11 Scheduled: February 28 , 1991
2 , Committee: Tavernakis/Carman
3 * Staff: To Be Assigned, It
VI a ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings
January_ 31 , 1921
A. Public Hearing on Development Plan for Gateway Project
A. B
ouce Lamy, Conditional Use Permit
efn%F%%qft 2 q
nv±e-/e */ lk—� Sepler
Rory Ramage and Suzanne Cabot, Conditional Use Permit
(Committee: Roberts/ erroo Staff: Robison
ce City of Port Townsend, Rezone Appl.
(Committee: ric son aver a is) (Staff: Robison)
FebrMary 8
A# Bill and Sue Maxwell , Variance
(Committee: Sherwoo McDole (Staff: o Be Assigned)
e
William White, Conditional Use Permit
(Com
, pitte el arar
UkbI t v6ma5
March 14 , 112991,
A,m Mobile Home, Text Amendment Workshop
ADJOURN .
r
• r
o� G�st List • �I'U/(I/
NAME Ipleese prinll ADDRESS Do you wish to If yes, indicate
present lesllmony7 Copic.
YES NO
13 0
6e)04,Ck CA r,
IF D L._�V- %
u�o :EQ �.A\ �i�e�e�� ,i 1�
0
� 2 � v �
oo
l/fEut.�y�
DEL (� URN5 a a 3 � ��' �l � D �1�U17146 E
2,:l
-� ltk ��. 3�z5 AeNg I � ° �0.&/
;�jp tis
VtA
09
o
k... ll�d I alvv�ev 1'1 1% �a�� - iL
tL 4fAz zC
T4
/dt
Now
S30
�tr�eS��e�✓� �' /S5o U���;//n, /�T � � 1. ���T✓
��c�t �e,ti,�,. I z �o �G•. �� � O
f
w
+
C)Ie7 h
i t F 1
..__�--.r��-�+f - -_ - ��--r.�.� ��..-����: �rt�++w►�����..�.r�-�1.�__ :.����- �� �.-r�+��-� .ice+-��a� � a�
■ r
r-���r.+�-�� •.a. a.i �w I .�+�.� 0-.00L Z-1 J-h-
19
LQ iq,y�'
5?
CAO A
Ise,
1
•
.I
�I
F
" �f _♦ - �h ri r ��: r ,r r y �_+�a_�_ 4. s a - • -t�t *-04
II
t F 5
N
# - -- � - - � �_ -+�� - � -� �-rt =rtr ter• w� -. t- -.i a�-� � #��- +� a.���:.*��!__� -..,< v_ �� �. _+t �_ � � � �� � ��f�.r� -
�I F
1 +{ A-i V-) 44n C-a-
" ��t �+[F` +� � -�F ��...�� ��.� �. + �� air �r� �t�rt it�� ��FF �a- ��� _r �► ��- ty ti -_� � �� �f f."
Ce
I�
1+r F {{f
L
+�- a -rt-- at.� r. .yr _ _ ri ,. rF �. a. - r,.r rt�_ w �� • 'I .�a�� y t ��'- �
4h.r
M
' fl
-} _ ��-r� �_.� .:-rya+ : - t - - - t-- _ _ �. ,<4- fi �rt.►F���.�� r - ��_- - -yr f �..._ ,r =� �� -
F t
EEE
4 tt
.� Na� _ ♦ � - ��y at _+s-�. .rt_� .y�r�+� �.,_`raw _ _�a.aa*rtir ��.f-.��#�- �t -r .r f�. __ �F-..y��f � - rt ry +. .- � �_ _ �-�;� -- ,t � ,r: _
4
r
DATE JOB NO.
DAVID EIANS AND ASSOCIATES,INC. PROJECT
ENGINEERS,SURVENO R ,PLANNERS,E.A 1 S APE AROUTEf5
OFFICES IN OREGON,WASHINGTON AND CA11FORNIA
3100 NA BUCKLIN BUCKLEHII I#ROAD,SUITE 105 COUNTS
P+ .BOX 3070
lLVERDALE,WASliI GTO N 98 38 3`3070
11._ �.._,. - .•r._�
06 698.1661 FAX(206)698`074 PREPARED BY CHECKED B
r •
#...,,•+r+.t+•....t+..... ......r...,...+,,,.t=...,,.,,...++•++rtt.*..tt.t•...,+,+.,-.+..r.++,.+tt...#+t•,..}a....r.....Rr++...+++,,,.,#.,..#...t.rl....�.+..+#�y.,,,........+....+....RRrt-+R+r,#.+...ira.aa.i`1++...rrr..+..++-,,,...,,►....t-.a...rr++...R#i.=rRrr...T
! r �
r
r ♦'
#
t
�r rt
i
* i
* r
+ r
+
+ t
+
+ , • + • + . + a . . , . • , + . . . . • + , . + . . + • t , . • v5
+....l+.+,..tt.. !l+...R..1..+.,-+.., +... ..Rr........ .+.t-..+ .+........ ..t........ ... .. ..,.+....+..,.....,,rr.,.t.r.aa,+...,.....++.,....t.....t.R+t-*.#++-,*.+...+,+tt.a++,.aa.r..--,....+-+..............a,....a,..rr..a*r..++•:
+
+ 1
1
+ t +
1
6.Aw-.0. A%
i r
+ + ,
....................*t......+......,.tt+......�.+,...++........,.+...,.,,.......t...,+,.l++,....+..t++t+.,..,..t-....,....i........ti,.a+-....a.+++-„+#+..+r+r-,+++,,.aar.....+,.,,....+.,.#..+,-.... +... r++-+t+++,....+,-.+.+,+--..,,t.+.++.+............+...=.+w.#.+i+........+
i
+ + ;
w
i
r f
4g�
Lot
�� + !
! # r + r
1 1 1 i i i . ! 1 , , . . + i . . + , a . # . . , + + r i . / # , + . r i . , 4 F f . i f } , • • p0
, # + . T 5 • /
ri +
t.+.....'„-*...yt.+;aa . . ,.+A + ��/'�T'.+. • ...i ' ` r.}+rlr .F f* Fr r.+' r` - . i .r.r'. �+' .Ft '.!i-.r} r.+ t - ;+..'+.+'.li+,.rral rF RrR+.,.,ar.+
f
OP.
D(\'pf-1 W4 - IN L L
sp 7p. t+ 10 4-+J-t-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r r +
r
r
* . . _ . . . + . . . + . . r + + + . . . , . . . . . ,
+
...+....+t..t +++.....++.,.+ +.F ++ ,+rr..-..... a+, . .+., ....++, .. .. tt-.r+ ..+. rt *r+. .. . ... ++ ...t .,+#_.... .yl•. ,...r.t ,•.�, .. �.. -. ....++........+........
. . . . . . . . S5 F cpf
. . . . . . . rn 4+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' 1
�. 1 �. r ��
a +
. . . . . .
-Ty
5TAe I u. I�A t ��SM
<��Z SO-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iT+..,......!li l..rr++r.rr,y....+. Rr+; ! ,+ y., .R r+. .+„•+.T+tta+#....+.,,-ii..,,t .+...� ,T i. F ..i.. r.,..i ++i.� + ..+ ..�
. . . . . . . + . . . . . . . t
r
+
i
# r + 1
T
i
.
r r
....tt.....-t+••t*.......lN............aa..•tt+a.......r...tt..........i.........++..R#.r+ar.....ai,•##r••.**.+++,.##„4.+....i.#+„-•r.,ta+................. ..h.......+ii.RRR+r+arr..tt..•.........•+.a........Frr.,+....................
5i...T
i r #
r + r
i
- 1 • r r rt i 1
r
+
r
+ . . t . . t . . . . . + . . . . . . t . . . t .
r . . . . , . . . . . . t . . t . . . +
. . . . . t .
.........................+r+:.R.,,.+.....a..,+.r+....r....,.... ....r+a..++.,++....,,.....,+
+ . , + `+ ...,..... .------- .t...................R'
...........,+......+.,...a...
+ . t t . + , . . } .
ff i R
r + R
t
• r t + i r r • +
# ' ;
t + t . . . t . .
+ + + . . . . . . . . . r t . . . . . . ,
R F • • • r T + a F . r . . +
.....................+..,,i...t.+...tr.r..+.+...+........++...a...:.tt.a.rr.t.a...,,i...,,+t+......................................,
+...Rr..-r....,t*.=.+.*..+�. w..,,.+......r.t•r..+t-....tt.....,....+t..+++..++,y+rr+....rtrt........
PACE OF