HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17, 1989
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Colson,
Michel {arrived late) and Esmond; also Council
Liaison Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Davis, Gentry
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer
Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Planning
Technician Volk and City Planner Callaway {in
audience)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of August 3,
1989.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted {including page 6,
which was accidentally omitted from the packets). Mr. Colson seconded the motion
which carried unanimously {4-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
• No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 89-806: A public hearing on the question of
amending Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of
College Station, by creating the MPC-Molf Pen Corridor District
covering an area as described by Ordinance No. 1791 adopted by
City Council on 12-8-88 designating the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor.
Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed the proposed draft ordinance. She read the Purpose
statement, the list of permitted uses, and pointed out that there are actually 2
categories of uses; those permitted and any other use which will be considered as a
Conditional Use Permit. She described the steps and bodies involved in the review
process, pointing out that while the "Project Review Committee" currently reviews all
proposed site plans in any zoning district, a newly created body called the "Design
Review Board" will be responsible for review and recommendation of proposals in this
zoning district.
Mrs. Kee then explained that the "DRB" wi.il be made up of 1 registered architect, 1
business person, 1 person who is expert in aesthetic judgment, plus the regular
P.R.C. representatives, making a total of 6 persons to serve as voting' members
on the DRB.
She then read a list of factors and characteristics which will govern the I)RB's
evaluation of a design submission. She pointed out that following evaluation of the
design, the DRB will make a recommendation to the Planning 8; Zoning Commission, the
body to make the final decision. She went on to explain that any appeal to the PB;Z
• decision can be made to the City Council.
Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed the Requirements for Dedication/Development of Drainage and
Pedestrian Access Ways, and included the steps the developer can follow to reclaim
the flood fringe.
• Mrs. Kee then mentioned criteria which have been developed to establish a checklist
of the items considered to affect the environment, adding that the criteria are not
meant to restrict imagination, but rather to assist in focusing on design principles.
She then referred to lighting, trash, utility service, relationship of buildings to
site, relationship of buildings and site to adjoining area, building design,
landscaping, signs, miscellaneous structures and street hardware, future maintenance
and upkeep as specific elements which will be considered in the review of all
projects and proposals for development in the WPC district.
Mrs. Kee then explained that certain incentives have been developed which may be
awarded to developments which include pedestrian access to the trail systerr~ and
orient facades to the floodplain which are comparable in design and materials to the
front facade. She listed the reduction in number and size of islands, off--site
parking, allowance of some compact car spaces, reduction in the number of required
spaces and shared parking as some of the incentives grouped under "Parking
Standards", additional identification signs oriented toward the creek as an
incentive under "Signs", and variable setbacks, use of canopy trees in part of the
floodplain toward required landscaping points and Gity-provided business
identification signs in the dedicated park area as incentives grouped under
"Incentives for Property Dedication".
Mrs. Kee referred briefly to the last section of the proposed ordinance which covers
how fill materials must be glaced or stored on site.
• Mr. Michel arrived at the meeting immediately following Mrs. Kee's review of the
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Colson, Mrs. Sawtelle, Mr. Dresser and Mr. Gardner had worked with staff to
revise the ordinance which was submitted at the meeting on 8-3-89, and Mr. Colson
asked what changes staff had made following the committee meeting. Mrs. Kee briefly
explained that staff had included the guidelines used in Highland Park, Illinois as
well as other changes directed by the committee following the meetings of the group
on 8-4 & 8-8-89.
Mr. Esmond asked Mrs. Kee to list some specific changes which had been made since the
meeting on 8-3-89 and Mrs. Kee stated that the list of permitted uses was made more
restrictive and more categories had been included as development criteria.
Mr. Esmond asked what appeal process is being proposed and Mrs. Kee explained that
the Design Review Board will make a recommendation to the P&Z Commission, and any
appeals of the Commission's decisions will go to the City Council.
Mr. Esmond said that his impression following a brief revietr of this proposed
ordinance is that it appears to say a lot, and yet in some areas it says nothing. He
gave as an example the paragraph which states that "plant material shall be selected
for interest in its structure, texture, and color and for its ultimate growth...".
He said that is not very specific.
Mrs. Sawtelle explained that when the Committee reviewed the original proposed
ordinance, the decision was made to state a philosophy rather than specific: rules and
regulations for landscaping, which the idea being to coordinate development. in the
corridor through architectural design and landscaping. Mr. Esmond stated that may be
fine, but the point is that there will be a lot of differences of opinion between the
P&Z Minutes 8-1?-$9 Page 2
developers and each individual member of the review board. Mr. Colson said this has
been discussed before, and hopefully one landscaping theme will be started which can
• be carried out throughout development in this corridor.
Mr. Esmond asked why concrete channels will not be allowed in the creek and Mr. Smith
replied that is included to discourage a creek which is completely contained in
concrete with no green area, and added that some concrete will probably be used, but
the idea is to get away from a concrete channel which completely confines t:he
floodplain, and head toward preservation of some of the floodplain and natural
character of the Wolf Pen Creek area.
Mr. Smith added that much of this language is taken directly from the approved Master
Plan. Mrs. Sawtelle explained that care has been taken so this ordinance is not in
conflict with that approved plan.
The public hearing was opened. John 0. Greer, 506 E. Brookside, Bryan; owner of
condo at 1900 Dartmouth (Woodstock Condos), and treasurer of the Woodstock Condos
homeowners' group came forward and stated that while the owners of his project are
happy to see something constructive being done in this area, the ordinance seems to
address only undeveloped property, and his question is how an existing development
would be affected if painting were needed, or outside lights had to be rep]aced.
Mrs. Kee replied that while improvements to existing developments have not been
specifically addressed to date, her initial reaction would be that the Design Review
Board would probably want to review any proposed changes. Mr. Greer said ghat the
subject should be addressed, and he would hope that good judgment is used. He
went on to say that all existing fencing is not being replaced and he is looking
• for direction.
Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Greer if he has any thoughts on what kind of language to use to
address the project's needs and at the same time to maintain a balance with what the
City is trying to accomplish, and Mr. Greer replied that he does not at this time,
but the goals of the Woodstock board and those of the City appear to be the same.
Carol Greaney, 4313 Caduces Place, Galveston came forward and identified herself as
the manager of the Woodbrook Condos, and pointed out the creek has already become a
problem, and if improvements or changes are made, how will they affect her project's
parking lot. Mr. Smith replied there are many ways to address erosion problems, and
one way which will be used will be to try to slow dawn the water. He explained that
if a lake replaces a bend in the creek, there will be less erosion, and that,
combined with stabilization of the bank or edge or shoreline, should improve
troublesome areas. Ms. Greaney asked what the extra cost to the existing projects
would be and Mr. Smith replied that if all goes as planned, the erosion problems
would be solved.
Bart Munro, 1901 Lawyer came forward and asked what plan is being followed and Mr.
Smith replied the same plan included in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Study and Master
Plan which has been approved by Council. Mr. Munro asked for a definition of "flood
fringe" as referred to on page 4 of the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Smith replied
that "flood fringe" is defined in the Master Plan, and basically, is the az•ea in the
flood plain that would be reclaimable, but is not the floodway. Mr. Munro said that
the ordinance appears to be for both private and public development, and asked if
the rules would actually be the same for both entities. Staff replied that: the same
• rules would apply to all development in this district.
Mr. Munro asked what time frames and mechanisms must be addressed from a developer's
PB:Z Minutes 8-17-89 Page 3
standpoint and Mrs. Kee replied that when the ordinance is adopted by Council, it
will go into affect just as any other ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
• and that is after publication. Mr. Munro asked how much time would be added to the
processing of a project and Mrs. Kee replied that the only additional time required
will be the time needed for inclusion on PB:Z agendas and those actual meetings,
adding that other items which must go before the P.R.C. and then the P&Z require 20
days between actual date of submission by the applicant and consideration by the
Commission.
Mr. Munro asked if the intent is to favor or disfavor if a developer deeds his land
to the City or not, and Mrs. Kee replied that incentives for dedication of the land
are included in the ordinance.
Richard Smith, 411 Texas Avenue came forward and pointed out that on the first page
of the proposed ordinance, it states it is the Council's desire through the ordinance
to enhance and preserve property values in this Corridor, but added that he does have
some questions regarding how the Design Review Board will make "aesthetic" judgments,
and what type person would be the member who is "expert in aesthetic judgment". Mrs.
Sawtelle said that person could perhaps be someone already involved in a
beautification program, or perhaps even a landscape architect. Mr. Smith said that
expert's judgment could become very important when the City is striving for harmony,
compatibility, etc. He asked if, in general, this is the type of ordinance which
might be planned for use in the future, and if there are other areas under the same
type of controls.
Mrs. Kee replied that this special zoning district is unlike any other existing
district, except perhaps the Northgate district which was also created because of the
• unique nature of the area.
Mr. Smith asked if the permitted uses are the same as those
and Mrs. Kee replied that not all permitted uses in the C-1
in this district, but by the same token, apartments are not
and will be allowed in this district. She pointed out that
the list of permitted uses can be considered by the Commiss
allowed in C-1 districts
district will be allowed
allowed in C-1 districts
any use nat included on
ion as Conditional Uses.
Mr. Smith then referred to the bottom of page 3 under "Requirements for
Dedication/Development of Drainage and Pedestrian Access Ways" and stated he is
rather unsure of the meaning of that language. Mark Smith helped explain and then
asked if water is in the creek some of the time or all of the time and Mark Smith
replied that none of the lakes has been designed to date, but the idea is t:hat the
lakes will be excavated rather than using dams to create them, adding that staff is
in the process of investigating how much water will be needed to keep the ]_akes alive
and moving rather than to allow it to set and become stagnant.
Mr. Smith then referred to the second paragraph on page 4 which begins with "The
floodway and the minimum reservation line as defined....shall either be dedicated to
the City for drainage and public open space use or may be improved by the
developer...". He said it appears that one of two things shall be done, and he
wonders if it will be done at the option of the City or the landowner. Mrs. Kee
replied it will be done at the option of the owner. Mr. Smith then asked if in
essence this would represent a legal taking of land, to which Assistant City Attorney
Banks replied that it would not.
Mr. Smith asked that the "minimum reservation" line is and Mark Smith replied that it
is the boundary 20 feet outside the boundary of the floodway, and is better- defined
in the Master Plan. Mr. Smith asked if the map of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor
P&Z Minutes 8-17-89 Page 4
Schematic on the wall shows the floodway and Mark Smith replied that it is, and then
went to the schematic plan and pointed it out.
Mr. Smith then asked the scheduling of consideration of the ordinance and Mrs. Kee
replied that a workshop will be held by Council on 8-23-89, the public hearing is
scheduled before the Council on 9-14-89, and if it is approved at that date, will
become effective immediately following publication. Mr. Smith asked how projects
which have had Building Permits issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance
will be affected and Mrs. Kee replied they will not be affected.
Mr. Greer came forward again and stated he would appreciate seeing some type of
language included that would grandfather in existing properties or buildings, and
specifically referred to the requirement of this ordinance for screening of dumpster
areas with living plant materials, adding that is not the plan his project now has.
Mr. Munro came forward again and suggested inclusion of some type of language
addressing mutual consent regarding channelization by the City and private owners,
specifically in an area he pointed out on the schematic plan. He clarified by
pointing out the ordinance states there can be absolutely no channelization and he
had questions regarding one specific location.
City Planner Jim Callaway came forward from the audience and stated that th.e intent
of this district/ordinance is that there will not be concrete lined channels, and in
the Master Plan some crass sections are included. He continued by explaining that
the ordinance is not meant to address one specific area of improvement, and the
reference was to restrict or prevent a certain kind of channelization. He pointed
out that there will be some realignment of the creek, and added that the wall map is
• a "Schematic Master Plan" but only that, and the specific designing has not yet been
done. He informed everyone that the actual design will probably begin within the
next month, and the results will be very similar to the "Schematic Master Plan"
depicted, but may contain some deviations.
Mr. Smith and Mark Smith continued discussion of the second paragraph on page 4 with
the Commission, with the decision being reached that the language should be changed
to read as follows: "At the option of the developer, the floodway and the minimum
reservation line shall either be dedicated to the City for drainage and public open
space use or be improved to conform with the standards of the Development Corridor
which may include...". Mrs. Banks stated again that requiring dedication or
conformance to certain standards would not be a taking, and the requirement conforms
to the previously approved Tax Increment Financing district.
Mr. Smith then talked about acquiring easements, areas which have already platted,
and any additional easements which may be required, and asked how the City would go
about getting easements. Mrs. Banks replied if the property owners want to develop a
piece of property, the easement is usually dedicated, and if the owner does not want
to take that direction, the City will have to buy the easement.
Mr. Dresser then stated that this whole process is new to everyone, and the
Commission and staff are not trying to defend an ordinance, but rather are trying to
get input to help in developing an ordinance which carries out the intent of the Wolf
Pen Greek corridor and what it should eventually become. He added that this
ordinance is definitely a draft at this paint.
Mr. Munro came forward again and said that it appears that the plan makes good sense
to the City, and the owners are still concerned about how property will be affected,
but he thinks it will be worked out and will enhance the City as a whole, adding that
P8:Z Minutes 8-17-89 Page 5
•
.]
perhaps this is only the first step in a 20 year project.
Mr. Smith came forward again and said he would like to commend the PB:Z for the time
and effort given to the City, both past and present, and he would like them to know
they are appreciated by the people of the community. He said the idea of the
development of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor is very progressive and has the potential
to be very attractive, but would add that since it is a public/private partnership,
that is a joint effort, caution should be taken to keep in mind Council's desire to
enhance and preserve property values. He continued by saying that he was pleased to
see the goal as stated in the preamble of the ordinance and if it is followed, it
should be the basis for a publicJprivate partnership.
Mr. Gardner said that he wonders why there seems to be such reluctance to help the
City by giving land which is not now developable. Mr. Smith said he cannot speak for
other owners, but he personally has signed a letter of intent to work toward
accomplishing the plan. He said the question lies in the final result -- after
dedication of the land will the owner have less value or at least the same value - or
more value, as is the purpose of this district. Mr. Gardner said that nobody can
prove now that the final result will be beautiful and great, but pointed out that the
City cannot do anything without the property. Mr. Smith pointed out that a good
appraiser can take all factors into consideration which making his appraisal of the
property.
Ria (name undiscernable) of 1b00 Harvey Road came forward and asked how the' end
result is envisioned. Mrs. Kee went forward to the map on the wall and pointed out
the private property which would be developed by private developers and explained the
purpose of the ordinance is to encourage the developers to make their projects in
accordance with the Master plan.
Mr. Gardner added that a concept of this plan is that the Mall is a real focal point,
and spoke of a walkway between this corridor and the Mall.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners then discussed the language of the second paragraph on page 4 and
the "aesthetic expert", with Mr. Dresser stating that he thinks the Council. should
decide on the person qualified to be an "aesthetic expert". Mrs. Sawtelle suggested
furnishing examples such as landscape architects, people involved in beautification
programs, etc. Mr. Colson said how existing developments will be addressed should
probably be considered, that is, will they be completely grandfathered in, partially
grandfathered in, or would the requirements of this ordinance be imposed for any
changes proposed on these projects in the future.
Mrs. Sawtelle said she has no problem with grandfathering them in. Mr. Dresser said
that he thinks that if changes are planned for those projects, they should become
conforming, but if no changes are ever proposed, he has no problem with
grandfathering in what exists. Mrs. Sawtelle said in that case, the ordinance should
be more specific, that is would screen fences have to become conforming if any
improvements or changes or planned, or how would it work. Mark Smith stated that it
is very hard to partially grandfather in something, adding that maintenance items
would be hard to control because no permits for those things are required.
Mr. Colson said that compliance should be encouraged. Mark Smith said that: perhaps
incentives could be offered for compliance.
Mr. Greer came forward again and stated that perhaps incentives might be a good idea,
PB:Z Minutes 8-17-89 Page 6
that his group is interested in being in compliance, but are now in the process of
replacing the fence and he would hope that existing project owners would not be made
. to come into immediate compliance.
Mr. Dresser said that he does not think those specific items should be addressed at
this meeting, and he would prefer to ask staff to develop language which would
encourage existing developers to come into compliance when they begin replacing
things. Mr. Colson said that the architecture of Mr. Greer's project should be left
alone, and he thinks the color of paint should not be addressed. Mrs. Kee stated
that colors are already addressed in the ordinance, and if a change is wanted, it
should be made now.
Mr. Munro suggested from the audience that perhaps 60 - 90 days could be given to a
project to get compliance, and at the end of that time attach a lien to the property.
He added that would be the way to get things done. Mr. Dresser said that he would
not like to address existing items except when they came up as a part of a normal
maintenance program. Mr. Munro said that he thinks compliance will be required in
order to get an attractive development. Mr. Dresser said that he would be worried
about businesses which failed and maintenance of vacant buildings. Mr. Munro said
that the City already has a special taxing district established, so now he thinks it
should be made good. He suggested one or perhaps 2 warnings about non-compliance,
and then placing a lien. He added that automatic enforcement must be included.
Mr. Dresser asked if staff has any examples of enforcement of standards to which Mrs.
Kee replied that has not been developed at this time. Mrs. Banks pointed out the
Zoning Ordinance still has the non-conforming use section which can come into play.
Mrs. Kee stated that anything which would require a permit would not be a problem.
• Mr. Dresser asked if the City can require that he paint his house. Mrs. Banks
replied it can through the anti-neglect ordinance, but the color chosen is not
addressed. Mr. Dresser said that he agrees that something should be developed to
address non-compliance.
Mr. Munro asked if having parking lots paved with grass-crete could be one of the
requirements rather than poured concrete lots. He said that would be much more
attractive and would also help drainage which is one of the gurposes of creating this
district.
Discussion then followed concerning the number of members on the review board, and
whether or not "aesthetic expert" should be changed. Mr. Colson said that he thinks
the language "at large person" should replace "member expert in aesthetic judgment",
and made a motion to that effect. Mr. Dresser said that he would agree to that and
seconded the motion. Discussion followed with the motion and second being withdrawn
and suggestions for changing the language to "1 member knowledgeable in aesthetic
judgment" or adding a member to the review board who is a Wolf Pen Creek property
owner or developer being made.
Mr. Colson made a motion to send the draft ordinance forward to Council with the
changes recommended at this meeting. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried
by a vote of 4-0.
Mrs. Kee reminded everyone that the Council would discuss the ordinance at a workshop
on August 23rd at 4 p.m., and the public hearing would be held before the Council on
September 14th at 7 p.m.
P8:Z Minutes 8-17-89 Page 7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion of an Analysis of the Zoning in
the Public Service Center area.
• Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed the study prepared by the Planning staff titled "An
Analysis of the Zoning in the Public Service Center Area", which was included in the
packets and also as a part of these minutes.
Following the review, Mr. Dresser said that perhaps there had been a misunderstanding
in why the request for a study of the area had been made. He explained he had
requested it because he was not sure that the design and use of the public service
center is compatible with the existing R-1 zoning, and not whether or not t:he R-1
zoning was the proper zoning for the area. He went on to say that since the result
of the study is staff's recommendation that no zoning changes are made at this
time, no matter the reasons for the study, the answer has been given to his question.
Mr. Michel asked what the plans for improvement of Krenek Tap Road include and Mr.
Smith replied that the plans are being prepared at this time, and will go before the
voters for funding when they are completed. He continued by explaining that if plans
are approved by a favorable vote, the project will be a 3-year project.
Mr. Michel referred to the study submitted by staff and pointed out that if' the
street system is never improved, then rezoning of the area will not be recommended.
He asked if there is some way the results of this study get triggered into use the
next time this area comes up for evaluation, and Mrs. Kee replied that copies of all
reports completed by the Planning staff are included in its library which is used for
research. She continued by stating that if the street system is never improved does
not necessarily mean that a different zoning classification will never be recommended.
• Mr. Colson asked if the original concern was over the R-1 zoning to the north or some
of the other zoning. Mr. Dresser stated that he thinks everyone has lost sight of
the reasons for his concern. He went on to explain that the Gity came in some time
ago with a request for a C.U.P. for the enlargement of the P.S.C., adding that if a
private entity had wanted to put a warehouse there, the request probably would have
been denied. He said that he believes that the City's expansion of the facility at
this location is an infringement on a residential area, even though that area is
undeveloped. He added that he does not think screening or buffering from ghat
facility should be the responsibility of the adjacent landowner. He explained that
his concern, and the subject issue was whether the City has adequately screened or
protected the residential area from its facility. He stated that he does not think
it has been adequately buffered and the Commission made a mistake in approving the
design of the latest addition which required a G.U.P.
Mr. Munro spoke from the audience stating that if buffering was not required, did the
City not violate its own rules? Mr. Dresser stated that is his point.
Mr. Esmond said that if the Commission can do anything at all at this time after
previously approving the City's request, perhaps it can make a recommendation to the
Council that some type of screening be added the the plans. Mr. Dresser stated
emphatically that he does not think it is appropriate to require the Barta tract to
provide the screening to protect the residential area from a City facility.
Mr. Esmond stated that the Council would have to approve any additional funds, but he
agrees with Mr. Dresser, and thinks a recommendation to that effect should he made.
• Mr. Dresser said that if King Cole Drive is to remain a private drive, probably the
screening should be along that drive. Mr. Colson said that he agrees that the
Commission made a mistake.
PAZ Minutes 8-17-89 Page 8
Mr. Dresser said that he thinks the Gity of College Station should take a look at the
• proposed screening of this project, and if it is not the same as would be required of
a private developer, it should be improved. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if the City can make
a recommendation. Mr. Esmond said that since the report submitted by staff does not
recommend rezoning of any of the area, perhaps a recommendation would be in order.
Mrs. Kee stated she would be happy to take this concern forward to the Council.
Mr. Colson said that the Gity always tells an individual developer that his budget
restraints were not our concern.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to direct staff to prepare correspondence to the Council
stating that after careful study by staff determined that the existing R-1 zoning in
the areas of the Public Service Center is not inappropriate, the Commission thinks
the proposed screening on the approved C.U.P/site plan is not adequate for screening
this facility/use from the adjacent residential area. Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Callaway came forward and stated that the report submitted by the Planning staff
does not call for R-1 development, but rather indicates that R-1 zoning is not
inappropriate at this time. He added that he does not think it meant to perpetuate
the screening problem, and if the zoning were A-0 rather than R-1 the expressed
concern would not be there.
Mr. Dresser and Mrs. Sawtelle both stated that the point is that the City is being
treated differently in the requirements than a private citizen would be, and think
the suggested recommendation should be carried forward to Council.
• Mrs. Banks stated that her concern is that the site plan has already been approved
without reservation, and not pending a study of the area.
Mr. Dresser stated that the Commission will only be offering a recommendation to
Council that it should reconsider the project and add appropriate screening.
The question on the motion was called, with the results being 4-0 in favor of the
motion.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried
unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
i ~~
Chai man, ancy Sawtelle
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P8Z Minutes 8-17-89 Page 9
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
• DATE August 17, 1989
NAME ADDRESS
3 . ~~'cr ~ ~~ Lam- % ~~~:~ ~;~n~ ~v C~ ~~~~~
4 . r~ ~2 ~ cam' N.~ G ~ ~~ I ~. ,~ w y-~ ~~ ~-
6 .
, ~ ~~ ~ c~ `~~'~ 7 C`7
~~~
7 . ~
~,~_- ~ ~ r ~
_~_ . ~~ ~ 3 C.~_.~Z.:,~ -~~,_~ ~C.~-.~
'
rya
~~,1 ~~ ~x77~sc
~ , ~,
r
~v
,;
1 0 . ~.
~~~ ~ ~
~•~ ~ - ~ ct?~! _P ~20~ ~1~7~ wt ~ win '~~
~ ~
~
11. ~ '
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
. 19
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25