Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission~~~~`` ~• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Hall, Gentry, Esmond, and Colson. (Council Liaison McIlhaney was in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Dresser and Member Michel. STAFF PRESENT: Assist. City Attorney Coates, Senior Planner Kee, City Planner Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, and Building Technician Thomas. AIGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval as Minutes -meeting of October 4" 1990. Chairman Sawtelle pointed out corrections to the minutes. She directed staff to include Mr. Dozier's address on the third page of the minutes. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes with the noted corrections. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (4-0) Chairman 5awtelle abstained since she was not present at the last meeting. AiGENDA ITEM NO. 2: A public hearing to consider a Final Plat oi' the Randall's University Park S~bdivisiort (Rapist od iiorrtter University Plana and Chimney Hill S~bdivlsions.) Case No. 90-218. • City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report. He said that utility and private access easements had been reconfigured. The former University Plaza had 4 lots, this proposal has 3. Lot 3 should not be designated as a drainage easement. Drainage for development will be handled at time of site planning. Mr. Esmond asked if Pullen was referring to the northern portion of the rapist. Mr. Pullen said that he was referring to the area at the end of Chimney Hill Drive. He said that the other change was that the old plat shall be called the "original" plat instead of a "vacating" plat. Mr. Esmond asked if the 40' easement is included in the new plat. Mr. Pullen answered yes. Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Roy Hammons of 1700 S. Kyle came forward as the local representative for development of Randalls. He said that the drainage easement was platted as such, at the City's request. However, the owner does not object to its removal from the plat. He said that it will be handled during the site plan process. This area will hold run-off before and after development. "- explained that it will be designed to detain water and not overload the system downstre said that water will be detained temporarily. No water feature intended. He then intros Glen Dickerson, the architect and Joe Rollins, the RandalLs representative who were av~ for questions. Hammons concurred with Staff's comments. He said that traffic impact s1 have been submitted. Mr. Esmond asked if Lot 3 is in the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Hammons said that it was not. None of this site is in the 100 year flood plain. i P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 Mr. Hall asked where the drainage from lots 2 & 3 goes. Mr. Hammons said that run-off from upstream development comes into the property to a well defined run-off through the corner of this existing property. The cul-de-sac would remain the same and not block the flow or drainage. Mr. Hall asked about the effects of possible increased run-off on existing property, especially residential homes. Mr Hammons said there would be no additional run-off. He added that the Drainage Ordinance requires the design to be based on 100 year frequency which is a high level of design specifications. Mr. Hall asked if the drainage area will be maintained by the owner or the City. Mr. Hammons said that the landowner would be responsible. Ms. Nancy Berry of 202 Lampwick came forward. She said that she is the President of the Chimney Hill Homeowners Association. She said that residents were concerned with the run-off of water. She stated that bulldozers have already altered the creek bed. She showed photographs to the Commission. She said that the 100 year flood plain has been altered and there is already standing water with the average rainfall. She pointed out the area to which she was referring, on the site plan. She said that the dry stream bed is being filled with brush thus, being dammed. The 100 year flood plain has been altered and during heavy rains, the homes could flood, causing a health hazard. Chairman Sawtelle summarized the testimony. Ms. Sue Lowey of 205 Lampwick came forward. She said that L. A Ford is leveling the • floodplain and causing alteration to the 100 year flood plain. She said that it could cause insurance problems for homeowners in this area. Lack of proper channelization of the creek bed, could result in flooding. She stated that this may cause residents who were in the 500 year plain to be in the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Hammons clarified that members of the audience were referring to a different property, not }Zandalls. During a topographic survey, the men cleared some brush for surveying. The work being referred to was not being done by Randalls. He pointed to the areas on the plat. Randalls property ends at Lot 3. Mr. Hall asked if Randalls is the owner of the property being platted. Mr. Hammons said that }Zandalls is the sole owner of the property being platted. He reiterated that the area will be designed according to 100 year floodplain specifications. He said that Randalls development will not include any damning. It will include a detention facility. Mr. Colson asked if Randalls had started any construction. Mr. Hammons replied no. The dumpsters on the site are there for clean-up efforts. Mr. Pullen said that }2andalls, LA Ford, and 1st National Bank are listed as owners on this plat. LA Ford owns the property to which they are referring. Ms. Berry requested that Staff survey the damages done by bulldozers as soon as possible. Sue said that she is worried about the dammed creek and change of the 100 year floodplain. Water is still standing in the area from yesterday's rain. She asked that the City protect the residential area. She said that they understand that this is not Randall's property, but Randalls will affect the situation downstream. P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 Mr. Hammons said that we cannot correlate Randalls, with work done on Ford's property. Work done was not at Randall's request. They do not want to change the floodplain nor do they want to rezone the R-1. They will detain water from their site and that of First National Bank. Mr. Colson asked what happens to water from the parking lot. Mr. Hammons said that it will go into a detention area and pass through as allowed. Mr. Hammons explained the engineering aspects of the detention area. Chairman Sawtelle said that the citizens are more concerned with activities downstream and that Randall's planned drainage designs may need to be modified to accommodate these changes. Mr. Gentry asked if residents are requesting that flow from Randalls not only be controlled to its present rate after development, but actually reduced. Ms. Berry said that she was concerned with additional run-off due to the paving of the Randall's site. Mr. Gentry said that there will be no increased flow if engineering is done properly. Ms. Julie Watenbarger of 604 Chimney Hill voiced concern that the methods of control might not work and their homes could be flooded. She said that work done in the flood plain could force neighbors to get flood insurance. Pullen said that staff will ensure proper drainage development by checking for ordinance compliance and proper permits. Ms. Berry was concerned with the traffic flow on Arguello. She also wanted to know what the • rear of the building is going to look like. She asked ff there would be any buffering or will they see incinerators. Ms. Kee said that there will be a public meeting held for site plan review and Staff will call the Homeowner's Association. Chairman Sawtelle explained that those concerns will be addressed at the meeting mentioned by Ms. Kee. Mr. Hammons said that traffic flow has not been fully addressed but will be, at the time of site plan development. He said that all details will be addressed at site plan meeting. Mr. Dickerson of Randalls showed conceptual drawings of landscape and building design to Commission and to audience. He said that Randalls does not use incinerators. Chairman Sawtelle said that other aspects should be addressed at P.R.C. Ms. Jane Moseley of 205 Fireside came forward. She asked if there will be anything done for increased traffic flow as a result of this development. Mr. Pullen said that there are planned traffic changes in the area. Studies will have to be conducted in order to determine the need for installing a traffic light. Chairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Pullen said that the plat does not include all of the Chimney Hill Subdivision because the developer did not want the name of the subdivision changed. Mr. Colson asked what can be done about the previously mentioned drainage concerns. Pullen said that Staff will check into the situation and see if permits were issued and if the 100 year flood plain was altered. P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 Mr. Esmond asked if Ford was working in the 100 year flood plain. Pullen answered yes. He added that when he looked at the site this morning, it did not look significantly altered. Mr. Esmond said that citizens had voiced valid concerns and he appreciated their comments. He would like to have afollow-up at the next meeting on status of work being done and if plain was altered. Mr. Hall said that if the applicant's proposal was based on what existed a few days ago, the proposal may change depending on actions which have occurred on Ford's property. Mr. Hammons said that what has taken place was downstream and does not affect the applicant's proposal for a detention pond. He had confidence in the proposed plan which will work and not affect anything downstream. Sawtelle asked if there will be remedy if work affected the floodplain on Ford's property. Pullen said that the site would have to be returned to its original status. Mr. Gentry said that actions taken downstream do not affect Randalls property. The blockage is downstream and should not affect Randalls. Asst. City Attorney Coates asked why LA Ford's signature as owner is on the plat. Mr. Pullen said that Ford is included as owner of the lot which was subdivided. Mr. Hall wanted to make sure that what is presented is beneficial to everyone. Chairman Sawtelle said that Staff can check into Ford's property but it does not affect Randalls. Jerry Bradshaw of 202 Fireside said that the drainage system should be improved if it was destroyed by any work done by anyone. Chairman Sawtelle said that City Engineer Pullen would research the issue further. Ms. Moseley said that the 2 properties are related if the drainage capacity downstream changes. Sawtelle said that a problem was created downstream regardless of Randalls. She said that it will be handled outside of this meeting. Mr. Hammons said that the floodplain downstream has no significance in regard to Randall's calculations. He said that Randalls is meeting ordinance requirements. Sawtelle said that there is a problem and the solution lies with Ford. Mr. Gentry said there is a problem but it is not relevant to Randalls property. Mr. Pullen repeated that the detention facility would not be public and would be maintained by Randalls. It should remain zoned R-1. He asked that the drainage easement reference should be removed from plat. Mr. Esmond made a motion to recommend approval of the plat based on Lot 3 becoming part of Lot 1 and removing the drainage easement designation. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. Mr. Hall asked if we should add that Randalls must maintain the drainage facility. Chairman Sawtelle believed that it was understood. P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 The motion carried in a unanimous vote of 5-0. AIC~ENDiA ITEM NO. 3: A public hearhrQ to consider a Final Plat o~i the Remington Subdivision (Rep]at of Ponderosa Place Section 2 Tract D). Case No. 9x219. Pullen presented the case to the Commission. He said that the P.R.C. conditions have been met. Staff recommends that the drainage easements be removed and joint access between Lots 1 & 2 be provided to eliminate conflicts with Humana drive entrances. Mr. Esmond asked if the phrase "P.U.E.' is frequently used. Mr. Pullen said yes. Mr. Galindo of Galindo Engineering came forward as the engineer for the project. He said that the entrance is across from the Humana Hospital entrance. No one came forward during the public hearing. Mr. Pullen clarified that P.U.E. means Public Utility Easement not Private Utility Easement and could be written on the plat. Mr. Colson made a motion to recommend approval contingent upon designating what P.U.E. stands for. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) AiGENDA ITEM N0.4 A public hearhrg to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility to be located at 415-419 Stasney. 1~pplicant is the Islamic Community of Bryan/College Station. Ccase No. 9x709. Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report and history of the previously approved permit. • The purpose for this request was because the previously approved permit needed revision because the proposal has been changed to a 2-story building with minor alteration to the parking configuration. Chairman Sawtelle who previously reviewed this item with Staff, said that the 2-story area is mostly open over the first floor. They are not adding much floor area and it does not affect the parking requirement. Mr. Colson asked how many times this proposal has been considered by the Commission. Ms. Kee said that the parking issue came before the P&Z a few times as did the C.U.P. Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Nabil Safwat of 2702 Abbott Creek in Bryan came forward. The use of the building has not changed but they have decided to add a second floor. Sawtelle asked if the prayer would be conducted over a loud speaker of any kind. He answered that it would not. Chairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Esmond asked if this is one lot. Ms. Kee said that the church owns 3 lots with a duplex situated mostly on the 3rd lot. She pointed out that this site plan was approved last year except for the relocation of 1 parking space and the addition of 1 parking space. I 5 Mr. Colson made a motion for approval. Mr. Hall seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: A public hearing to consider a request itor a Conditional Use Permit for ran e~ansion as the St. Tlwmas Episcopal Church at 908 George Bush Drive. Applicant fs St. Thomas Episcopal Church. Case No. 9x710. Ms. Kee presented the staff report. She stated that the applicant has prepared a conceptual site plan but is only seeking approval of the expansion at this time. Kee presented slides of the current facilities. She said that the applicant has agreed to gutter, curb, and pave the gravel parking lot if approved. Mr. Colson asked if we had received only 1 response. Ms. Kee said yes. Chairman Sawtelle said that another letter had been received by the Commission and would be read to the audience. Mr. Esmond asked if P.R.C. will review the site plan after approval of the use. Kee said that it would be reviewed as normal and sent to P&Z if the use is approved. Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Don Garrett of 3912 Hilltop in Bryan came forward as the engineer and surveyor for this project. He said there will be no additional students in the school. He stated that the sanctuary will be expanded but there will not be immediate expansion of the congregation. He explained that some existing buildings will be removed. Drainage facilities will decrease the flow of excess water due to paving the lot. The proposal will include 2 detention ponds. He pointed out that parking spaces will be added. As with most churches, windows will be fixed (not able to be opened) so the noise level will be controlled. The playground will be in the same area as it is • now. Sawtelle read the letter to the Board. (See Mrs. Sander's and Mr. Eknoyan's letter.) Mr. Esmond asked if the 2 proposed detention ponds are currently in existence. Mr. Garrett said they were not. The drainage basins will be created. Mr. Colson asked about water retention efforts on the property. Mr. Garrett answered no. However, he explained the location of a small berm and associated water routes. Mr. Colson asked if the current number of parking spaces will be enhanced. Mr. Garrett said that it would be. Sawtelle asked if there would be a buffer between the classrooms and the homes. Mr Garrett said that the buffering consists mostly of vegetation. He said that the applicant will comply with the City's ordinances and conditions for approval. W. B. Lancaster of 303 Dexter came forward. He said that he owns the property with the common boundary. He has probably received most of the water in the past and is not worried about the new expansion. Enhancement is welcomed and would improve the area. Mr. Colson asked how much water comes off of the parking lot. Mr. Lancaster said that he receives run-off but believes that development will help the situation. 6 P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 Mr. Don DeLuise of 201 Suffolk came forward to voice concerns. He said that he was concerned with the drainage plan and the loss of trees and natural vegetation which could result with the proposed expansion. He believed there should be a definite buffer. Sawtelle said that they are trying to retain as many trees as possible and showed him the conceptual site plan. Mr. Gary Nelson of 110 Pershing came forward. He voiced concern for the drainage issue and for preservation of privacy. The deed restrictions for St. Thomas are in effort to preserve privacy. Sawtelle said that the buffering and lighting issues will be considered by the P&Z Commission. Mr. Colson asked if Nelson would prefer the vegetation as buffering instead of a wooden fence. Mr. Nelson said that the deed restrictions give the option of a brick fence which would be a shared expense with adjacent property owners. Mr. Esmond asked if the deed restrictions run with the entire subdivision. Mr. Nelson answered no. He described the land affected by said restrictions. Mr. Colson asked if the church is knowledgeable of deed restrictions. Mr. Nelson said that they signed the lease so he would presume so. Mr. David Woodcock of 1511 Wolf Run came forward. He is Chairman of the Building Committee for St. Thomas. He explained that the church is attempting to control drainage. He said that they do not want to increase the number of students in the school and 3 buildings will be removed. He said that the increase in parking provided is due to Council's concern for • adequate parking for public gathering facilities. He said that they are conscientious of buffers and noise control. They are also aware of deed restrictions. Mr. Colson asked about the location of the berm. Mr. Woodcock explained. He said that it has been somewhat effective but their engineer will finish addressing this situation. Mrs. Sanders of 200 Suffolk said that water flows through the church property onto the lower portion of her property below the berm. Ms. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Esmond asked if this item still must go to P.R.C. for site plan approval. Ms. Kee answered yes and added that it will return to P&Z as well. Sawtelle remarked that Staff must be aware of lighting concerns (brightness) for the parking area. Mr. Colson said that Silvey property is zoned R-1 and churches can exist in R-1 as a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Gentry made a motion to recommend approval. Mr. Colson seconded the motion. Mr. Esmond thanked people for expressing their views. Sawtelle commented that everyone seems willing to cooperate. The vote passed unanimously in a vote of 4-0. Mr. Hall abstained due to a conflict of interest. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Final Plat -College Station Slubdiviaion to be located alcnq the south side ai' Holleman Drive appro~cnatel'~y 58011eet west ai' Tezas Avenue. Case No. 90-217. 7 P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 Pullen presented the Staff report. The reason for its return to P&Z he said, was to address the following concerns of Council: 1. Drainage (maintenance of the easement, access to the easement, and screen fencing) 2. Pedestrian access, for residents of Barthelow and the future PolarBek development, to Holleman and to shopping center.) 3. Traffic circulation (to be addressed by Mr. Callaway.) Mr. Callaway said that the lack of the extension of Barthelow was a main concern of Council. He explained the reason for the short period of time for review as the time constraints of the applicant. He said that P&Z will be asked to pick one alternative from 3 alternatives, one of which City Council has already indicated as unacceptable. He presented the history of Barthelow, including pertinent statistics. He said that Staff identified the following two alternatives: 1. Extend Barthelow to Holleman. 2. Construct cul-de-sac configuration at end of Barthelow. Callaway said that Staff preferred option No. 1 and explained the reasons: transportation planning practices and emergency vehicle access. He said that the second option was not preferred because it would not comply with development policies and regulations regarding cul-de-sac length and number of dwelling units on a cul-de-sac street. The third alternative to 'do nothing" is not acceptable. He asked that the P&Z not try to address street alignment at this meeting. Mr. Colson asked the distance that Barthelow must be extended to meet Holleman. Mr. Callaway said that the distance would be approximately 2,000 feet. • Mr. Bill Ayres of Birmingham, Alabama came forward to represent the PolarBek Co. He said that they were opposed to the required extension of Barthelow. He said that it has functioned well and there have been no traffic problems due to its width of 39 feet and accessibility to parking lots for vehicular turn -arounds. There was previously a planned cul-de-sac but it was cancelled because projected development never occurred. They would be willing to contribute towards the construction of a cul-de-sac off of their property. Mr. Colson asked where an off property cul-de-sac would occur. Mr. Ayres explained. He added that the extension of Barthelow would kill the project. Ms. Sawtelle asked about access for emergency services. Mr. Ayres said that while the apartment project will have only one access from Holleman, they are working with H.E.B. to have an emergency access easement on the opposite corner of property. He pointed out that under new building codes, all buildings will be sprinklered. Mr. Gentry asked if cul-de-sac entered into the easement area on the property, would this kill project. Ayres said no, but there would be engineering aspects to be resolved, and they prefer to keep the cul-de-sac off their property. Mr. Esmond asked if this was discussed at the time of preliminary platting. Mr. Callaway said that there was no preliminary plat since it was a "boundary only" plat. Esmond asked if Barthelow was replatted on that plat. Callaway said that the street issue was referenced when this plat was previously presented to P&Z, but there was virtually no discussion. It was essentially the same plat. He said that 8 P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 Council found the street to be a significant issue. Callaway said that the Council as a whole did not indicate a strong preference for either alternative. If street goes through, the developer will determine or propose the alignment. Mr. Hall asked about the possibility of a 'guard house' at a Barthelow entrance, if the street were extended. He was concerned about the number of apartment units and only 1 public access. Mr. Ayres said that they did not want to because of the extra cost involved. Plus, it may offend those wishing to drive through to Holleman. Ayres said that the idea must be considered. He added that Council was opposed to the name of the Subdivision which would probably be changed to PolarBek. Mr. Hammons came forward to address drainage. He explained the engineering aspects of the drainage facilities and how it would be affected by street extension. Mr. Esmond asked for Hammon's comments concerning traffic on Barthelow. Mr. Hammons observed that it has been in operation with no problems. He has not however, conducted impact studies. He believed that street extension through the PolarBek parking lot would create traffic problems. Hammons said that if the street did not extend through PolarBek, it would dead end somewhere else. Thus, creating the same situation again. Mr. Colson asked if the City would participate in the cost of a cul-de-sac which would enter the drainage easement. Mr. Callaway said he recalled Council's concern for Barthelow to provide key access to development to the north. Council Liaison McIlhaney said financial participation was not discussed by Council. She said • that they wanted street configuration to be reviewed further by P&Z. Mr. Colson said that he prefers a cul-de-sac on or off the property. Mr. Gentry inquired about the applicant's time constraints. He said that he favored a cul-de-sac not on PolarBek's property. Chairman Sawtelle agreed. Mr. Esmond said that it should have been addressed earlier. He did not like combination Preliminary/Final plats. Pullen reminded the Commission of the drainage easement issue. Gentry asked the economic impact of the City's decision, on the developer. Mr. Ayres did not perceive maintenance costs to be a significant issue with the applicant. Mr. Colson asked what the Commission is to consider. Pullen said that they are being asked to strike the drainage easement from the plat. Ayres said that they could accept the maintenance responsibilities even though it is not their preference. Mr. Gentry asked if City policy has changed with regard to easements. Pullen said that this recommendation stems from the maintenance issue. Mr. Coates said that because of the liability and costs, the City should not accept too many easements. 9 P&Z Minutes 10-18-90 10 Mr. Gentry said that maintenance in this case would be minimal for the property owner. He made a motion to recommend approval of the plat with the drainage easement struck and the name changed to the PolarBek Subdivision. Mr. Esmond seconded the motion. Mr. Colson said that he has a problem with the issue of easements. Mr. Gentry said that he could understand the cost issue of maintenance and liability. Mr. Colson said that the applicant needs to know these things upfiont. Mr. Hall said that he is inclined to vote against the motion. Barthelow cul-de-sac is a waste of money because already dead end configuration. But, he believed the applicant should set up a guard post at Barthelow to allow 2nd entrance for residents and emergency access. The motion carried in a vote of 4-1. Hall opposed. AiGENDiA ITEM NO. T: Other Businees. None. AIGENDiA ITEM NO. 8: Rd~ourn. Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hall seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ! ~ ~ r Cha man, Nancy Sawtelle J ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks October 18, 1990 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station Board Members: We the cosigners, Mrs. Joe Sanders and Mr. 0. Eknoyan, have always had an excellent relationship with the St. Thomas Episcopal Church. One of us, Mrs. Sanders, has even had a Girl Scout Troop there for many years. However, both of us are now seriously troubled about the proposed expansion of the St. Thomas Episcopal Church on Silvey lot and specifically concerned of the followings: (1) The expansion would cause extra noise, traffic, and crowd our back yards with events attendees. Any windows or doors facing our properties would disturb our residential privacy and increase the noise level significantly. (2) The Silvey lot is zoned R-1. (3) Drainage from the Silvey lot is very bad. It has caused a ditch on the Sanders' property. (4) If added parking lot is paved, it would make more water flow into each of our lots. (5) Not enough parking to accommodate added traffic. (6) This is a nice, quite and very desirable neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way by not adding any expansions on the Silvey lot. The proposed addition would destroy our privacy and also lower the desirability and value of our homes at 200 Suffolk and 202 Suffolk. J Respectfully, ~- Mrs Joe Sanders 200 Suffolk College Station, Texas 77840 ~~~ Mr. 0. Eknoy 202 Suffolk College Station, Texas 77840 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE October 18, 1990. NAME ADDRESS 1.~--i~~ ~tG K~~~1 8~8 {-f~rG~-/-r5 i3~ ~~, ~U- ~~c 77a a-7 2.._]~D~ /~vL~./NS 5. 6. 3~°3 Bi'~G~ kK ~ID-~s70N ?p4Z (p D g d d~/ f1 ~~ L ,c. -~ 202 L..AM P'UU ic~< c~~ . , CS 13. 14. 15. ~ ~~ ~ ~ 16. ~ -'~~ / ; 17 • .~.]~0,~ ~ -D~2~..2 ~ e ~.u can 19. ~e-~ora-~. ~-}ndersol~ 20. f ~ 7" l~~ ~~~ ~, 21 . 1 x 4~~~ SG~~~:~GLY 23- ,- 2s. ~•10 `- 02 0 ~ d'~~~r, LK / a~~ ~ireSrd~ C,r~Q_.~_ C _S a 2 ~0' L ~nn~P L~QL~.~ ~ a ~ .~~.~ 2~ Z S~ -~~~ ~ k- ~--_ ~U/~l Gvb~°l~-rte ~-~ ,~~, ~ . ~o-~-t. 1~// ~o~~'~~ ~s ~ r~~~ 5 s 3 ~~ ~~-~ ~-~c.ti.-e ~_ S. ~~ `~ 7 ~`{~ r • C7