HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 10.03.2013 MINUTES
LAUREL CITY - COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
October 3, 2013 6:00 pm
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Siegrist, Chairman
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
Judy Goldsby, County Rep.
Lee Richardson, County Rep.
John VanAken, County Rep.
Hazel Klein, City Rep.
Greg Nelson, City Rep.
Shirley McDermott, City Rep.
OTHERS PRESENT: Monica Plecker, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Kathy Siegrist called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
ROLL CALL: A roll call was taken. Members present were Fritzler, Goldsby, Richardson, McDermott,
VanAken, Klein, Nelson and Siegrist.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may address the Board regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for
an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome,
the Board will not take action on any item not on the agenda.
There was no public present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING: A motion was made by Judy Goldsby and
seconded by John VanAken to approve the minutes of the September 5, 2013 meeting. The motion
carried by a vote of 7 — 0.
NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing to hear a variance request from Joe and Aletta Zimmerman at 8021
Avenue.
Chairman Siegrist read the Public Hearing Procedures to the Audience and Board.
The public hearing was opened at 6:03 pm.
Monica read the Staff Findings into the report.
1
LAUREL CITY- COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
DESCRIPTION /LOCATION:
Joe and Aletta Zimmerman have submitted an application requesting a variance to exceed maximum
fence height for a fence that has already been constructed. The property is located at 802 1st Avenue
and is legally described as FIRST AVE SUBD, S09, T02 S, R24 E, BLOCK 1, Lot 1— 2.
The property is currently zoned Residential 7500.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Joe and Aletta Zimmerman submitted an application for variance on August 19. The application
cites 17.48.050, titled Fence Heights. A site plan and letter accompanied the application. The materials
are attached.
2. The applicant is requesting a variance from Laurel Municipal code 17.48.050 to construct a fence
which exceeds the maximum height allowed. LMC 17.48.050 states "In R -7500, R -6000, RLMF, RMF,
RMH, PUD, RP, NC, and P zones, fence heights in front yards shall not exceed three (3) feet except as
noted in (a) below; side and rear yard fence heights in these same zones shall not exceed six (6) feet; on
corner lots adjacent to a street, houses with a front yard facing a side street (or at 90 degrees,
approximately, from the adjacent front lots), and with a side yard or back yard adjacent to a front yard
in the same block (see accompanying illustrations for examples) shall not have a back yard fence higher
than three (3) feet where adjacent to a front yard, or a side yard fence paralleling the street higher than
three (3) feet except as noted in (a) below.
(a) Chain link, woven wire, or other similar type fences which provide no more than ten percent (10 %)
obstruction to visibility through the fence when constructed can extend to four (4) feet in height in front
and side yard areas, otherwise restricted in height to three (3) feet.
3. The fence has already been constructed. Laurel Municipal Code 15.20.010 states "no person
shall erect, construct, enlarge or replace any fence unit a fence permit for such work has been issued by
the building department.
4. Per LMC 15.20.020, Building Official Gary Colley, issued written notice of the violation on July
10, 2013.
5. As a way to remedy the situation, the planning department recommended applying for a
variance before requiring Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman to remove or bring their fence into compliance.
6. The letter of application and a map showing the location of the property is attached.
7. As per the requirements of LMC 17.72.070, a public hearing on the matter shall be held before
the zoning commission before being heard by the Laurel City Council. As per B. of the section, public
notice was published in the Laurel Outlook and adjacent property owners were notified by certified mail
more than 15 days prior to the public hearing.
2
ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Commission shall review and made determinations on the following chapters and sections of
the Laurel Municipal Code (LMC):
1. According to Chapter 17.60.020 of the LMC the Zoning Commission may not recommend
granting a land use variance:
1. Unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the right of property;
2. Unless the grant relates to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant;
3. Unless the basis is something more than mere financial Toss to the owner;
4. Unless the hardship was created by someone other than the owner;
5. Unless the variance would be within the spirit, intent, purpose, and general plan of this title;
6. Unless the variance would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others; and
7. Ordinarily unless the applicant owned the property prior to the enactment of this title or
amendment.
2. As per LMC 17.72.060 the Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to:
1. Deny the application for amendment to the official map;
2. Grant action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days;
3. Delay action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days;
4. Give reasons for the recommendation.
STAFF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:
If the Planning Board recommends approval of the land use variance, the following conditions are
suggested:
1. The applicant shall apply and pay for a fence permit immediately.
APPLICANT:
Aletta Zimmerman spoke regarding the variance request. They built the fence to create privacy from
the adjacent commercial lot (Ricci's). In the approximately 5 years since Ricci's has been across the
street they have seen more commercial traffic on W. 8th Street such as fueling trucks, garbage trucks and
semi - trucks. They just needed a little space to call their own and to be away from the traffic.
John VanAken asked Aletta if they knew that there was a code that didn't allow that height of a fence to
be built.
Aletta stated yes they did know they were constructing the fence against code. Aletta stated that her
husband was told by Gary Colley that they could not build the fence as they wanted to build it because it
went against the codes. They were upset and went ahead and built it anyway. After they built it they
felt bad about it and then applied for a variance.
3
PROPONENTS:
Steven Lavley of 805 2 " Avenue spoke. He stated that the Zimmerman's fence is not a problem as far as
vision on the corner. He went on to state that he understands why the Zimmerman's have an issue with
privacy, noise and Tight coming from Ricci's as it is busy from 5:30 am until 10:00 pm. He stated that
since the Zimmerman's have taken down their chain Zink fence and put up a solid cedar fence their dogs
don't bark as much.
Mr. Lavley went on to say that there is an existing 6 foot fences at 801 2 Avenue, and another one on
9 Avenue.
Mr. Lavley doesn't believe there is an obstruction issue from any side of the Zimmerman's fence and
that the presence of the fence does not lessen property values.
At this time Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were proponents wishing to speak. There were
none.
OPPONENTS:
Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any opponents wishing to speak. There were none.
The public hearing was closed at 6:14 pm.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Siegrist asked Monica if she would like to comment on other existing 6 foot fences.
Monica stated No and that every variance should be considered on its own individual merit. As far as
the other fences and when they were built and if they were built prior to existing zoning she does not
know the history of the fences mentioned (by Mr. Lavley).
John VanAken asked if the fence from the fence to the sidewalk is the proper distance.
Monica stated that as far as any issues with the fence being built on public right -of -way there is none.
But the height of the 6 foot fence goes against the ordinance. By ordinance the fence where it is placed
right now should only be 3 foot tall to comply. In order for the fence at 6 foot tall to comply it would
have to have been built flush to the house.
Dick Fritzler asked if there are setbacks for fences.
Monica stated that there are no required setbacks for fences. The requirement is that they be built on
the owners property and not within the public right -of -way.
Dick Fritzler stated that there are several other fences in the immediate area that have precisely the
same fence as the Zimmerman's. It doesn't appear to him that the board would be setting precedence
by allowing the Zimmerman's to do the same thing.
4
John VanAken stated that considering the Zimmerman's fence doesn't affect visibility for traffic is a plus.
Shirley McDermott said she drives by the Zimmerman's fence every day and she finds the fence to be
attractive compared to what was there previously. She feels that since there is no visibility problem
there is not a problem with the new fence.
At this time Lee Richardson made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the fence as it
is now with the condition of staff recommendation #1 "The applicant shall apply for a fence permit
immediately ". The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein.
Discussion:
Hazel Klein states that she can see that there are extenuating circumstances to some degree on this
fence that might not be reflected on the other fences that were mentioned due to the proximity of the
commercial influence that disturbs the Zimmerman's peace and quiet.
Hazel goes on to state that if it is determined by the City that there is no vision obstruction from both
the street and alley she would speak in favor of the variance.
Chairman Siegrist reminded the board that they are required to make their recommendation on the
variance according to Laurel Municipal Code Chapter 17.60.020 (1. 1 -7).
Jon VanAken stated that he has two objections to the variance. The first objection is that the
Zimmerman's put up the fencing knowing that they were in the wrong and not secondly not going
through the proper procedure.
Greg Nelson stated that he is also wrestling with the fact that the Zimmerman's put up the fence
knowing fully that it was not allowed. But with Ricci's across the street and the potential for more
commercial buildings going up in the future and creating even more issues with the Zimmerman's on
privacy he feels the Zimmerman's have a special need (for a privacy fence). He does not feel that by
allowing this variance precedence is being set.
Kathy Siegrist said that she could argue the fact that the Zimmerman's were there prior to Ricci's being
developed.
Hazel Klein agreed with Kathy Siegrist and added that there was an existing fence where they put the
new fence. She also stated she has a problem with the Zimmerman's putting the fence up when they
were fully aware that it was not being done properly.
Jon VanAken stated that the property was zoned commercial prior to Ricci's being developed.
Monica clarified that the property was zoned Public and there was a school located on the property for
many years prior to Ricci's request to change the zone to Commercial. Ricci's request to change the
zone was turned down by the City Council originally. Ricci's then collected enough signatures on
petitions to put the zoning request onto a ballot for a vote of Laurel residents. Laurel residents voted in
favor of the zone change to Commercial.
5
Shirley McDermott stated that it looks like the Zimmerman's were backed up against the wall by the
City. The City gave the Zimmerman's an absolute no answer when they requested the fence permit.
They are right across the street from Ricci's convenience store which is very busy. Because they were in
their house prior to Ricci's they had to do something (to give them privacy) and so they put up the
fence. She feels the fence will make their lives better.
Hazel Klein stated that the Zimmerman's should have requested a variance prior to putting up the fence.
Dick Fritzler asked if the Zimmerman's were made aware of the option of applying for a variance.
Monica stated that she cannot speak to that conversation as to whether or not Gary Colley informed the
Zimmerman's of the option of applying for a variance.
Monica clarified that after a complaint was made to the City about the fence being built without a
permit the Zimmerman's were sent a letter to remove the fence. When Mr. Zimmerman came to City
Hall about the letter Monica and Gary mentioned the option of applying for a variance.
At this time the boarded voted on the motion and the variance request was passed by a vote of 6 -1. The
variance will be sent on to the City Council with a recommendation of approval.
New Business: Amended Plat of Lots 9A, 10, and 11, Block 1, Monterra Place Subdivision
Monica spoke regarding the Amended Plat.
INTRODUCTION:
In September 2013, James Robertus, applied for preliminary plat approval for Amended Plat of Lots 9A,
10, and 11, Block 1 of Monterra Place Subdivision which contains 12 lots on approximately 14.04 acres
of land for residential development. The subject property is located west of Laurel on Old Highway 10
West between Pope Road and Trewin School Road in Yellowstone County. The property is not within
the City of Laurel but the Laurel Planning Jurisdiction.
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Pursuant to Section 76 -3- 608(4), MCA, the following conditions are recommended to reasonably
minimize potential adverse impacts identified within the Findings of Fact:
1. To minimize effects on local services, approval for all water and wastewater facilities shall be
obtained through the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) prior to final plat
approval. Easements for any shared sanitary sewer systems shall be shown on the final plat,
and recordable easement document(s), including a maintenance agreement plan shall be
provided with the final documents.
2. To minimize effects on local services, utility easements shall be provided on the final plat.
6
3. To minimize the effects on local services, the Rural Special Improvements District (RSID) for
maintenance of the dry hydrant system shall be expanded to include the Tots created.
4. All road names must be approved by the County GIS Department prior to final plat approval.
5. To minimize the effects on the natural environment, a weed management plan and property
inspection shall be approved by the County Weed Department, prior to final plat approval.
6. Minor changes may be made in the SIA and final documents, as requested by the Planning, Legal
or Public Works Department to clarify the documents and bring them into the standard
acceptable format.
7. The final plat shall comply with all requirements of the County Subdivision Regulations, rules,
regulations, policies, and resolutions of Yellowstone County, and the law and Administrative
Rules of the State of Montana.
8. A Rural Special Improvements District (RSID M 755 shall be created for maintenance on all roads
within the subdivision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
• A pre - application meeting was conducted with Planning Staff for the amended plat.
• The application was deemed to be complete and sufficient.
• The preliminary plat application was submitted to the concerned /interested agencies and
comments were received back.
PLAT INFORMATION:
In September, James Robertus applied for preliminary plat approval for Amended Plat of Lots 9A, 10 and
11, Block 1, Monterra Place Subdivision. The proposed amended plat contains 12 lots on 14.04 acres of
land for residential development. The subject property is located west of the City of Laurel in the
Planning Jurisdiction.
General location: West of Laurel on Old Highway 10 West
Legal Description: Lots 9A, 10 and 11, Block 1, Monterra Place Subdivision.
Subdivider and Owner: James Robertus
Engineering and Surveyor: Sanderson and Stewart
Existing Zoning: None
Existing Land Use: Residential
Proposed Land Use: Residential
7
Gross Area: 14.04 ac.
Proposed # of Lots: 12
Maximum Lot Size: 1.25 ac.
Minimum Lot Size: 1.01 ac.
Parkland Requirements: None
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Findings of Fact for the amended preliminary plat have been prepared by the Laurel City- County
Planning Department staff for review by the Board of County Commissioners. These findings are based
on the preliminary plat application and address the review criteria required by the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act (76 -3 -608, MCA) and the Laurel- Yellowstone City- County Planning Area Subdivision
Regulations.
A. What are the effects on agriculture and agricultural water user facilities, local services, the
natural environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat and public health and safety? (76- 3- 608(3)(a),
MCA) (Section 3 (C)(3)(a), LYCCPASR)
1. Effect on agriculture and agricultural water user facilities.
The subdivision will have no effect on agricultural production because there is no present
commercial raising of livestock or crops. Additionally, there will be no interference with any
irrigation system or present any interference with agricultural operations in the vicinity.
2. Effect on local services
a. Utilities- On -site water supply and sewage disposal is proposed. Condition #1 requires any
proposed onsite water and septic systems to comply with the State of Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Preliminary water and sanitation information was submitted
with the preliminary plat application and has been submitted for review by RiverStone Heath.
MDU and Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative will provide gas and electrical utilities as
necessary. It is recommended as a condition of approval that the easements be provided on the
final plat as requested by the utility companies (Condition #2).
b. Stormwater will be retained onsite and will be in compliance with the Laurel- Yellowstone City -
County Planning Area Subdivision Regulations (LYCCPASR) Section 16.4.7. A stormwater
management plan shall be submitted and approved by MDEQ prior to final plat approval.
c. Streets - "Farm Vista shall be built to grade with a standard cross - section sub base, base course,
and paved surface. The internal streets will be 24 feet -wide paved public streets with 2 -foot
wide gravel shoulders with draining ditches on both sides where fill slopes do not exist."
8
d. Emergency Services- The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Laurel Rural Fire
District and the Yellowstone County Sheriffs Department. The subdivision currently has two
15,000 gallon storage tanks for fire suppression efforts. A petition to expand RSID -M 755 to
include these Tots will be established prior to final plat approval to maintain the dry hydrant
system (Condition #5).
3. Effects on the natural environment
No alteration of any stream, lake or reservoir will occur with this subdivision.
The subdivision will use proper -sized culverts and retention facilities as part of constructing the
dedicated road, Farm Vista, which will minimize problems of road drainage and erosion.
The existing terrain will require cutting and filling, both for road construction and for grading
and leveling building sites. Some surface run -off likely will occur by the grading and drainage
plan is designed to prevent significant adverse impacts.
The subdivision is not expected to adversely affect native vegetation, soils or water quality or
quantity of surface or ground waters. Areas disturbed by cutting and filling and grading will be
reseeded in the same season to minimize erosion.
4. Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat
The subdivision will not be located in an area of significant wildlife habitat nor in any critical
wildlife areas. The expected effects of pets and human activity generated by the subdivision will
not significantly affect wildlife. Additionally, subdivision will not result in closure of public access
to hunting or fishing areas, nor to public lands.
5. Effects on public health and safety
Based on available information, the subdivision does not appear to be subject to potential
natural hazards such as flooding, snow or rockslides, high winds, wildfire, or excessive slopes,
nor potential man -made hazards such as high voltage power lines, high pressure gas lines,
nearby industrial or mining activity, or high traffic volumes. The Big Ditch band appears to be
stable and based on past history has been stable; however, some potential hazard is associated
with the Big Ditch bank.
B. Was an Environmental Assessment Required?
An environmental assessment was not required nor submitted with the application.
C. Does the subdivision conform to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and to local
subdivision regulations? (76 -3 -608 (3)(b), MCA)
The subdivision, with proposed conditions, satisfies the requirements of the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act and conforms to the design standards specified in the LYCCPASR.
The subdivider and the local government have complied with the subdivision review and
approval procedures set forth in the local and state subdivision regulations.
9
D. Does the subdivision conform to sanitary requirements? (Section 3(C)(3)(e), LYCCPASR)
As required by Condition #1, any proposed septic system and wells for the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the MDEQ prior to final plat approval.
E. Does the proposed plat provide easements for the location and installation of any utilities? (76-
3-608(3)(C), MCA
Utility easements shall be provided on the face of the final plat for both electric and natural gas.
(Condition #2)
F. Does the proposed plat provide legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision
and notation of that access on the plat? (76 -3 -608 (3)(d), MCA)
Legal and physical access is provided by Snowline Vista, Open Sky Bend, and Farm Vista, public
roadways that are adjacent to the Tots.
CONCULSIONS OF FINDINGS OF FACT
• The preliminary amended plat of Lots 9A, 10 and 11, Block 1, Monterra Place Subdivision does
not create any adverse impacts that warrant denial of the subdivision.
• With the proposed conditions, the amended plat is in compliance with the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act and the LYCCPASR.
• New water and wastewater facilities will be approved through the MDEQ.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the City County Planning Board make findings and should they decide to
approval include the staff report and staff recommended conditions and adopt the Findings of Fact as
presented.
ATTACHMENTS
B: Preliminary Plat and Associated Documents
Jeff Heidner from Sanderson /Stewart spoke as he is the engineer assigned to this project.
Jeff stated that this Amended Subdivision will be done in 2 phases. Phase 1 will be 6 Tots and Phase 2
will be the cul -de -sac.
The retention ponds located at this time on Tots 9A1 and 11D will be relocated to lot 10D.
John VanAken asked what the plan is to recharge /replenish the groundwater supply. John is under the
understanding that this is required now by Yellowstone County Commissioners.
10
Jeff was not aware of that requirement.
Lee Richardson asked about accesses off of the highway as the property is located on a corner that has
limited visibility.
Jeff stated that there are 2 accesses off of the highway that were approved through the Montana
Department of Transportation. The owner of the property had to lose 3 acres of land so that the
accesses could be enlarged to accommodate the limited visibility of the subdivision. This was done
when the original subdivision was platted in 2006.
Lee Richardson asked about water and septic service.
Jeff stated that all water and septic issues are reviewed by the Department of Environmental Quality.
There are wells and drain fields within each lot.
A motion was made by Judy Goldsby to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 9A, 10, and
11, Block 1 of Monterra Place Subdivision to include the staff report and recommendations as presented
by Laurel City Planner Monica Plecker. The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein and passed by a vote of
6 -1,
Old Business:
Monica reported that the Growth Management Plan will be on a future City Council agenda as a public
hearing.
Miscellaneous:
There will be a November 7, 2013 meeting as there is a variance requested by Community Hope.
John VanAken would like to make sure that the recharge /replenishment of groundwater is considered
on all subdivision applications because of the groundwater situation that impacted Montana Meadows
subdivision when another subdivision close by was approved. He is under the understanding that the
County Commissioners put that into the Subdivision Standards for Yellowstone County.
Monica will look into the issue and report her findings at the November meeting.
A motion to adjourn was made by Judy Goldsby and seconded by John VanAken. It passed by a 7 -0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl und, Secretary
11
;, i . -rte
,5j -_- - ,
a
r ' �� `- \ - _.,.,...
,,,v,„„
,L,R
M E,,,
ori
Laurel Variance Request Application
This application covers appeals from decisions of the Planning Department (and sometimes
other officials) and for requests for variances concerning setbacks, structures, heights, lot
coverage, etc.
The undersigned owner or agent of the owner of the following described property requests a
variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws of the State of
Montana.
1. Name of property owner: _JOE= „ ,'UE• c-t._ .7,'141 /46 ie9" -4/1.-
2. Name of Applicant if different from above:
3. Phone number of Applicant: 4(66- vo - Q' .
4. Street address and general location: 0„ 1 � t1e
•
5. Legal description of the property: LA" 1—,,R B/0,4._ l / 57 4 5h
)
6. Current Zoning s' -, /2'a,.1
7. Provide a copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property.
I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable, that it pays
part of the cost of process, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a variance. I
also understand I or my agent must appear at the hearing of this request before the Planning
Board and all of the information presented by me is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
,
Signature of Applican • , -7 ,
gate of Submittal: 0' v2c/3
7 6-5 z„6)k,079,47.._.7- J
1 4- 1 -td- ,-6;. -Zgel,c,A41,
O / ^ 1 ,` .
f! /'&0 F O
L /7 F ®
,..-ce".4.4.u_.4 - &- C3)
a- ()
..„
y% e_
adz
A9 A20/14. ,A
/ ez.„4e,/ isel"-ev
.
7 $&
r
4 dr
--
-4 of /„_
6) 72 /4,0_21-
ayt
e° �(f
r f �C.►C��A � a
/
Reetz_c,
gieez - .
« `'� L
(
C7-L-
Yellowstone County Yellowstone IM Site Page 1 of 1
Yellowstone County late •actit e Nltxppmg'. -
11
81 5 800214 600211 614
• 612
•
900282 811 900215 90210 _ --
610
e06 BM 6002 600289
900281• 10 806
i •
800280 802 831 900217 eu0202 /J2
tu w
- - - -W -B -ST
B002 7111
901078A
900292 714
•
X. 701240 I Y: 193407
Email Feedback
o so loon
Legend
Results
Levy Traffic 2010 Cree
Parcels Roads Structures PLSS Fire Areas RSIDs Zoning Schools Elections Parks
Districts Counts Census Tracts Cana
Total features returned: 1
TaxiD GEOCODE Owner Subdivision Block Lot COS Tract Property Address
(Click on Owner Name for Tax Page)
11300208 (show)I 03082109214010000IIZIMMERMAN, JOE JR & ALETTA IIFJRST AVE SUBD 1 11 I Null IjNull 1 802 1ST AVE
Copyright 2009 -2013 Yellowstone County, Montana GIS Billings, MT 59101
DISCLAIMER : This is a product of the Yellowstone County, Montana GIS Department.
This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not guaranteed to be accurate nor current.
Yellowstone County expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability that may arise from the use of this map.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: Any resale of this information is prohibited.
http: / /www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov /mapping /webgis.asp 9/25/2013
�--� ja 7t Sd!i
....
,____
_1
st,,-)
--,
,r)
kk _,
1 ,,,_ -,,s
L - R t
,. i
t �
I
h
o
M
V \ t,
bo
0
■
M
s
{
7,
.
v 8
i AYE-NU
) 1
i
<11 slit ! irk FA1 i
k p4 4N
V n0 4
1 ai 1 Cif it iE ,
Lz M r
ilv IAA r 0
at n
6g
----1 1 s
, , As •
-, 4
i . { •
gl It)
L ;
.e- ekft, .00C •
FElJ€ E HEIGIHT tzequLpcnows I LL.l,JS'T' ATIQW
(64.ECE ALL HHU. 5. roC-e 114E 'SAME WAY )
TREET
He:U.IU 4 1rE.T --
CaaCx, u
11) Ht'IC.E.6-f
tt3 t. 12
3 IV i n a
•
Q
7