HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 06.14.1979 MINUTES OF THE
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE
CITY - COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
LAUREL, MONTANA 59044 June 14, 1979
Meeting called to order by John Hawley Smith, President, at
7:15 p.m. with the following members present:
John Hawley Smith, President (City Rep.)
R. M. Williams, Vice Pres. (County Rep.)
Otto J. Preikszas, Exec. Secty (City Rep.)
Gerald Shay, Member at Large
Bus Roberts (City Rep.)
Mary McCormick (City Rep.)
Tom Bradley (City Rep.)
James Seaton (County Rep.)
also present: John MacMartin, Cumin Assoc., Billings
others who did not sign register
PARKING STUDY REPORT presented by John MacMartin which developed
into an argument regarding the parking ordinance, a fact acomplished
via the new zoning ordinance -- it already exists.
WESTSIDE SUBDIVISION Letter concerning this subdivision and master
planning for drainage read into the record. Letter has about 27
signatures and was presented by Mr. Paul McLarnon. Discussion.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES John MacMartin discussed "no man's" land between
our area and Stillwater County and that between Laurel and Billings
on the east. He suggested we do not take this up until next spring
due to more pressing problems. He suggested 64th Street East
(Billings) as our eastern limit, moving rather northeasterly from
our jurisdictional existing boundaries. John indicated that Bil-
lings etal will be cooperative about the common boundary. Juris-
dictional Area Study Report presented by John MacMartin.
CPA MT 08 0000 97(L) bill for $2,768.40 presented and approved
for payment. J.4- t:..,c..
1979 -80 BUDGET discussion. John MacMartin recommended 2 mills
from Yellowstone County, 2 mills from the City of Laurel, and
the Coal Tax monies. Proposed budget to be mailed with minutes.
Otto Preikszas moved we recommend that Diamond Parking proposal
be accepted. Motion died for lack of a second.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ott d? - 9 0 74e 22 '-' Pr
Executive Secretary
OJP /pj
0J
X 919
PARKING STUDY REPORT
Prepared for
Laurel- Yellow_,tone City - County Planning Board
Laurel City Council
Prepared by
Cumin Associates
This report was financed in part through an
uripan planning grant from the United States
Department of (lousing and Urban Development
under the provisions of section 701 of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended. (Contract
No. CPA- MT- 08- 00- 0097(L))
This report analyzes the existing problem of parking in the Central
Business District (CBD) of Laurel: it identifies the existing number of
spaces for on.and off street parking; it projects the demand for additional
parking spaces required by 198S; it outlines the costs of various methods
of dealing with parking (parking meters, parking lot, parking garages); it
identifies two alternate means of establishing an enforcement program and
the related costs with each; and it identifies two different ways that off
street parking facilities could be developed and maintained.
For the last several years, the Laurel City Council has been requested
to do something about parking in the Laurel CBD; this request has come from
the Laurel Chamber of Commerce and many of the businessmen. Each year several
City Council meetings have been used to pay lip service to a real, recognized
problem, downtown parking. The complaints have always been presented to the
City Council but no firm, well- organized plan of action to solve the problem
has been presented, except a request for enforcement. At the same time,
Laurel has been experiencing the typical budgetary problems of a small,
growing city struggling to meet the demands of growth and comply with new
regulations from the State and Federal governments. Thus, the problem of
parking has taken a position of lesser importance during the budgetary process.
The Planning Board, after the completion of the Comprehensive Plan,
recognized this problem and began an analysis of the parking situation in
the Laurel CBD. The end result of the analysis is this parking report which
provides the City Council with two sound options to deal with existing and
potential parking problems.
The first task of the Planning Board was to establish a working group
composed of the Planning Board, Chamber of Commerce, downtown businessmen,
and the City Council. The initial meetings were spent discussing enforce -
ment, parallel vs. diagonal parking, and parking lots. One of the first issues
-1-
•
to be generally agreed on was that some enforcement program had to be
initiated, even if it was only a part -time employee. As an interim measure,
the City Council found some available CETA funds and hired a person whose
duties included on- street enforcement of the two -hour parking limit. The
next major issue was that of diagonal parking. The group was presented
with statistical information which indicated that diagonal parking increased
the accident rate and decreased the total number of parking spaces due to
the width of streets in Laurel. This information eliminated on- street diagonal
parking from further consideration. The group then decided that the only
parking lot that should be inventoried and analyzed was the municipal lot due
to the ability of the private owners 'to easily change the use of their lots.
In addition, the study group expressed an interest in parking meters, parking
lots, and parking garages. The following information was supplied to the study
group concerning each of the items. New parking meters could cost about
$86.00 a piece for just the timing mechanism; installation and supporting poles
would be extra. Parking lots, in the Spring of 1979, could be built for
$1.25 to $2.00 per square foot, with the more expensive of the two being a
deluxe lot with planter boxes and raised borders (neither figure included
lighting). A parking garage could cost about $5,000.00 per space for only
the structure, if land acquisition and relocation of existing tennants were
necessary, the cost would be higher.
The Planning Board's next task was to collect the raw data concerning
on and off - street parking in the 20 -block study area. In accomplishing this
task the actual street widths, from curb face . to curb face, were measured
and the on- street parking area was determined by systematically locating
each curb cut and fire hydrant within the district. All of this information
was put on a working copy of the Laurel CBD map. Using the information on
-2-
the map, a standard no parking area at curb -cut and fire hydrants, and a
standard sized parking space of 20 -feet, it was determined that there are
550 on- street parking spaces in the Laurel CBD with an additional 50 spaces
in the municipal lot.
To determine future parking needs, the Laurel Transportation Plan was
used. The Transportation Plan divided the Laurel area into traffic
"analysis zones" and estimated a total number of "trip -ends" for each zone
in 1985. The "trip- ends" is a planning term applied to an automobile trip
which terminates within a given analysis zone. The Laurel CBD coincides
with analysis zones 15 and 16. In 1985, it is estimated that there will be
7750 trip -ends in the two analysis zones. Assuming a parking space turn over
ratio of five vehicles per space per day, the 7750 trip -ends will require
1550 parking spaces. Comparing the projected need with the existing
situation, the Laurel CBD will need an additional 1000 parking spaces by 1985.
Since the on- street parking areas are currently fully utilized, the additional
spaces will have to come from the development of off - street parking areas.
Further use of the traffic analysis zone data indicated a need for these off -
street parking areas in the vicinity of First Street and Third Avenue and
First Street and Montana Avenue.
The study group, after review of the raw data and several meetings
discussing parking, generally identified several items which were felt to
be important parts of a parking enforcement program for Laurel. The items were:
a continuation of the two -hour parking limit; enfoycement of a two -hour limit
on the municipal lot; a 25 -hour, staggered enforcement program of on and off -
street parking during each week; and the development of additional off- street
locations for future parking. The continuation of the two -hour parking
limit was considered to be important due to the fact that Laurel has not
historically enforced the time limit; thus, a period of time would be needed
-3-
for the general public to become familiar with the parking enforcement program
and to view it as a key component of a viable downtown area. Initially, the
enforcement program would be designed to move the employees off the streets
in the CBD; this single action would free many on- street spaces for use by
the customers. The enforcement of a parking limit in the municipal lot would
achieve one additional concern, that of moving the weekly parkers out of the lot
to allow more customers to park there. The enforcement of parking limits in
the CBD could have several different effects which include employees leaving
cars at home and walking to work, carpooling, or on- street parking in the
residential areas adjacent to the CBD. Any one of these items might reduce
the total number of spaces required in 1985; however, only time and careful
monitoring of the parking situation will indicate this. The staggered en-
forcement program is designed to create a degree of uncertainity in the minds
of the employees that persist in parking on- street. No regular schedule will
be maintained; thus, it will be hard to go out and move the car to a new
location just to avoid a ticket. New off - street parking lot locations were
discussed and generalized due to the usual rise in property values once a
governmental body expresses interest in a given location. The idea of new
lots was well received and it was felt that immediate action should be taken
to acquire sites prior to land values escalating any higher.
The enforcement program received the greatest amount of discussion;
continually surfacing in each and every meeting. The enforcement situation was
fully explored and two alternates were presented for the consideration of the
study group. These alternatives are: the hiring of an additional policeman,
or the use of a parking management consultant (Diamond Parking). The two
alternatives should be considered by the Planning Board with a recommendation
to the City Council of which one to use in the implementation of a parking
enforcement program.
-4-
In fiscal year 1979 - -80, the starting salary for a meter reader
(enforcement officer) is $5.79 per hour, after six months, the salary would
be increased to $6.05 per hour. Currently, the second yearpay scale would
be based on $6.32 per hour; however, that figure is subject to a union
contract that will be renegotiated. The hourly wages, based on a 25 -hour
week, indicate a salary of $7,696.00 for the first year. This figure
is only salary, it should be increased by 25 percent to reflect benefits
and administrative overhead. Thus, the total salary requirement would be
$9,620.00. In the second year, based on $6.32 per hour, the basic salary would
be $8,216.00; adjusting it 25 percent would put the total salary requirement
at $10,270.00.
Diamond Parking Inc., at the request of the study committee, prepared
a sample contract which included a proposed monthly budget and the corresponding
yearly contract fee. The following table indicates the expense breakdown,
the total monthly expenses, and total yearly expenses.
Diamond Parking Proposal
Labor (25 hrs /wk x 4.3 wks /mo x 3.50 /hr) $ 376.25
Payroll Taxes and Benefits (20 %) 75.25
Supplies 25.00
Supervision 50.00
Management Fee 200.00
Total Projected Expenses per Month $ 726.50
Total Projected Expenses per Year 18,718.00
Diamond Parking indicated that this is a starting proposal and that the figures
are subject to negotiation with the City. In using either the Police Depart-
ment or Diamond Parking, provisions should be made during the budgetary
process to fund the parking enforcement program out of the General Fund of
the City.
-5-
The Montana Code Annotated, 1978, provides several different ways which
could be utilized by the Laurel City Council in establishing and maintaining
parking lots. Three specific areas are generally reviewed in this report.
These are: 7 -14 -4601 to 7 -14 -4666, Off- Street Parking Districts; 7 -14 -4717
to 7 -14 -4721, 7 -14 -4731 to 7 -14 -4737, Special Improvement Districts; and
7 -14 -4206 to 7 -14 -4292, Urban Renewal.
The Special Improvement District Sections of the code may be used by
the City for the sole purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, and
improving off - street parking facilities. The major drawback with the special
improvement mechanism is the inability of the district to acquire any property
via the funds generated by the district. However, the special improvement
section can be used in conjuction with the Off- Street Parking section. If
a special improvement district is used, it is recommended that it be used in
conjunction with the Off- Street Parkin g section of the Code.
The study committee, under the direction of the Planning Board, should
analyze the remaining two referenced sections of the Code and should prepare
all of the necessary documentation for the City Council to establish a parking
district and corresponding parking commission. The parking district should
conform to the same boundaries as that of the CBD zoning district.
The Off - Street Parking section, 7 -14 -4601 to 7 -14 -4666 MCA, provides for
the establishment of a parking commission to provide additional off - street
parking facilities. The parking commission would be established by resolution.
Its powers could, include acquiring property, building off- street parking
facilities, regulating on and off - street parking, and issuing revenue bonds.
Under the provisions of the Code, a special improvement district could be
-6-
established and the income generated by the special improvement district
could be used to pay off the revenue bonds.
The Urban Renewal section, 7 -15 -4206 to 7 -15 -4292, provides for the
establishment of an Urban Renewal Plan, an Urban Renewal District, and an
Urban Renewal Commission. The primary purpose of this section of the Code
is to provide municipalities with a mechanism to renew blighted areas located
within the corporate limits of the municipality. Contained within this
section of the Code is the Tax Increment portion. Urban renewal is most
commonly referred to as a tax increment district due to the fact that the
increment district is the usual means of financing renewal projects.
Under the Urban Renewal section of the Code, an urban renewal commission
can acquire, clear, and dispose of land and structures on the land subject
to certain provisions and procedures of the Code. The Code establishes
a series of requirements that must be met in order to establish a tax incre-
ment district and adopt a renewal plan. The following table is a synopsis
of the requirements.
Required Steps for Establishment of
a Tax Increment District and
Adoption of a Renewal Plan
1. A determination of blight and designation of area for urban
renewal project.
2. A comprehensive plan, or parts of such plan must have been
prepared.
3. An urban renewal plan has been prepared and submitted to
planning board for review to determine conformity with
comprehensive plan or relevant parts.
-7- ;
e mmaN
4. After public notice and following the receipt of the
recommendations of the planning board, the City Council
shall hold a public hearing on the urban renewal plan.
The public notice shall be given by the publication
once each week for two consecutive weeks not less than
ten nor more than thirty days prior to date of hearing,
and by mailing a notice of such hearing not less than
ten days prior to hearing, to property owners.
Notice shall describe: time, date, place
identify urban renewal area
outline scope of plan
5. Following the public hearing, the governing body may
approve the plan if:
a. workable and feasible relocation plan exists.
b. conforms to comprehensive plan as a whole.
c. maximum opportunity for private enterprise.
d. sound and adequate plan exists for financing.
6. Definition of an urban renewal plan (7- 15- 4206(s))
"Urban renewal plan" means a plan, as it exists from
time -to -time for one or more urban renewal areas,
or for an urban renewal project; which plan shall:
a. conform to comprehensive plan.
b. be sufficiently complete to indicate
on a yearly basis, or otherwise, such
land acquisition, demolition, and
removal of structures, redevelopment,
improvements, and rehabilitation as
may be proposed to be carried out in
the urban renewal area, zoning and
planning changes, if any, land uses,
maximum densities, building requirement's
and the plan's relationship to definite
local objectives respecting appropriate
land uses, improved traffic, public
transportation, public utilities,
recreational and community facilities,
and other public improvements.
-8-
/
7. A determination of who will administer the program, how it will
be administered, and how will the proposed management scheme
relate to existing planning and development activities.
Thus, the study group, under the direction of the Planning Board, needs
to determine which section of the Code will best alleviate both the short
and long - range problems of the CBD in Laurel. To establish a parking
district and parking commission, the most expedient means available to
the City Council would be to employ the Off- Street Parking section of the
Code. However, once the commission was established, parking would be the
only issue with which the commission could deal. To implement any measures
which would deal with parking, the use of the urban renewal section would
definitely require more study and take time. The urban renewal section is
broader in scope and would be more versatile for use in projects in the CBD
of Laurel.
-9-
/9 '2
.11)M SI. I ( ?'1 ONAL \! 1:A STUDY REPORT
Prepared for
Laurel- Ye1low, =tome City - County Planning Board
Laurc :1 City County
Yellowstone County Commissioners
Prepared by
Cumin Associates
This report was financed in part through
an urban planning grant from the United
States Department of Housing and llrba.n
Development under the provisions of
section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954,
as amended. (Contract No. CPA- MT- 08- 00- O('97(L))
•
This report analyzes the annexations to the City of Laurel., the juris-
dictional area administered by the Planning Board, the total approximate
acreage involved in an expansion, the necessary background work needed to
include the area in the comprehensive plan, the recommended expansion, and
a step -by -step analysis of the jurisdictional area expansion procedure.
The City of Laurel has grown about 30 percent from 1970 to 1979. To
accommodate this growth, Laurel has developed most of the vacant land with -
in its corporate limits and well over 100 acres of land has been added
to the City. The vast majority of this annexed territory is located in the
northwest section of Laurel and a few acres are located in the northeast end
of the City. These annexations will allow an eventual expansion of the
jurisdictional area to a line 4.5 miles from the corporate limits of Laurel.
The present jurisdictional area was established in May 1975 as a line
located 4.5 miles from the City limits of Laurel. To facilitate the legal
description and physical delineation of this 4.5 mile area, the exact
location of the line was always routed along section and mid - section lines,
the center line of a river, or the County boundary.
The current location of the jurisdictional area boundary creates
several areas that are not conducive to sound, comprehensive planning.
These areas are: the narrow strips of territory between the western edge
of the jurisdictional area and the boundary of Yellowstone County; the
portion of Carbon County that intrudes into the jurisdictional area; and
the location of the eastern boundary of the Latire4 jurisdictional area which
is located only 1.5 miles from the Billings juriAdictional area. The latter
situation creates the most severe problems by allowing a narrow "non -
controlled gap" to exist between two controlled jurisdictional areas.
-1- •
Based :;clely on the new corporate limits of the City of Laurel (1979),
apl „uxiwate1y ten section; of land could be added to the Laurel jurisdictional
arca. This increase would follow the same prrameters as u3ed in establishing
the original boundary and encompass roughly one -half mile around the juris-
dictional area lJounL'.ary. . In o ,' lcr to collect and analyze the raw data
involved in the ten sections of land, about three man-months would he required;
the portion requiring the largest mount of time and study would be the non -
controlled gap. To include this area in the comprehensive plan, the existing
land use, land ownership, and acreages would have to be tabulated and mapped.
The housing stock in the area would have to be mapped and categorized as to
its physical condition. The public parks in the included area will need to
be mapped and analyzed to determine what level of recreational activity could
he supported by each site. The transportation system (road network) would
need to be analyzed and the raw data incorporated into the transportation plan.
' The soils of the area would be analyzed to determine: the suitability for
septic tanks, the slope of the land, and whether or not the soil is "prime”
agriculture land. Once this raw data has been collected, the Planning Board
would begin to hold public hearings on the inclusion of the area within the
jurisdictional area and how the land should be classified in the land use
plan. The formalized data and comments from the public hearing would then
be sent on to the governing body for final action.
It is recommended that the Laurel Planning Board not undertake an ex-
pansion of the jurisdictional area until at least the Spring of 1930. This
time frame is re,_ommcnded due to several major developments that are
requesting annexation to the City of laurel; these requests, if annexed, will
substantially inereas the size of the City and correspondingly increase
the amount of land that could be included in the jurisdictional area. In
addition, it is recommended that the Laurel Planning Board coordinate the
expansion of its jurisdictional area with that of the Billings Planning Board.
This joint action would serve to simultaneously close the gap between the
•
two jurisdictional areas. Thus, the governing bodies would be holding their
public hearings at the same time; this concurrent public hearing is especially
important for County Commissioners who would otherwise have to hold two
separate meetings.
It is further recommended that the Laurel Planning Board and Billings
Planning Board use 64th Street West as a common north /south boundary for the
two jurisdictional areas. The Laurel Planning Board should also extend the
western edge of the jurisdictional area to the County's boundary whenever
legally possible. In addition, since the only growth control measure that
exists in the Laurel area is zoning within the City and one mile outside of the
City limits, the Laurel Planning Board should petition the County Commissioners
to zone the entire jurisdictional area when the two areas are joined at 64th
Street West. The zoning would be very important to assure that the develop-
ment occurred in a logical, well - planned manner, especially since the Billings
area is zoned.
The Laurel Planning Board, Laurel City Council, and Yellowstone County
Commissioners will have to use the following procedure which is a synopsis of
• the state statutes found in 76 -1 -504 through 76 -1 -507, MCA. The City Council
and County Commission by separate resolution have to establish the juris-
dictional area of the Laurel Planning Board. The jurisdictional area of the
Laurel Planning Board should include the area within the incorporated limits
of the City and such contiguous unincorporated areas outside the City as, in
the judgment of the respective governing bodies, bears reasonable relation
to the development of the area involved. The Planning Board, after approval
of the jurisdictional area by the governing bodies, shall file in the Office
of the Clerk and Recorder a map showing the boundaries of the jurisdictional
area.
The jurisdictional area boundary may be revised from time -to- -time by
resolutions of the governing bodies. Such revised boundaries shall be shown
upon a map which shall be filed with the Clerk and Recorder. The area
included in such map shall constitute the area over which the Planning Board
shall have advisory jurisdiction.
In case an unincorporated area is within the potential jurisdiction
of more than one planning board, then the boundary between the conflicting
areas shall be determined by agreement between the planning boards involved,
with the approval of their respective governing bodies, and a map showing
the boundary lines so agreed upon and approved shall be filed as provided in
this section, and thereafter shall fix the limit of territorial jurisdiction
of the respective planning boards.
It is recommended that the Laurel Planning Board and governing bodies
follow the guideline, set out in this report concerning the coordinated ex-
pansion of the jurisdictional area with that of Billings. in this process,
the Planning Board should first identify the area to be included in the
expansion and collect and analyze the background data necessary for the com-
prehensive plan. The Planning Board should then advertise and hold a public
hearing concerning the expansion of the jurisdictional area and the inclusion
of the area within the comprehensive plan. The Planning Board should then
formulate a recommendation to be sent to the governing bodies along with a
copy of all comments received at the public hearing. The governing bodies
should advertise for and hold.a - public hearing concerning the expansion of
the jurisdictional area and the inclusion of the area within the comprehen-
sive plan. After the public hearing, the governing bodies should notify
q_
7
the Planning Board of their action and send them copies of the pertinent
resolutions. The Planning Board shall then prepare a map of the approved
jurisdictional area and file an approved copy of the map with the Clerk
and Recorder. The Planning Board should then include the approved portions
of the comprehensive plan in its planning documents and begin preparing the
necessary land use control measures.
-5-
. �, t
f ,.
,June I e,1' 979
(, -1 (.,4
Laurel wont,
i onarable Xaror Larry Neraaatt r ) ` " M
Chairman Laurel City Caution, }'
John Hawley Smith,Cbairman. � ^
Lecurel•Tellowstone,City County Planning board.
Gentlemen;
This letter is in reference to roposed &..sage of av agreement by
and between the City of Laurel and leter L.Peterson,John G. hudk,Lelcoy
D.Zuek and Leslie LZesk, sonserning the master planning of 4ests #de
Subdivison,
The property owners to the North and West of this grope d Subs
divisoae have had several meetings with regard to this 4abdivison and
the invest it will have in this sera area , We are sonaeerneed with
several items in the proposed agreement shish is now pending your fined
approval,
To be more spseifis; The items in the agreement wherein tie: sub.
divier agrees to make Street Inprovea.nts,Bestioa A Para ;;rain ( two,
plsc Seetion A Paragraph (b)five. This paragraph,in part,00uaerne the
soastrustion of • :torn sewer to fas3litate the removal of atxrfses
drainage water *bleb is serrating antisipat*d by the subdivider to be
a problem in the proposed subdivison,
The subdivider is waiving his right to projlest any future storm
*seer construstion for the remainder of the subdivison after phase (1)
One, which is summing to be finessed by a special i rovement bond
*Mob the City of Laurel will be guaranteeing at a future date,
We are further sonseraed for the agreement as written i* implying
that the City of Laurel will wets at some Moore date another special
improvement distil.* Borth and West of the proposed subdivison to son -
rtrust ample storm sower drainage fasilitiss•
As this portion of the agreement is vague in its dlseriptior of 41
these property :, and the ps►s3ested soot of this proj.at, even tholIgh in .
the future, we are In doubt as to the inslusion of this area in the
agreement as it stands,
(2)
It is our unteretaa*ia$ Uwe vas manse di wavesi on s ono urni ng the
sins of the drainage pipes amuse et the future expansion f> osa i bi l i is
North and West of the proposed sabdivi sees.
Is regard to the erecting of a *pedal Improvement District for
thepurpase of building a storm sewer in the Mastoids Subdiviaror,we the
below named property owners do not wish to.partisipate is any ousi'
Speeeial Improvement District,
To explain► tsrtber,it is the City of 'Laurels responsibility to
antisipate and plan for growth as it is the developers rssp ;nzi bile t,y
to sorry out the resoaeatee edatioaes of time City if it wituies to develop*
this property, The City /Should accept a portion of this financial
burden along with the developer in preventing inadequate sis.ing of
this drainage system,
(3) To surmise that the properties North and West of ths iestelde
Salmi/views will be developed is mere speeulatlem and postib1y premi+►tu r ;,
even with the antieipatsd growth predietioas postulated sits numerous
studi ei and ram dati one.
1 1 'i
gat Wst..iDE SUL►1Vxa » LAUI AL .
/ , .
(4) Weal of the land North and Nest of the proposed subdivison is
surrently being farted by irrigation. It is *wanton in this area
to hate sass runoff of waste water whisk is non being taken sane
of by NXISTI IG,UUD,DRA.INS, son. natural and sons sanmada.
In the event the owners of this propo•sd Subdivison alter or
obstrtsst any of these now existing drains, the property owners north
and West of this proposed Westsids Subdivisoa disdain any mid all
liability for flooding.
FILE. AG k..6
/ N A. * a' ADDRESS v411110 f_Wz--- .4,4‘,
::"..c ee..4 i t a_ 4 A ....... - .., .. _. - 44.-te„,_t d1.0 7- 4,,,,4,
T A. ! . ✓- .ee ' 11:.) , ,- 141 ' f ,
° -J■44. J Ai .., ' AN * 2 14.6%.A.1/4,4 NI, 1
IN % 2 .
A 4 1P4 1P ROPPAAAN
• . ---.' it - ....6. A-4a% J--Ata - al v- l'
f
legialie s -
.4. ./ , ,..,,*7; ,4 -ad ,... z t --c-- .,....f - , i
J -4-
Cc 4-c F , cJ /21 ..4 - 8 . .c-4A 9 7.5 .-,?",zstic
11•' , 4 I.,7 P, mod- l4 , AIW.
ARS " " "
4 . '
".. -1
- . --- -, ..- 4 .40V A r- el, M ...oe-e-
1111011r II -
f
Mir , v _ _."''""), ,
, f U ®...n " ,,� 1
ki b ,, .. ' _ 'x'1 q..- 1
4 f AM
Alir .......................
' . . - . a If? 9 4 4 4 r fi; IA ig, 2 9
■
1 t
(3)
RE; WESTSIDE SUBDIVISON— LAUREL
ADDRESS AG R .S
NA ;'.' OWNED
8 a/t- 2 w
ilDa)e 73 ,/c4i-z-z-e-
f �1
___■■___
■_•110•1..■
11_11. ■■■•••
■••■■
I