HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-02-APP - HOLIDAY INN - LAVENDER RESTAURANT SIGN APPEAL91-02-app 11244 pacific highway south lavender's holiday inn
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
July 26, 1991
Mr. Clifford Mihm
LUMIN -ART SIGN COMPANY
1118 A Street S.E.
Auburn, WA 98168
Dear Mr. Mihm:
Sincerel
Ann Sieger haler
Assistant Planner
cc: File
NOTICE OF DECISION
PHONE/11206) 433.1800
4
• r.
RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Adjustment
91 -02 -APP: Lavender's = Sign Appeal
;.;
This is to confirm that on July 18, 1991 the Board of Adjustment
(BOA) denied the above appeal. The appeal was of the Department of
Community Development's decision regarding the maximum number of
signs for hotel restaurants per the Tukwila Sign Code
(TMC 19.32.190).
The BOA also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in
the Staff Report dated July 8, 1991.
The action of the Board of Adjustment in the resolution of an
appeal from an administrative interpretation is final and
conclusive unless, within forty days from the date of the Board's
action, an appellant or an aggrieved party makes an application to
the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ
of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus.
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
JULY 18, 1991
PHONE k (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDuscn, Mayor
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were
Mx. Nesheim, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Goe, Mrs. Regel, and Mrs. Altmayer.
MR. GOE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 6, 1991 MEETING.
MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Goe suggested that staff present the Director's report while waiting for the applicant
for Lavender's Restaurant.
Jack Pace stated that there will not be a meeting in the month of August, but there will be
one on the first Thursday in September.
Mr. Nesheim opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
91 -02 -APP: Lumin -Art Sign Co.
Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She clarified that this project was an appeal
of an interpretation of the Sign Code rather than a variance request. Ms. Siegenthaler noted
that there was a correction to the staff report on page 2, second to the last paragraph; the
signs are 18' each, not 36' each. The appellant applied for two signs for Lavender's
Restaurant, however, the Sign Code currently allows only one sign per hotel restaurants.
Consequently the sign permit application was denied. The issue before the Board of
Adjustment is, does the Sign Code allow hotel restaurants two signs or only one sign? The
staff has concluded that only one sign was allowed, based on regulation in the current Sign
Code. Not only will this decision apply to Lavender's Restaurant, but it will apply to all
hotel restaurants in the City.
The intent of the Code is to minimize clutter. Staff is concerned that allowing additional
signage for hotel restaurants would increase the total number of signs at hotel complexes
throughout the city. Increasing the number of signs over what is allowed now would not be
consistent with the Sign Code.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
Minutes
Typically under the Sign Code now, restaurants in commercial zones are allowed two signs.
However, the Sign Code handles restaurants in hotels separately from other types of
restaurants. The Sign Code has a separate section that addresses the requirements for
restaurants within hotels. Therefore, the number of signs that are allowed for restaurants
in the Commercial/Industrial zone does not apply.
Under the section for hotel restaurant signs, a hotel is allowed four signs and when a hotel
has a restaurant operation located within the hotel, "the hotel shall be permitted one
additional sign...which identifies only the restaurant name." The size of the sign is the same
as for other signs (per Table 1).
In summary, the issue is whether staffs interpretation is an accurate one. Staff has
concluded that one additional sign is allowed at the hotel complex for the restaurant. So,
the question is whether this section allow two signs for the restaurant or just one.
Mr. Goe asked if the hotel could advertise Lavender's Restaurant through the reader board.
Staff stated that they could since that would be considered a temporary sign.
Mr. Lockhart asked if there was a restriction on the height of the sign for the canopy.
Staff stated that the restrictions for the sign on the canopy are that it may not exceed square
footage allowed; and the sign cannot project above the height of the canopy.
Mr. Goe asked if the canopy, by extension, became part of the face of the wall of the hotel.
Staff stated that it does in terms of the calculation of the square footage allowed for the
sign.
Mr. Goe asked if the canopy facia sits above the first floor of the hotel.
Staff noted that it is located below the second floor (i.e. at the first floor).
Ms. Altmayer asked if there are any restrictions on changes to trees and plants on the
premises that would preclude removing anything for better signage visibility.
Staff stated that the landscape requirements do not specify a certain type of plant for the
landscape plan. It does specify minimum widths of landscaping. There is nothing in the
Zoning Code which would prevent them from removing trees to provide better visibility.
Clifford Mihm, representing Lumin -Art Sign Co.
He stated that their contention is that the regulations in Section 19.32.140(A), which refer
Board of Adjustment Page 3
Minutes
to the Table, state that each business shall be permitted one exposed building faced
mounted sign. One additional exposed building faced mounted sign can be permitted for
each business that is not identified on any free standing sign, provided two conditions are
met 1) they have more than one exterior public entrance and 2) there is no more than one
sign per business on any exposed building face.
Lavender's has more than one public entrance, exclusive of warehouse doors, and there is
no more than one sign on any exposed building face. In addition, the conditions of the site
are such that the signs that are proposed are directly opposite each other, and cannot be
seen together at any one time. The applicant's reasoning is that both sides of the canopy
can be considered a building face. Mr. Mihm went on to say that in reference to the section
that refers to Table 1, it was Lumin -Art's understanding that the preceding paragraphs and
two conditions listed were a definition of use and that's why they proposed two signs.
With regard to the issue of clutter, the position of the hotel is that a sign on each elevation
would not be feasible, since the west elevation faces the river, the south elevation faces the
back of the building, and the east elevation is blocked by the building the hotel rooms are
in. Therefore, the north elevation, including the canopy, would be the only place for a sign
for the hotel and the restaurant. Because the total square footage of these signs is so far
below the allowable square footage for the premises, two signs would not be considered
clutter or have a negative impact.
The main point is that the Sign Code specifically (under signs for the restaurant), refers to
Table 1 (Chapter 19.32.140) and its conditions, and these conditions would allow for a
second sign.
Mr. Goe asked for clarification since the proposed sign is inconsistent with Section
19.32.190(B) by reading, "Lavender's Restaurant and Lounge ".
Mr. Mihm stated that Lavender's business name is "Lavender's Restaurant and Lounge ".
Mr. Lockhart asked if they had ever considered just having one sign.
Mr. Mihm stated that after reviewing the Sign Code they were under the impression that
they met the conditions for having two signs.
Perry Wahl, representing Lavender's Restaurant and the Holiday Inn Hotel, 11244 Pacific
Hwy South:
He stated that Lavender's is having a problem getting exposure from Pacific Hwy. S., and
they were unable to put up a free - standing sign. By putting a sign on each side of the
canopy, a bigger portion of the Pacific Hwy. S. traffic will be able to see it.
Board of Adjustment Page 4
Minutes
Ms. Altmayer asked how far the flag poles were from the canopy.
Mr. Wahl stated they were approximately 10 inches out from the canopy face.
Ms. Altmayer asked if they had a separate entrance to the restaurant.
Mr. Wahl stated that there was an entrance from the south parking lot and pool area. He
went on to say that there were two separate entrances.
Mr. Nesheim stated that Staff is allowed a rebuttal.
Ann Siegenthaler stated that there are some alternatives that may be possible as far as
signage. However, the issue isn't what the specific site conditions are or what the hardship
may be to the owner; these are not applicable to the decision that is before the Board
because this is an appeal rather than a variance. The applicant may want to come back
before the Board at a later time for a variance request. At this time the question is what
does the Sign Code say about hotel restaurant signs.
The Sign Code treats hotels and hotel restaurants separately. Therefore, the sign quota for
the hotel is not transferable to the restaurant. The Sign Code specifically allows four signs
per hotel with one additional sign for a restaurant. Section 19.32.190(B) refers to a previous
section which addresses signage in commercial zones, however, it is referring to a very
specific part of that section which outlines the size requirements only.
Mr. Nesheim stated that there was no -one speaking in opposition to the project and offered
the appellant the opportunity for a rebuttal.
Mr. Mihm, representing Lumin -Art Sign Co.:
He stated that the question seems to be with regard to Section 19.32.140(A) referred to in
Section 19.32.190(B)) which identifies Table 1, and whether the preceding paragraph applies
to Table 1. Their understanding was that Table l's parameters and use were outlined in the
preceding paragraph.
Mr. Nesheim closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and the meeting was recessed until 8:20
p.m.
Ms. Altmayer asked Mr. Mihm to repeat his rebuttal before the recess.
Mr. Nesheim reminded Mr. Mihm to keep his response limited to the question asked by Ms.
Altmayer since the public hearing had already been closed.
Board of Adjustment Page 5
Minutes
Mr. Mihm stated that the point was that Section 19.32.140(A) referred to Table 1 and the
preceding paragraph is the definition of usage for Table 1 and sets the parameters in which
Table l's square footage is applied.
Mr. Goe stated that he felt that an ordinance with more specificity would take precedent
and Section 19.32.190 deals with that specificity in terms of hotels and Section 19.32.190(B)
deals specifically with hotel restaurants. Section 19.32.190(B) deals with the one additional
exposed building face mounted sign that is allowed because,the':restaurant is in the hotel and
specifically refers to Table 1 only for the size of the sign`. That specificity will override
anything of a more general nature. In addition, the reference to Table 1 is for the sizing of
the sign only, therefore the section of the ordinance that is more general than the one being
dealt with, (which is hotel restaurants) doesn't apply.
He went on to say that on that very issue is hinging the decision of the DCD, and appellant
challenge as to whether or not the table is to be referred to only, or whether the entire
section is referred to. The Section by reference gets to the table which is referred to for the
area of the sign only, not for number of signs.
Ms. Altmayer stated that the issue is the intent of the Sign Code, and the intent is to reduce
clutter and to improve signage within the City. Based on that, the decision of the DCD
should stand.
Mr. Goe stated that the Sign Code deals with the hotel manager's concern for recognition
of the restaurant and; the Sign Code deals with that issue with specificity, although not clear
specificity.
Mr. Goe moved that the Board uphold the decision of the DM' based on the testimony and
the re- reading of the Sign Code. Mr. Lockhart seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Nesheim adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sylvia Appleton, Recording Secretary
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
HEARING DATE: July 18, 1991
FILE NUMBER:
LOCATION:
APPELLANT:
APPEAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Lavender's Restaurant & Lounge
Holiday Inn
11244 Pacific Highway South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Lumin -Art Sign Company
1118 A Street S.E.
Auburn, WA 98002
A.
B.
C.
D.
PHONE N (206) 433.1800
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Prepared July 8, 1991
91 -02 -APP: LAVENDER'S SIGN APPEAL
Appeal of an administrative decision regarding
the Tukwila Sign Code (TMC Title 19). This
decision was based on Section 19.32.190 which
specifies the maximum number of signs allowed
a hotel/ restaurant complex.
Appellant's explanatory letter 6/12/91
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Wall Elevations
Staff Report to B.O.A. 91 -02 -APP: Lavender's Sign
Page 2
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
Lavender's Restaurant & Lounge (tenant), through Lumin -Art Sign (appellant) is appealing
a decision by the Department of Community Development (DCD). This decision stipulates
that a restaurant located in a hotel is allowed a maximum of one exterior sign, per the
Tukwila Sign Code. The appellant is asking the Board of Adjustment to clarify whether or
not a second sign would be permitted under the Sign Code (see Attachment A).
Lavender's Restaurant is located within the existing Holiday Inn on Pacific Highway South
(Highway 99). The site contains the hotel /restaurant building and a parking lot. It is
bordered on the north by commercial and manufacturing uses, by office buildings on the
west, and by the Duwamish River on the south. The zoning of the site is M2L (Heavy
Industrial).
The site has one freestanding sign, which contains the Holiday Inn name and a readerboard
section. With the exception of small internal information signs, there are no other signs on
site.
The owners of Lavender's Restaurant would like to have signage visible from Highway 99
(west side). To achieve this, the appellant has proposed two 36- square -foot (s.f.) signs for
an existing entry canopy located on the west side of the building (see Attachments C & D).
These two signs would give the restaurant visible signage from both northbound and
southbound traffic on Highway 99.
DECISION CRITERIA
Administrative decisions by the DCD may be appealed as follows:
TMC 19.12.040: Application -- Rejection -- Appeal. "Rejection of any application for a
sign permit shall be made in writing by the Planning Director and shall state the
reasons therefor. A copy of the rejection notice shall be signed "received" by the
applicant or be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the applicant at
his designated address. Within thirty days, the applicant may file with the Planning
Department a notice of appeal and request for review by the Board of Adjustment at
a regular meeting not later than sixty days from the date the notice of appeal is filed,
unless a later date is requested by the applicant."
Staff Report to B.O.A.
Page 3
91 -02 -APP: Lavender's Sign
"After a review hearing, the Board of Adjustment shall file with the Planning Director
and send to the applicant a written decision either denying the application or directing
the Planning Director to issue the permit. The decision of the Board of Adjustment
shall be final and conclusive unless the original applicant or an adverse party makes
application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of
prohibition, or a writ of mandamus within forty days of the final decision of the Board
of Adjustment."
The question before the Board is whether or not DCD erred in its interpretation of the Sign
Code with respect to regulation of signs for hotel restaurants. DCD's interpretation of the
Sign Code relative to this proposal is based on an evaluation of three sections of the code,
as follows:
1) The intent of the code;
2) Code requirements for signs in commercial /industrial zones; and
3) The specific code requirements for hotel restaurant signs.
These regulations range from the general to the specific, with the more specific regulations
taking precedence in DCD's interpretation. The applicable code sections on which the
interpretation is based are given below.
1. TMC 19.04.020(A): Purposes
"To establish standards and guidelines for the design, erection and installation of
signs....so that the streets of Tukwila may appear orderly and safety may be
increased by minimizing clutter and distraction."
Staff Report to B.O.A.
Page 4
2. TMC 19.32.140: Commercial Zones
3. TMC 19.32.190: Signs Mounted on Hotel Building Faces
91 -02 -APP: Lavender's Sign
(A) Wall Signs: "Each business shall be permitted one exposed building face
mounted sign. One additional exposed building face mounted sign can be
permitted for each business that is not identified on any freestanding sign,
provided: 1) that the business has more than one exterior public entrance
in the same building, exclusive of warehouse area doors; or 2) that there is
no more than one sign per business on any exposed building face."
(C) Freestanding Signs: "One freestanding sign may be permitted for each
site."
A) Hotel: "Each hotel shall be permitted one building face mounted sign on
each building face of the hotel, which sign shall contain only the hotel
name and /or logo. The area of each building face mounted sign shall be
as provided in Table 1, Section 19.32.140(A). A hotel may not have more
than four building face mounted signs, except as provided in Section
19.32.190(B).
B) Hotel /restaurant: "If a hotel has a restaurant operation which is located in
the hotel building, then the hotel shall be permitted one additional
exposed building face mounted sign within the area as provided in Table
1, Section 19.32.140(A), provided that the sign is placed on the ground
floor of the exposed building face and identifies only the restaurant name.
C) Other signs: "A hotel shall be permitted freestanding and internal
information signs as provided in Sections 19.32.140(C) and 19.22,
respectively."
Staff Report to B.O.A. 91 -02 -APP: Lavender's Sign
Page 5
CONCLUSIONS
At issue is whether the Sign Code section which addresses hotel restaurants (19.32.190) is
applicable to Lavender's Restaurant. DCD believes this section is applicable. Due to the
fact that the code has specific regulations for hotel restaurant signs, these more restrictive
regulations supersede the general section for commercial /industrial areas. Therefore, the
appellant's proposal must meet the regulations which apply specifically to hotel restaurants.
By complying with these regulations, the appellant still has opportunities for signage visible
from Highway 99.
This decision was based on the conclusions below.
1. Intent of the Code:
One of the main purposes of the Sign Code is to minimize clutter and disorder.
The proposal would result in a total of three signs on site: the hotel freestanding
sign, and two wall signs for the restaurant. The code allows a total of five signs on
site: four hotel signs plus one restaurant sign. Granting the appeal could result in
four hotel signs plus two restaurant signs, for a total of six signs on site. DCD
believes that this increase in total signs allowed would not meet the code's general
intent to reduce clutter.
2. Code requirements for signs in commercial/industrial zones:
Based on the fact that the Sign Code specifically addresses signage for hotel
restaurants, the wall sign allowances in this section do not apply to Lavender's.
Further, as the code treats wall signs and freestanding signs differently under this
section, the restaurant may not use its freestanding sign "allowance" for two wall
signs.
Under the Sign Code, the restaurant would be allowed to add its name to the
existing freestanding sign, up to a total maximum size of 75 s.f. per side (or 150 s.f.
total). This is an alternative which could achieve the purpose of the proposed
signage and also meet the code regulations.
Staff Report to B.O.A. 91 -02 -APP: Lavender's Sign
Page 6
3. Specific Code requirements for hotel restaurant signs.
Under the Sign Code, a hotel and restaurant within the same building are treated
separately from other types of businesses which share a site in a commercial/
industrial zone. Further, the code implies that any restaurant "located" in a hotel is
distinct from restaurants in general in a commercial /industrial zone, regardless of
ownership status, access or other factors.
For these reasons, DCD believes that
a) the signage allowances for commercial / industrial zones under
19.32.140(A) do not apply to a hotel restaurant; and
b) any restaurant located within a hotel must meet the hotel restaurant
regulations under 19.32.190(B).
As the code specifically addresses signage for hotels, and then separately addresses
signage for hotel restaurants, the signage allowance for a hotel is not "transferrable"
to the hotel restaurant. A hotel is allowed four signs, while a hotel restaurant is
allowed one.
Under the Sign Code, Lavender's Restaurant would be allowed one 82 s.f. wall sign.
If the front landscape were revised to provide more visibility, one sign on the
canopy front could achieve the appellant's purpose and meet code requirements.
Given that the Sign Code specifically addresses signage for hotel restaurants, and states that
such restaurants are allowed a maximum of one sign, DCD recommends that the appeal be
denied.
RECOMMENDATION
C_
'LIIMIN -AIiT SIGN Go.
June 12, 1991
To: Board Of Adjustment
City of Tukwila
Re: Sign Permit # 91 -060
Lavender's Restaurant & Lounge
11244 Pacific Highway South
Tukwila, Washington 98168
To Whom It May Concern;
ATTACHMENT A
Sales . . . ,Service. . . . Leases
PHONE UL 2 -7800 1118 A STREET S.E. • AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002
We ask for reconsideration regarding the above mentioned permit, denied
5- 22 -91, for the following reasons:
A.) Sec. 19.32.190 (B), City of Tukwila sign code allows for
(1) one additional exposed building face mounted sign as
provided per items 19.32.190(A), 1 & 2.
1.) The restaurant Lavenders, has a total of three(3) public
entrances, exclusive of warehouse area doors.
2.) At this time there is a total of zero(0) signs on any
building face. Also, the installation of proposed
signs will be on opposite sides of the canopy face.
Total of two.
3.) The existing freestanding sign is for the hotel use
only and no provisions for the restaurant have been made.
The calculation in table 1 of Sec. 19.32.140 provides
for the following square footage:
Area (LxH) = Sq. Ft.
157' x 13.25' = 2 ;080.25 Sq. Ft.
Total permitted area of the signs:
65 + 0.03 x (E.B.F. - 1500) = 65 + 0.03 x (580.25) =
65 + 17 = 82 Sq.Ft.
The total square feet of both proposed signs is 36 Sq.
Ft. This is less than one half of the allowance
provided in Sec. 19.32.140, Table 1.
B.) We believe that, because of the limited square footage of the
proposed signs, (Less than one quarter of the allowed sq.ft.
visable at any one time), the intent of the sign code, as
stated in Sec. 19.04.020 (A.B. &C.) is not interfered with.
tR 1 [ " f11��CD
io
JL JN 2 1991
CITY OF TUKvviLA
PLANNING DF PT.
Sign Permit - Lavender's Restaurant & Lounge - - Page 2.
C.) Since the signs are mounted on opposite sides of a canopy, and
are perpendicular to the traffic flow, they, in effect, function
as would one double face sign. Double face signs are not
prohibited in the sign codes.
For the above mentioned reasons, we feel that an interpretation of the
sign code, allowing for the second sign would be in order.
• Thank you,
C ifford Mihm
Lumin -Art Sign Co. Inc.
EMIHNI3
JUN 21991
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
5 1661»
*Tr;
MTH
5 11510 JO'
5 11(1
5 11/ ST
I 111 : 5T
SOW/1ERN
ROGNIS
s
41
136711
60 04
IIII■3011 S 130111 5. 11071)
112 •
5
ST
125
.
136111
.4 4 V1
501/1111/7
107 51 5"
MTH
LIII.L.ST
- 1544v
7,0
.1041041 t. . • • Clr. • ' S
PARK : lO 01 NI
LOOR 1 ..F4 WO 4 r
S 5 10611'1 1. it
.1 '1 4 I.• •.
5. ,11111
'‘I' T . 42 •
s
11AWOR
1111
GOLF
couNrav,
[Lila a
A
5 95114 ST
5 11101 51
inn rt
11411 51
5 in mst
5
tutdrt
pram
130"
5 1415
01
t
14 01
COOPER
r1tINTICt St
I NTICE
•
11 1111 )1 1
LAKE REBA
S 164111 ST
5 142'°
130" 5
11111141
122 "
Kot 1
52L.14111 51
5 vato 5
ia4 57
on:
Altka St
G 126"
9 xn.
715137?
1
5 OEF11113 ST
,,,) 5 ' L 5 , s 5"' r 1
toP _
tA RAINIER ,,,,DY:
I RIOGC ?•• .1 C
1 r.
s Ro,nuRy
-"
73 41101441 SI -I • 41
Z 40 .. s, 3O .-,::: • 5 J
S ' OU IN .. .n SI
IN L'oral• 1',J_ St •F r- C
:
. 2. Iirre • ,.....4
1 '
G AC
, iiiii 11, Jr
1 •
a J $ 14411-1
is
146111 ST
1411) 11
150
2a 6 152/40 51
s , ,01I4
5 Wu C26
111550T1
q.3.7101(1)7
54/1
RESTON 5
TCIITI SI
5 W10
5 RYAN
AVON 5
GAM 4:
3111.111
5 1171 ST
1 All Awn
5 • "0 51 S. 1 SI
•
471 PS
AlCMICKER
11 NIS PARK
• 51 III
1
- 1
• 1
150
ourseA
• T I
OIStcRLr
5. PARK
9 1 ,
12E,,
to (ROOD •
A .
5,4v 1147
SW ...
"SW 11/1••
05 SW 14”.
1 SW no.
N S 6
111 116111
i, ......
.'- Ilffir .- A t 2 Ci
W 118111 51 ' S '"
8111 ' 11111
1 Win P .
L
11 1.11
22111'5 In ,.1 3 _
.
to 1.: oor
1 • X;n4
L?r 91)1
52,...v ytio
SW 4 ' " 5.4
11_______ --
.4 s\6 226.2 GT
1 TT T N
ST
: 5:
„ oo .a.0A
l t tF 51
1AKE
sof 1/.n . 1.; il' • PARR 5
' 1 : lEN T ' 111 3 II
Sp 13r"
SN/136 NPL
ND ri.
1 i
1: ti
-- 11
18 s :; Isto
-
w
ST
•
• . 174:11
":61:3111111 SI
1L11/1
.1,1\1111110.1 •I $ j
111)4)0?' 111)4)0?' 70011 I •
• s
61
$1111:1
5.51 141)) SI
S
• 160111
....
SEATTLE-,TAcOMA • , ibis....
5 RAMS rt
61
5 - 10111 PL
....., INTERNATIONAL !,
1 t N " f 1 1 I DOOGt/L5
• 1, t I 5 16 7 , .. S
. 1 , ..4:
t m "2421;4"9:12
s IIIN ST t9411,tvf::?
TOT. ST
1. '450)57 51
Mal ille".•
COWOunSf
•
4111415. O 1
M III 141111
ST
uradarsuulus. -
1111 IO 1 1 ST
5 170141 t
Mair ,r f 10V(tut
1 •,1 .• 1 1 1 F
500 SI
45C 5
4 1-..11t4-11
s '
_2:1.)
big Ai
.90
0,
1
o
/off V k3t-Li- of :.A- 'cf 7011 _!Q i 1rlI (2L
21/) -y I . " l j� -. .dama190) ... 31-LL
Ada(
..! ►) I. .r.... j :-n . . Zi' �a 0 s X\At
.�.. C► 0 U_ 1901 1 {�- (")
= , c >1
bLcxA i b .. � J[ C,, c . -�- ct)
si .....S:.cyb7r.s°
No . ... -: ' w► ". 1 Y .. .
:....: :.. N S _ __:c Sv :-1 `'r: ty0� .....
tt
;
ONINNtrld
,1 , ► i cv0? ) IAA _1 ... 10611 t� _... Dom` ....
16610CAOKJ
•
1„
f;
I f h ) n-tE• L-%1 C>rJ."E.
.CANJO-1
I; CIF - 13-15 L-6 \(.ouT: t_PooDseA . QF
"FRC?'"FRRINI.
, etg-ivoic 0.A.f.:2e()P-Ei. "e0a7 :T/R1547
1 77 41‹74,967_ "Trki
0 y - 10,A)5
.770 .S / 52, /90 - 7THE -
•
. .0 vERn..s. ....
_et; 4-Ay. to
TZiE. F 3y. 4.1..L.ocom).6 .5Ee0,t)
l'!
,4, e+.(V4 .V.A) ELR ADVA-&,714
• /4 _6/0 k.)..
till 1 A
dOPC.
- FoR _77-1E7_ s.Ee0A112.?... Jey) fiti
107?7,7E4
4447:77.E.R.,
47,',q,�' MAY --•
6:1
.._FLA.NRING DEPT.
•
1111iftiftwax,„
1411 114P-41r 1
02.•Aia'f
• ••y , ="+r t, :' .kr E'9i:n. :;.,- t••5t:v' >wp:,;
;
V
. 1'';'' • '?
;.• IV••••••••••••••■••••/"...yr••••••••;••••••••••••••••• • ••■••••••••••••••••••
:r
• „*.•-•
• - • r 777,: 7=77 ". •
' •:)
•
' •
$
{