HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-2003 T.H. 36 OPH & Stillwater Planning Commissions Joint Workshop Meeting PacketCity of Oak Park Heights, City of Stillwater
Joint Planning Commission Workshop
T.H. 36 Study
Thursday, April 3, 2003 7:00 P.M.
Stillwater City Hall
7:00 p.m. L Review T.H. 36 PAC Study/Recommendations (1)
7:20 p.m. IL Overlay Options
7:50 p.m. III. Recommendation to City Councils
In Partnership with
CITY OF OAK PARKIIEIG
CITY OF STILLWATER
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CEMBER
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary
This document has been prepared as a brief summary of the study process and Findings and
Recommendations of its Policy Advisory Committee. For additional information, please see
TH 36 Partnership Study Final Report, December 2002.
Background
Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 36 is a principal arterial connecting the Twin Cities Metro area
with the St. Croix River valley and western Wisconsin. Due to its importance to inter and intra-
state commerce, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has designated the route a medium
priority riorit Inter Regional Corridor (IRC). The Federal Highway Administration has also designated
TH 36 as part of the National Highway System, rating it among state highways that play an
important role in our national transportation network. TH 36 has become a focal point of
commercial development in the area, and additional development and re- development is planned for
the corridor and within the adjoining and nearby communities.
Study Purpose
The Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Partnership Study was established in response to a recommendation of
the TH 36 IRC Corridor Management Plan (May 2001) explore design concepts for the
approximately 1.5 -mile long segment of TH 36 in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, Minnesota. The
pp y
Minnesota Department of Transportation invited the communities of Stillwater and Oak Park
Heights as well as Washington County to participate in the study process with the goal of creating a
participatory p
rocess that would facilitate shared understanding of corridor issues and local
ownership of outcomes and recommendation.
The anticipated outcome of the study was PAC recommendations for a design concept that would
determine whether an at -grade or grade- separated alternative was most appropriate, how many
intersection/interchanges could or should be maintained in the corridor, other design
recommendations to minimize impacts and enhance community plans for the corridor, and
identification of key steps for the study partners to pursue to implement the recommendations.
Study Process
A committee representing the Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights and Washington County
was established to help ensure that the study accurately reflected local concerns and identified
relevant issues and potential alternatives, to evaluate study findings, and to make consensus
recommendations to the two cities, the county, and to MnIDOT regarding potential intersection
designs. Polic y Advisory Committee (PAC) members included all members of the Stillwater
Plannin g Commission; representatives from the Oak Park Heights City Council, Planning
Commission, Parks Commission, business owners, and citizens; and Washington County
transportation staff. Mn/DOT staff and SRF staff acted as resources for the PAC, but were not
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary
a ES -1p December 2002
votin g members. Community development, administration, and engineering staff from the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, Washington Country transportation planning staff, MnIDOT staff,
and the study consultant comprised a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which provided
technical information and insight for the study.
Alternatives
Alternatives previously explored for this segment of TH 36 (some dating as early as the 1980s)
were inventoried and sorted into seven design concepts; which became the basis for the study's
Concept Alternatives.
Expand to six lanes, maintain three at -grade intersections
Expand to six lanes, maintain two intersections, converting third to an overpass
Create a four -lane parkway, reducing speed to 45 miles per hour
Convert to a grade separated facility with a single interchange at Osgood
Convert to a grade separated facility with a single interchange at Oakgreen /Greeley
Convert to a grade separated facility with two buttonhook interchanges
Convert to a grade-separated facility with a split interchange between Osgood and
O akgreenlGreeley
These desi gn concepts then formed the basis of the seven alternatives, Concepts A-G as described
p
on the following page, used for the remainder of the study.
Three alternatives, Concept B (two at -grade intersections, one overpass), Concept E (single
interchange at Oakgreen /Greeley, two overpasses), and Concept F (two buttonhook interchanges,
three overpasses) were subsequently selected by the PAC for detailed traffic operations analysis in
addition to the No-Build alternative, reflecting a potential range of operational characteristics for
the corridor.
As the PAC considered their final recommendations, potential right-of-way and business impacts
became an increasing concern. To gain a better understanding of this issue, additional design
development of Concept E (buttonhooks) and Concept G (split diamond) was completed in order to
obtain a preliminary evaluation of potential vertical and horizontal alignments, right-of-way needs,
and conceptual drainage needs. The resulting "working draft" layouts were presented to the PAC in
a work session where potential frontage road alignments, ramp locations, and storm water pond
locations were explored. During this design process an additional two interchange alternative
(folded diamond at Oakgreen/Greeley and buttonhook at Osgood) was found to meet MnlDOT
interchange spacing requirements, and this new "Concept H" was also presented to the PAC.
Analysis
Analysis for the study included development of a refined, smaller grained, model was developed for
Y Y
the study area to generate traffic forecasts. Forecasts were developed for both New River Crossing
and No New Bridg e conditions, as a final decision regarding a new river crossing has not yet been
made. The forecasts were used to analyze future intersection operations throughout the study area.
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary
M ES -2 December 2002
z
uJ
v?
v E
(;a a v
c
u E .v
0 "0 i..a1
•41
�iJ to v. E u v
Z fiznms 5 0 0) 415 E
0 14 Q c cn -0
.u, C 4, N co
v fa vi
.03 .0 4
.0 4--+ 4.2. c
:(1), C 0) 4J CU
0) v
a) v
.ct .7 0 v
1--- 7 4- 0. i vi
0) o
C
sn
c Ln
T
0 H
0 0
C
4 iv
0 o 2
u
it
a R
`a II� v. 0 o v E
z 0
,n w
C7 ro
CU O-
m a. E ..2
t i H in n3
ry
Q) 8 tai tin i a- g
r.
a
o
2
RI
a
c
C
VI a
H
a
1 a m
o h v
V 2 ti
a
0
a
u w V
sn v
c 0
D v
0
C
0..
L
1 ...9 0
0 E
a
0 3 M
2 0 C
rn�
tea
u 5)
ea 0
ra
m M
Z
0
0
o c
V `c
'5
in
q a, a: W 1-
2
0 co sea
44 t R
4 a T... E
0. ez D O C7
in o
a C la `0
C C7 s
-0 Q
ti. 1:rif VI 4.. 0
.a c N C c C
a 0 0 0
te' Z 0 r E
P U N
e `n n a w v g 2 N
I 0 o Q. t, u
la W
V E M N `D a.•
1.) g t r t Y. 2
7 a v v
al Ai Nom' -o E
0 fa ro 0 Q 0 u- a_
a E E w'
o
a rt
s
0
u
a `u sn 0
En v c C z c
4 s -a c c t
C as C
c 0 t v.
I ti -5 o a c a ro
0 C3 v C o a
v v a. o.
W V in +o to vi
CI �o u c v I
iiti
.16; c ro7 0 v v n a v
4 C E C ›.4. N V a 5
�l C]. scs al
LI r 9
4- T
r-
in 0
"4 a)
C
a,... 0
c -0
0 sn
C
c C N c
o
RI kJ 0 MI D
0 .0 C c
0 Q.� ti- tn
v 5 w
fa 2
s. D. O
rn 0
c fa s o
a li
v
AT c.
o
o
V o e 0
Q
J a Z
0
sn 0
0 0 0
o CV
C C v
o v
y a C
a L o
5+ u L7
d _>13' C c
°i c E
t r
a, o 0
0 fl.
o� co o
ro 5
0
R rq O w
V s-- '7]
4. c m 2
al N T
m a' Q.
v F'- p T ,n
mo t.. c c v, vt
4) .E IV w sa a.
V a -o E a v
u
8 d v cn 0
a s
LU 0
cv
.v c
Lld
7 g
cn
Ct v c c
LJ v
kJ
v
7
0
03
76 .E
u
3 u
0 a] v
v
r
Ln
4-• VI�
°v a N o
a
p .E r0
W _al d'.+
�v 41 c r
o rn
I E u fu rici
of .n 0
w 0 a
E a
a a3
Q o t7
a
a c
Q L1' 5
2
D a Z v
4, r ,o v m
g t i F- 4 C2- a o rn
R�
CD o o E 80-13
kJ 0
In addition to level of service results, real -time traffic simulations showing them movement of
vehicles Y through the study area under No -Build conditions and under selected representative
g
(B, E, F) concept alternatives were generated and used to facilitate PAC discussions of the concepts.
The analysis included both New River- Crossing and No- New Bridge conditions. Travel times
between various p oints within the study corridor were also evaluated for the three selected concept
alternatives and the No -Build condition. Crash rates and pedestrian and bicycle safety
considerations were presented in this material as well.
Aesthetics
The aesthetic Yp
ualities of any proposed improvements in TH 36 were identified as an important
issue early in the study p rocess, through support of a parkway alternative and through a high level
of concern about community character. While many on the PAC questioned the functional
adequacy Y of a parkway-like design, they agreed that the aesthetic qualities of the corridor were
p arkwa Y
preserve
important both to reserve the "small -town" character of the communities and to provide an
p
appropriate atewa to the St. Croix River valley. An aesthetics sub committee was formed,
gateway of both PAC members comprised and interested members of the community, to explore context
p
sensitive desi approaches, "boulevard" approaches, landscaping options and architectural
treatments.
Public Involvement
Public involvement beyond the participation of the PAC included two open houses, meetings with
P Y P
stakeholders in the corridor, and public attendance of the PAC meetings. The first open house, held
s p
on March 13, 2002, presented an assessment of existing conditions and the seven concept
alternatives. Participants were asked to provide input regarding definition and selection of concept
alternatives, prioritization of criteria, and identification of issues.
The second open house, held on May 22, presented results of intersection operations modeling,
travel time calculations, and p edestrianlbicycle safety analysis. Participants were asked to provide
input regarding preferred concept alternative under both New St. Croix River Crossing and No
p g g a p
New Crossin g Conditions, as well as comment on aesthetics, costs, pedestrianlbicycle
improvements and tolerance for congestion.
Key stakeholders in the study corridor were identified and offered the opportunity to receive
information regarding the study analysis and to provide input from a commercial /institutional
g g Y
perspective in the corridor. Key stakeholders included:
Lakeview Hospital and Emergency Services Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce
Stillwater School district
Anderson Corporation
Numerous residents, businesses, and other interests along the corridor inquired about the study and
commented to the consultant, Mn/DOT project manager, to local officials, and to PAC members.
Both the Stillwater Gazette and the St. Paul Pioneer Press routinely carried articles that provided
Bo
notice of upcoming meetings and open houses and that summarized the study as it progressed.
p comin g PAC meetin g i
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary
ES-4 N December 2002
PAC Findings And Recommendations
At its final meeting on December 11, 2002, the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) adopted the
following findings and recommendations for the partner agencies' consideration:
Findings Regarding Existing Conditions
Pavement and lighting conditions are poor in some areas of the frontage road system.
Existin g geometries at frontage road intersections are generally perceived as unsafe,
discouraging use of the frontage road system in lieu of TH 36 by local traffic.
II Right- inlRight -out access points to TH 36 are also considered unsafe.
a Development is continuing along the corridor particularly near cross street intersections, raising
concerns regarding preservation of right-of-way for future roadway improvements.
a Corridor lacks safe bicycle /pedestrian facilities both parallel to, and crossing, TH 36.
id The existin g roadway roadwa has few aesthetic amenities and does little to enhance the character of
Stillwater, Oak Park Heights or the St. Croix River valley.
Overall intersection operations are currently within acceptable ranges of average vehicle delay.
a During peak periods, delays along TH 95 to /from downtown Stillwater and the river crossing
p ng
have resulted in drivers seeking alternative routes along Osgood/4th Street, Greeley, and TH 5.
a TH 36 and its frontage roads provide the only continuous east -west route through Oak Park
g
Heights as well as Stillwater between Myrtle /County Road 12 (more than 1 mile to the north)
and County Road 14 (more than 1 mile to the south).
a With current levels of traffic, intersection operations, and posted speed, travel times through the
corridor are within acceptable ranges for both TH 36's designation as a principle arterial and a
medium- priority Inter Regional Corridor.
The TH 36 corridor is also an element of the National Highway System.
Future Conditions
All Cases
a By 2020, traffic volumes in the corridor are expected to increase significantly, potentially
doublin g under some conditions, with or without a new St. Croix River Crossing. volume
increases are anticipated from planned development and redevelopment in the project corridor
P
as well as planned development in the St. Croix Valley area and western Wisconsin.
No-Build
a Traffic volumes at anticipated levels will overwhelm the current TH 36 facility, resulting in
unacceptable levels of delay at intersections (some exceeding 5 minutes), and travel times
through the 1.5 -mile corridor (TH 5 to TH 95) increasing to over 13 minutes during the
afternoon peak hour.
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary ES -5 December 2002
Traffic modeling indicates that most traffic on TH 36 west of TH 5 and bound for downtown
Stillwater will use diversion routes (Osgood, Greeley, TH 5) to avoid excessive delays on the
TH 36 /TH 95 route.
Increased traffic congestion will increase both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle safety concerns
in the corridor.
Findings Regarding Results of Alternatives Analysis
At -Grade Conceits,
Frontage p road intersection operations and safety concerns can be addressed by re- aligning
frontage roads back from TH 36 to achieve a minimum 600-foot spacing and adding traffic
sag Right-of-way necessary signals. Ri ht -of wa to accomplish the frontage road realignments will require some
area businesses to be acquired/relocated.
future
forecast traffic levels, both with and without a new river crossing >62,000 vpd), indicate
that a 6-lane facilit y is needed to provide sufficient capacity through the corridor.
In order p
er to construct a 6 -lane expressway, either additional right-of-way is required or, if the
existin g right-of-way median and ht- of-way is used, substantial re- design of storm water management
g
elements are required.
Intersection operation analyses suggest that without a new river crossing, corridor intersections
inters p y gg
may initially p
i itiall operate at a minimum acceptable level (LOS D) during the peak hour (with the
possible exception of TH36 /Oakgreen- Greeley and the south frontage road /Oakgreen
intersections). However, the corridor will have no excess capacity for future increases in traffic
volumes.
With a g new river crossing, traffic operations analysis suggests that the TH 36 intersections will
operate below acceptable levels of service by 2020.
g
Travel
times through the corridor will improve slightly over No -Build conditions with
expansion to six -lanes and/or closure of the Norell- Washington intersection. However,
significant delays in this segment of the corridor are still anticipated.
Reconstruction of the roadway would provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian/bicycle
Reco y
fac •ties in the corridor however, continued at -grade crossings and increased congestion could
�l�
compromise safet y grade-separated unless a rade arated pedestrian/bicycle crossing is constructed and is
p
utilized by pedestrians and bicyclists in lieu of crossing at grade.
The width of the roadway corridor (mainline and frontage roads) at the major cross streets could
be as much as 20 lanes, including through lanes and turn lanes.
Traffic modelin g suggests ests that traffic bound for downtown Stillwater will continue to use
diversion routes due to congestion on TH 36.
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary
ES -6 December 2002
Grade-Separated (Freeway). Concepts
Frontage road intersection operations and safety concerns can be addressed by re- aligning
frontage roads back from TH 36 to achieve a minimum 600 -foot spacing and adding traffic
signals. Right -of -way necessary to accomplish the frontage road realignments will require some
area businesses to be acquired/relocated.
Future forecast traffic levels can be accommodated with a four -lane grade separated (i.e. no at-
grade intersections) design.
Intersection operation analyses suggest that ramp and frontage road intersections will operate
below a minimum acceptable level (LOS D) during the peak hour if only one interchange is
provided between TH 5 and TH 95 with the planned levels of development in the corridor under
both river crossing scenarios. However, ramp intersections operate at acceptable levels if two
interchanges are provided.
Travel times through the corridor will decrease significantly from both No -Build and At -grade
alternatives with any of the freeway concepts
Reconstruction of the roadway would provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian/bicycle
facilities in the corridor. Overpass crossings provide an opportunity for safer pedestrian and
bicycle crossings because pedestrians and bicyclists can be separated from vehicular traffic.
g
Pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns remain at interchange ramps.
Traffic modeling suggests that traffic bound for downtown Stillwater will prefer TH 36 to
diversion routes due to improved travel times.
Other Findings:
The TH 36 corridor provides an important gateway into the communities of Stillwater, Oak Park
Heights and the St. Croix Valley. The visual character of any roadway improvements in this
corridor should take this into consideration,
Social, visual and physical connections between the north and south sides of the corridor are
important to maintaining community cohesion through the corridor.
Recommendations:
1. Existing frontage road conditions and poor geometries discourage use of the frontage road
g
system, placing more traffic on TH 36. Regardless of decisions about the ultimate concept
for TH 36, short -term improvements should be implemented prior to 2010. Short -term
improvements should anticipate future roadway improvements to minimize repeated
disruption of businesses and land uses in the area.
2. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor should be improved regardless of which
roadwa y concept is selected. If a safe crossing cannot be provided via roadway connections,
p
then a pedestrianibicycle bridge should be considered.
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary ES -7 M December 2002
3. Proposed roadway improvements should include aesthetic treatments appropriate to the
character of the surrounding area including lighting, landscaping, bridge and retaining wall
treatments and pavement selections.
4. A grade- separated facility with two interchanges and maximum speed of 45 mph should be
considered as the ultimate solution for the corridor to provide adequate capacity and
acceptable levels of operations. However, design of this facility should seek to minimize its
impact on the surrounding communities through sensitive choices of horizontal alignment,
vertical placement and aesthetically pleasing treatments. The design should seek to
minimize business takings and to explore opportunities where mutually agreed upon sale of
property or relocations of businesses can occur.
5. Following completion of preliminary design, Mn/DOT and the cities of Oak Park Heights
and Stillwater should explore options for preserving right-of-way and minimizing future
land use impacts through official mapping or some other mutually- agreed upon mechanism
by December 31, 2003.
6. The study partners should continue to work with MnIDOT through the preliminary design
process to address the above concerns, and, through a cooperative process, develop a
roadway improvement package acceptable to all parties by December 31, 2003.
7. Transportation alternatives (eg. Light Rail Transit, or bus hub) should be examined as part
of future Mn/DOT planning for the area.
ext Steps
These recommendations will be presented to the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission and City
Council, the Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council, and the Washington County Board
for adoption. The resulting recommendations provide the conceptual framework for development
of preliminary engineering layouts for the study corridor by MnIDOT and consideration of staging
for the proposed future improvements in the development of the St. Croix River Crossing or future
projects in the area.
TH 36 Partnership Study: Executive Summary ES -8 December 2002
T.H. 36 Partnership Study
Joint Planning Commission /City Council Workshop
Minutes February 26, 2003
Mayor Kimble called the Stillwater City Council meeting to order at6:30 p.m. Present:
y Jay Kimble, Milbrandt, y ble Councilmembers Gary Kriesel, Wally Milbrandt, and John
Rheinberger. Absent Councilmember David Dunker.
Mayor Beaudet called the Oak Park Heights City Council meeting to order. Present:
Mayor David Beaudet, Councilmembers Les Abrahamson, Jack Doerr, Mary McCombor,
y or
and Mark Swenson.
Mayor Kimble turned the meeting over to PAC Co- Chairs Mary McComber and Russell
Hultman for welcoming and introductions. Present were Stillwater Planning
Commissioners Russell Hultman, David Middleton, Paul Teske, and David Peroceschi,
Stillwater Comrnunity Development Director Steve Russell, Stillwater Engineer Klayton
Eckles a Heights Park Hei hts Planning Commissioners Mike Liljegren and Mike Runk, Actin g Administrator Judy Hoist, Oak Park Heights Attorney Mark Vierling, Oak Park
Heights PAC representative Mary Ellen Huss, Washington County representatives Joe
g P
Lux and Mike Rodgers, MNDOT representatives Rick Arnebeck, Todd Sherman, and
Todd Clarkowski, representatives from SRF Beth Bartz, Ken Hulte, and Jeff Bednar.
Rick Arnebeck gave a brief synopsis of what MNDOT sees as the next steps in the
process for determining the upgrades to the Highway 36 corridor. MNDOT would like to
have official mapping after the outcome of this study or at least a recommendation of
what the municipalities would like to have for upgrades.
Beth Bartz from SRF p resented an overview of the Trunk Highway 36 Partnership Study.
In 1999/2000 discussions were held on the St. Croix River Crossing which resulted in a
TH IRC Corridor Management Plan. The St. Croix River Crossing committee was
reactivated in 2002 and hopes to open the new bridge in 2010.
The TI 13 6 PAC committee consisted of 9 representatives from Stillwater, 9
representatives from Oak Park Heights, 2 representatives from Washington County,
representatives from MNDOT and consultants. Staff from Oak Park Heights and
Stillwater, Washington County, MNDOT, and SRF comprised a Technical Advisory
Committee which provided information for the study.
The TH 36 PAC committee's task was to determine, in conceptual terms, what should be
done with the corridor. The committee began the process by establishing values. The top
were determined to be safety, geometric improvements values y� rovements and diversion to local g p
streets. The y then identified the traffic issues diversion routes, cut through routes,
continuous east west traffic Rows through Oak Park Heights and east west traffic flows in
Stillwater between Greeley Street and Osgood Avenue. Other issues identified were
safet y at intersections, pedestrian crossings, community connectivity, significant planned
development, aesthetics, IRC goals, increase in traffic volumes, and lack of sufficient
roadway connections.
SRF presented modeling of various traffic scenarios for the year 2020.
The impact of alternative F, buttonhooks, would result in the loss of approximately 9
commercial properties and one residential property. The impact of alternative H, folded
diamond, would result in the loss of approximately 15 commercial properties and one
residential property. The impact of no- build, with pulled back intersections, would result
in the loss of approximately 5 commercial properties and 3 residential properties.
The meeting was then opened for discussion and questions.
MNDOT does not anticipate major reconstruction of the corridor within the next 5 years.
The frontage roads would be reconstructed no sooner than 5 years. If the bridge opens in
2020 there is the possibility the highway could be upgraded at the same time if all parties
can agree on the alternative for the corridor and funding is available. Federal funding
will probably be the best option. The study will be incorporated into the EIS for the St.
Croix River Bridge Crossing. MNDOT suggests the issues should be addressed soon to
maintain momentum in order to secure funding.
Stillwater and Oak Park Heights Planning Commissions were directed to meet to discuss
the issue. Both councils will meet after Planning Commissions have met on the issue.
Adjourn at 8:38 p.m.
J udy Hoist
Oak Park Heights Acting Administrator
Joint Planning Commission)
City Council Workshop Minutes
February 26, 2003
Page 3 of 3
up
a,c_
L
04 Jv
O'ui pd6& 0 z9N
f`
uae-LLadc t
1 4.
PREPARED :3Y
1
(6,
si c1'
C'Yl (1 vojii,2
ow 03
6,,,± s
d Lcy
icc
iLcid
EGA) a Le
1 XL( C Ps„,(0Q00,L.,
VV,
circad
LJLPLLL
CA/
Xca
DAT7
L'A
z Ut\ 0,0
n
oak_
L 0
0 N L C C 1
YA f 14 Ate d cab -il e-vL
L.Lryta_
AL c ,,,I\c
(1_0 c Lui_ocA Cl
1 Jai j (2_ dr)
n
CL p ek_
LA-)
4 C0 nu..,:) uur) LOcriL d
d C/L
ELLAALILL
P R EPA R ED 3
3
tjC1 _),6
cLczcao fpub fu (1
(ncLocr,
Rucid c;,,i \,./ouut,,
c_)
7 1\1 -1-- L.,,,,,c Lai,,y Jo ,,,,,t
VvuL_t c fuck_ e i-iY1 Ot-t-P- aid 2:...,
at ef! eh/Lt. cqdt„(..,../2 Ct
s\_LCIOLL,tja_
arYLIoLin,4-4,
66
dp
CY-e--(
01\-60c-AS
L Qi-
c„. Dc
Lik
7 1 6
PA
3 f-
i ays e 7-46//
T e1-e4/‘
fa,c/
p 7 1
7/4e /4/7
/e/ tloSer
d
7 I 4/ ro 7 e.e
7,4F
1,,
:70 I 12 /Ad
j
rid I 6 e- A e- I
co Id/ 7M
/SS e>
/66e_74 ei4; 9Av
72 eme
/1a/
/1l,
44 7) Aai /j9dF
At
7c)
o
/deo/ /17/&,
/6.&
7
A ,-///m 10 a
(5 71 \Sir, /770„
_e fr-e
061/6d //it /6' 7/
paan A(-6 4 A5/?--,5?/1
,00c 7
t7/4remt, /49/ite-e.
51 c.c)
ei
c-6V
C76
i6 7
,a 3--777