Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mtn Lodge Ritz-Carlton.12A-89CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 3/2/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 3 3 2737- 182 -00 -001 <> 004 2737- 182 -91 -001 <> 004 12A -89 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: The Ritz- Carlton Insubstantial PUD Amendment Project Address: Legal Address: APPLICANT: Hadid -Aspen Holdings Applicant Address: 600 E. Cooper, Suite 200 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address /Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2 Aspen, CO 81611 5 -8080 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 2 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: - , / Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: y Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consol. S.D. DATE REFERRED: Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Building Inspector Roaring Fork Energy Center INITIALS: School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: C-S RL )1 t1vLL( 1L -�� 1 April 17, 1989 Mr. Joe Wells Doremus and Wells 608 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Co., 81611 Dear Joe, I have reviewed your letter dated April 3 (which we received on April 10!) with respect to the requested design modifications to the Ritz Carlton loading 'dock. I am pleased that you have been able to clear up my confusion on this matter. As has been the case with several of the requested changes, the drawings and the narrative appeared to be at odds with each other, preventing my clear understanding of what changes are being proposed. With the corrections as shown on the drawing attached to your letter of April 3, I am hereby able to reverse my earlier decision of March 30, by approving the requested modification of the loading dock. This approval is subject to the same requirement as previously, that a replacement drawing illustrating the approved change be submitted for recordation prior to the issuance of any permits beyond the foundation permit which has already been issued for the project. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance. Sincerely, Alan Richman, AICP Planning Director wellsltr.1 i f ®®Pei1f US &WeLLS an association of land planners Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen /Pitkin 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: April 3, 1989 Planning Office I have received your letter of March 30, regarding approval of some of those items for which we requested approval as insubstantial amendments in our March 27 letter. We are exploring alternative solutions for some of the items which you could not approve at this time. In reviewing your letter, I had a question regarding Item 3 of your letter, which is in regard to the loading dock and bridge. Your letter seems to suggest that there is an interrelationship between the two elements and that apparently, because of the changes shown for the bridge on the March 27 changes we submitted, you are now unable to approve the six foot extension for the loading dock. You acknowledge in your letter that you had verbally given us approval on the extension for the loading dock some time ago, based on the drawings submitted to your office on 3/1/89. The detailing of the loading dock is unchanged from that shown on the March 1 set. I am enclosing a drawing which illustrates the loading dock revision in relation to the bridge as recorded. Further, the proposed extension of the loading dock does not affect pedestrian movement and. cannot affect the geometry of turning movements for trucks for a couple of reasons. First, the loading dock door will be opened to accommodate a truck preparing to unload. Therefore, the location of the door within the drive is irrelevant to the turning movement. Secondly, the curb line, which will dictate the turning radius for trucks, was made more generous than that shown on the recorded plat to facilitate truck arrival and departure. The bridge changes are recent corrections and I am trying to understand the evolution of that situation at this time. The bridge is not as critical an element as the loading dock, which 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866 Mr. Alan Richman April 3, 1989 Page Two has already been detailed with the change, based on your earlier verbal okay. (I'm sure you recall that we mentioned that the location of the north wall of the loading dock was affecting a lot of other decisions, and was therefore the most critical element on the March 1st list.) If it's a question of the changed detailing of the windows along Monarch Street, I'm sure that we can resolve that, but to revise all of the drawings to the original location of the north wall of the loading dock is a very expensive proposition at this point, both in terms of the labor involved in redrawing everything as well as lost time in filing drawings for the next permit. We therefore hope that you can see the distinction between the changes to the bridge which have been presented for the first time in the March 27 drawings and those to the loading dock, which remain as shown on the March 1 submittal. Let me know at 925 -8080 if you need additional information. 7:ds, Joseph Wells, AICP JW /b 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866 become NO M 0 Billie III so IIlllllir ........... 46 o"1 il M a ■ 11,16 some 1111 . am' 1, 4 �as .......... gs become NO M 0 Billie III so IIlllllir ........... n u Aspen /Pi 130 aspe Mr. Joe Wells Doremus and Wells 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Joe, nning Office street iirao: 81611 �l! March 30, 1989 Following is my response to the modified application you have submitted, requesting insubstantial amendments to the 'Ritz - Carlton PUD development order. I have performed a detailed review, pursuant to Sec. 7 -907 A of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, of the 21 items identified in your letter dated March 271 1989. I hereby approve item # 1, dormer heights, #3, leader boxes, #5, Monarch Street elevation, #9, circular vents, #10, concrete balustrade, #13, Apres Ski Lounge roof design, and #15, elimination of Blue Spruce elevator tower. These approvals are subject to submission of replacement drawings, which must be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. All other requests are hereby denied for the following reasons. 1. Item #2, window sizes, affects the representations made about the overall look of the facade. The windows are much .more prominent than previously. The requirement of the Building Code should have been anticipated during the review process. Please contact the Building Department to identify other solutions or submit as a formal PUD amendment. 2. Item #3, added dormers, #11, facade extension, #12, arched double bay dormer, and #14, Blue Spruce stair, all affect the representations made about stepping the building down to the ground. The look of the building is significantly changed, and, in my opinion, is not as effective as the prior design in reducing: perceived bulk. Please consider other methods of meeting the building's requirements and submit the resulting proposal as a formal PUD amendment. 3. Item #6, loading dock' and #7, vertical bridge support, are acceptable in concept, and I had given you a verbal indication the loading dock change would be approved. However, the new elevations you have submitted are quite different than those submitted in the original package received on March 1. Because of the substantial change in the design and location of the bridge supports and the Monarch /Dean corner of the hotel, please submit these r `* changes, along with documentation that the pedestrian movements and truck turning radii are not affected, for review as a formal PUD amendment. 4. Item #8, elevator penthouses and #8A, stair towers are not eligible for staff approval, because they exceed the maximum height limit of the zone district. The variations granted to the project were specific to the approved design. Further variations will require City Council approval. 5. Items #16 through #20, landscaping amendments, do not provide the necessary detail or justification for approval. Item #16, courtyard landscaping, results in 8 less trees being provided, without compensation. Item #17, southwest garden area, suggests that there are more trees, but appears to show fewer trees and more shrubs. Item #18, pedestrian entries, replaces trees with shrubs because of circulation problems. However, no documentation of a problem is provided for this reduction. Item #19, Apres Ski Lounge layout, results in the loss of trees. Item #20, paving pattern modifications, is not well documented or detailed. It is possible that some of these proposals are not as severe as I have described them herein, but the lack of a key on the drawing and the lack of supporting information leads me to reject the requests. These proposals should be submitted for formal PUD amendment, which supporting documentation. Once you have had a chance to discuss these decisions with your client, I would be happy to meet with you to explain my reasoning or to discuss the options which are available. Please feel free to contact me. wellsltr Sincerely, A an Richman, AICP Planning Director ! LTI i i , ICI -�,� ! n &Aj i E 77- ! ! in I_in 3l- r V���i�% - �c � 2. n -(- VI �QiN�� - 1`i -1 -� /r �.0 ww)�� � ' Ij -`n, -� I �.I I(� - ��, r"A � -• -• �w�� -�/� 't � �+�' � —� � � � Q � 7 �� nA U� -" 'I'' --•L. -'- -- �\ {- -i-- -r - 51:�� ►I!n- i n I I I _i I! I I -1- - ._j I- _ ! Imo' n in , -- n i i - i n I .-f�n �- n ! �- � _ n n! 'n - 1� -I-- -- ► � I _ I _ _n � I _' � � -- --, I - I n i l ii -- j Ill I ► I I I I_ ,I! I n ----I —n nin I i! I li I I iQ AR 27 ®or MUS & weLLS an association of land planners March 27, 1989 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Insubstantial Amendments to the Ritz - Carlton PUD Development Order Dear Alan: My letter is to modify my letter of February 28, 1989 regarding our Insubstantial Amendment request for the Ritz - Carlton to include some additional items as we disussed. These have been incorporated into this new memo by adding new Items 4, 5, 7 and 20 and renumbering the old items accordingly. Language has also been added to Items 6 and 13 as renumbered. I am also incorporating some new drawings as well as some revised sheets into the set submitted on February 28 to reflect these changes. We believe that these changes fall within the standards of Section 7- 9O7(a), Insubstantial Amendment of PUD Development Order, which limits such changes to technical or engineering considerations which were not' anticipated during the approval process. The measurements which are given in this memo have been arrived at by scaling the distance between various points on the building and the top floor elevations as stated on the revised elevation drawings, to establish a spot elevation at that point on the building. These are then compared to similar measurements made from the recorded drawings. It is important to note, however, that the target elevations shown on the recorded drawings govern; scaling drawings is generally not a good idea and that is certainly the case with this project, as well. As you know, work on the foundations for the building is well underway. While all of the items listed are important, we would like to make a final decision on the loading dock (item #6) as quickly as possible, since it is affecting progress on the construction documents. 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866 Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Two Q In any case, the owners are not presently contemplating going back to City Council for review of any of these changes because o;f the construction delays that such an approach would cause. They are requesting that you consider each of the items individually and determine whether any of them fail to meet the standards for your signoff. The following outlines the revisions included on the drawings: 1. Typical dormer heights on the upper level of the Main Building and South Wing have been raised by between l' -0" and V-8" from the top floor slab to maintain the minimum ceiling height of 7'6" for habitable space required under the building code. [Section 1207(a)]. At the Blue Spruce Building, the necessary increase is 1' -8 ". 2. Typical window sizes for the rooms have been increased throughout to meet the building code exit requirements (Section 1'204) as well as the requirement for glass areas of a minimum of 10% of room floor area (Section 1205). The relationship of window to brick per room module was approximately 26% on the recorded drawings; that relationship is now about 33%. 3. Dormers have been added to the 4th floor at each end of the Dean Avenue facade and at the north end of the Monarch Street facade to meet the glass requirement and minimum ceiling height for these rooms. A dormer has also been added to the east of the Dean Street /Mill Street corner tower to maintain minimum ceiling height. The floor plans on the plat drawings clearly anticipated that these corners of the building would be useable floor space (see Sheet A6). 4. The inlets to the leader boxes (which enclose the gutters) have been enlarged at the request of the snow consultants to increase the surface area and capacity for roof runoff. These are typically located between all of the dormers. 5. The plans and the west elevation of the Monarch Street wing have been revised to reflect the changes presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following the redesign of this wing, which resulted in the elmination of the notch in the exterior facade and the shortening of the overall length of the wing, the plans were not modified properly prior to recording of the amendments to reflect steps in the facade as approved. L7 Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Three The steps in the Monarch Street facade have now been correctly added to the plans and the northern double- arched dormer has been moved one bay further to the north to reflect this change. 6. The loading dock has been extended toward Dean by 6 feet so that the door to the loading dock can be kept closed when small trucks are in the loading dock. This also allows the use of a larger trash compactor so that we can be sure to avoid problems with trash service similar to those occuring elsewhere in town. This is, of course, the main entry to the hotel and once it was determined that the shift in this area did not affect pedestrian movement or the turning radii for trucks as previously agreed, it was viewed as a positive change for all concerned, including neighbors of the project. There is now only one door on the loading dock and the windows along the Monarch Street side of the loading dock have been rearranged. The detailing over the windows along Monarch Street (Sheet A -12) at the loading dock has been changed to an arched shape to reflect the detailing elsewhere in the building at this level. 7. The vertical bridge support on the south side of Dean Street has been shifted approximately five feet to the south from that shown on the First Amended Plat Drawings to provide for greater clearance for vehicles passing under the bridge between the Main Building and the Blue Spruce Building. 8. The two elevator penthouses have been increased in height and width to meet code requirements and to provide for machinery requirements. The elevation of the elevator tower facade in the northwest corner of the Main Building is now 103.92 feet, compared to 101.33 as shown on the plat. The width of the tower is now 31 feet along Dean (unchanged from the plat) and 30 feet along Monarch (the elevator tower was not shown on the Monarch Street Elevation on the plat). The elevation of the tower facade in the south wing along Mill Street is now 112.58 feet. The tower on the plat was at 107.83 feet. The width along Mill Street is now 24 feet, compared to 15 feet previously. The last - minute change during the review process to eliminate rooms and create a separate south wing caused the addition of this elevator core. In the intensive effort to produce drawings for recordation, there was inadequate time to properly study the design of this added feature. • Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Four 8a. In three locations, stair towers and the adjacent section of the facade between dormers have been extended to allow access to the roof to meet the Building Department's requirements (Section 3306 m,o) -- along Mill Street at the Main Building, the tower is about 1' -8" higher and at the north end of the south wing, the tower is about 5' -6 "higher; at the south end of the Monarch Street elevation, the tower is about 6 feet higher. We had previously anticipated that this requirement could be met with a trap door and ladder as approved elsewhere in town. The windows in the stair towers have also been reduced in size by the Structural Engineer because of shear requirements; the stair stringers also would have been visible with the previous stair tower window layout. 9. Circular vents have been added to each dormer as the only means to get air into the cold roof area, since there are no roof overhangs in the design. 10. The concrete balustrade has been eliminated at the lower level of rooms along Dean Street of the Main Building and on the Durant and Dean Street facades of the Blue Spruce Building so that the railing detail is the same as the other rooms without balconies. The balustrade is retained where balconies do occur. 11. In two locations, the facade has been extended approxi- mately 6 feet in order to maintain the required minimum ceiling height of 7' -6" -- above the Dean street bridge and at the South Wing of the Mill Street facade. These areas are of limited width between two dormers in both cases. Again, use of these areas was anticipated on the floor plans (Sheets A6 and A8. 12. The arched double bay dormer which occurs twice on each of the three exterior facades has been increased in width to maintain minimum ceiling heights and to resolve problems in detailing the leader boxes (gutter enclosures). 13. The roof design of the Apres -Ski Lounge has been modi- fied so that it is now approximately five feet lower. A chimney has been added for a gas log fireplace in the Apres -Ski Lounge. Height is as required by Code. 14. On the east facade of the Blue Spruce Building, a dormer has been added at the second floor to accommodate the stair. � 11 Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Five l J 15. The elevator tower at the Blue Spruce Building has been eliminated because of a change to hydraulic elevators in the building. Use of these much slower elevators is possible only at the Blue Spruce because they only service two levels above the ground floor. Landscaping Changes: Upon approval of these proposed amendments, the drawing which has been submitted to reflect changes to the landscaping will be spliced into Sheet L -3 of the First Amended Plat and the other Landscape drawings will be modified to reflect these changes. 16. In the courtyard, a number of changes have been made to respond to structural limitations and the code design standards which have been established for that area by the building department. These include a reduction in the number of trees in the lower terrace area, a redesign of the grand staircase from the lower to the upper terrace, and a design change in the pool area. 17. The southwest garden area has been expanded and the quantity of trees increased to blend with the surrounding landscape. The stairway into this area from Monarch Street has been shifted downhill to the north to reduce the number of stairs. 18. At the pedestrian entry and porte cochere at the north side of the main building, the number of trees has been reduced to ease pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The number of planting beds has been increased to compensate for the loss of trees in the area. 19. In the area of the Apres Ski Lounge, changes in the layout of the stair and the gardens have been made for ease of access into the building. 20. The paving pattern is proposed to be modified in several areas as indicated.by the shaded areas to the north and east of the Main Building and around the Blue Spruce Building. It should be noted that although plant materials are being reduced in some areas of the plan, the total count of plant materials throughout the site will at least equal that shown on the amended plat. 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 c telephone: 303 925 -6866 MAR,, 2. ®®1'EMUS & WELLS an association of land planners February 28, 1989 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Insubstantial Amendments to the Ritz - Carlton PUD Development Order Dear Alan: Following up on our recent meeting attended by Brian Venable, Perry Harvey, yourself and myself, I am forwarding drawings for review by your office which reflect the changes that we discussed. We believe that these changes fall within the standards of Section 7- 907(a), Insubstantial Amendment of PUD Development Order, which limits such changes to technical or engineering considerations which were not anticipated during the approval process. The measurements which are given in this memo have been arrived at by scaling the distance between various points on the building and the top floor elevations as stated on the revised elevation drawings, to establish a spot elevation at that point on the building. These are then compared to similar measurements made from the recorded drawings. It is important to note, however, that the target elevations shown on the recorded drawings govern; scaling drawings is generally not a good idea and that is certainly the case with this project, as well. S As you know, work on the foundations for the building is well underway. While all of the items listed are important, we would like to make a final decision on the loading dock (item #6) as quickly as possible, since it is affecting progress on the construction documents. In any case, the owners are not presently contemplating going back to. City Council for review of any of these changes because of the construction delays that such an approach would cause. They are requesting that you consider each of the items individually and determine whether any of them fail to meet the standards for your signoff. 608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 11 telephone: 303 925 -6866 Mr. Alan Richman February 28, 1989 Page Two The following outlines the revisions included on the drawings: 1. Typical dormer heights on the upper level of the Main Building and South Wing have been raised by between 1' -0" and 1' -8" from the top floor slab to maintain the minimum ceiling height of 7'6" for habitable space required under the building code. [Section 1207(a)]. At the Blue Spruce Building, the necessary increase is 1' -8 ". 2. Typical window sizes for the rooms have been increased throughout to meet the building code exit requirements (Section 1204) as well as the requirement for glass areas of a minimum of 10% of room floor area (Section 1205). The relationship of window to brick per room module was approximately 26% on the recorded drawings; that relationship is now about 33 %. 3. Dormers have been added to the 4th floor at each end of the Dean Avenue facade and at the north end of the Monarch Street facade to meet the glass requirement and minimum ceiling height for these rooms. A dormer has also been added to the east of the Dean Street /Mill Street corner tower to maintain minimum ceiling height. The floor plans on the plat drawings clearly anticipated that these corners of the building would be useable floor space (see Sheet A6). 4. In three locations, stair towers and the adjacent section of the facade between dormers have been extended to allow access to the roof to meet the Building Department's requirements (Section 3306 m,o) -- along Mill Street at the Main Building, the tower is about 1' -8" higher and at the north end of the south wing, the tower is about 5' -6" higher; at the south end of the Monarch Street elevation, the tower is about 6 feet higher. We had previously anticipated that this requirement could be met with a trap door and ladder as approved elsewhere in town. The windows in the stair towers have also been reduced in size by the Structural Engineer because of shear requirements; the stair stringers also would have been visible with the previous stair tower window layout. 5. The loading dock has been extended toward Dean by 6 feet so that the door to the loading dock can be kept closed when small trucks are in the loading dock. This also allows the use of a larger trash compactor so that we can be sure to avoid problems with trash service similar to those occuring elsewhere 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866 Mr. Alan Richman February 28, 1989 Page Three in town. This is, of course, the main entry to the hotel and once it was determined that the shift in this area did not affect pedestrian movement or the turning radii for trucks as previously agreed, it was viewed as a positive change for all concerned, including neighbors of the project. There is now only one door on the loading dock and the windows along the Monarch Street side of the loading dock have been rearranged. 6. The two elevator penthouses have been increased in height and width to meet code requirements and to provide for machinery requirements. The elevation of the elevator tower facade in the northwest corner of the Main Building is now 103.92 feet, compared to 101.33 as shown on the plat. The width of the tower is now 31 feet along Dean (unchanged from the plat) and 30 feet along Monarch (the elevator tower was not shown on the Monarch Street Elevation on the plat). The elevation of the tower facade in the south wing along Mill Street is now 112.58 feet. The tower on the plat was at 107.83 feet. The width along Mill Street is now 24 feet, compared to 15 feet previously. The last- minute change during the review process to eliminate rooms and create a separate south wing caused the addition of this elevator core. In the intensive effort to produce drawings for recordation, there was inadequate time to properly study the design of this added feature. 7. Circular vents have been added to each dormer as the only means to get air into the cold roof area, since there are no roof overhangs in the design. 8. The concrete balustrade has been eliminated at the lower level of rooms along Dean Street of the Main Building and on the Durant and Dean Street facades of the Blue Spruce Building so that the railing detail is the same as the other rooms without balconies. The balustrade is retained where balconies do occur. 9. In two locations, the facade has been extended approxi- mately 6 feet in order to maintain the required minimum ceiling height of 7' -6" -- above the Dean street bridge and at the South Wing of the Mill Street facade. These areas are of limited width between two dormers in both cases. Again, use of these areas was anticipated on the floor plans (Sheets A6 and A8. 608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925 -6866 Mr. Alan Richman February 28, 1989 Page Four 10. The arched double bay dormer which occurs twice on each of the three exterior facades has been increased in width to maintain minimum ceiling heights and to resolve problems in detailing the leader boxes (gutter enclosures). 11. A chimney has been added for a gas log fireplace in the Apres -Ski Lounge. Height is as required by Code. 12. On the east facade of the Blue Spruce Building, a dormer has been added at the second floor to accommodate the stair. 13. The elevator tower at the Blue Spruce Building has been eliminated because of a change to hydraulic elevators in the building. Use of these much slower elevators is possible only at the Blue Spruce because they only service two levels above the ground floor. Landscaping Changes: 14. In the courtyard, a number of changes have been made to respond to structural limitations and the code design standards which have been established for that area by the building department. These include a reduction in the number of trees in the lower terrace area, a redesign of the grand staircase from the lower to the upper terrace, and a design change in the pool area. 15. The southwest garden area has been expanded and the quantity of trees increased to blend with the surrounding landscape. The stairway into this area from Monarch Street has been shifted downhill to the north to reduce the number of stairs. 16. At the pedestrian entry and porte cochere at the north side of the main building, the number of trees has been reduced to ease pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The number of planting beds has been increased to compensate for the loss of trees in the area. 17. In the area of the Apres Ski Lounge, changes in the layout of "the stair and the gardens have been made for ease of access into the building. 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866 Mr. Alan Richman February 28, 1989 Page Five It should be noted that although plant materials are being reduced in some areas of the plan, the total count of plant materials throughout the site will at least equal that shown on the amended plat. It is important to recall that the topography as shown on Sheet 4 of the First Amended Plat has been established as the basis for any necessary Code - related measurements which are to be made. Actual elevations taken in the field along the property line are generally higher, however, and this has affected to some degree the relationship of some building elements to the street. A good example of this is the Monarch Street pedestrian access into the southwest garden and Courtyard. Please let me know at 925 -8080 if you need additional information regarding any of these changes. Relgards, eph Wells, AICP JW/b 608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925 -6866 --- I— n, —jI —;— Vii, --i—,— !-- ,i�',-- -�- -;- !; --;- -; ; � ;�` L- j����; ' ,� —�—�- .1i e7ll C�l r4o 0 --�-� 09- rz, �I I -j i I i � -�'I � I I I_ III r I i -!- -L�l ( I ' � -' ' I I �I�� (moo � L _.— i � , I i I _ - j w�. (� � 1 i— '— i— `-.i —I �'.'_ c�^.o„�I I I I_ I it I� -- —Ji-1— ' 'y — C. 115 T-T _I� z�''- i-! I-�li j Imo_ _ -��..� I -�I• -` U � Q I�V'� ;��� _ L� i l i �� l �I � I- I I � i � i � �-{ i 1-7 7— I __I LU I J�I - — —71 � .� -� -� T I I - I I ! � �', � -�I -�__ - [— I - -1--i —! i� I � In -I - -!,, I - -I- !�a =9cr [Cl. I LD: I �� 2 --'—j- -- ! ! I j I ��, �O' y�o�,!`�',�e OCr� �ol i - c.0 .- ,.�� 1 �ti cl�xQ 7E L �� E± I I I F I i I i i F-1 3-1 FF 15 1 1 1 FT Lis- iq - - _ I I 1 - 7-1 ice( 1 1 i 1 =--I � I I i (� � -f - - - -- ! _ I�_ H-I 1 11 I � � ! i I 1 i�(_�I I -_-! --- 1----- i 1 -1 (! - -- ! - -f I -1 - -T� L -77 1 1 1 I L I 4-i Hill T-1