The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890524AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 24, 1989 2:30 ON-SITE REVIEW/WALK THROUGH 413 E. HYMAN AVE. REIDE'S CITY BAKERY, MEET ON SITE 5:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 On-site review/walk through of 413 E. Hyman - Reide's City Bakery - meet on site at 2:30 3:00 Special Meeting, cont'd public hearing, Collins Block Phase II & III 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of May 10, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 200 E. Main St., modifications to Final Development (approved, Fall, 1988) V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Landmark Designation: 430 W. Main St. B. Landmark Designation: 406 W. Smuggler St. 5:45 C. Minor Development: 134 W. Hopkins Ave., Lot L 6:00 D. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: 1004 E. Durant 6:30 E. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: 413 E. Hyman 7:15 VI. COMMUNICATIONS Staff Report: Preservation Week Holden-Marolt Archaeology Study CGL program (attachment) Request for Worksession: June 14, 4:00 p.m. Topic "Aspen's Preservation Incentives" Sub-Committee Reports and Project Monitoring 91.\ MEMORANDUM 1 3 ~I Aspen Historic Preservation Committee A Â° 0 <F+Gii> Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Conceptual Development Review, continued; Collins Block, Phases Two and Three, continued Public Hearing 2'19&7*ate: May 24, 1989 - SPECIAL MEETING MEETING GOALS: 1) To reach an agreement between the applicant and HPC for the Conceptual Development approval Phases Two and Three of the Collins Block proposal 2) Give direction to Staff to prepare a Resolution granting Conceptual Development approval which will be approved and read into the minutes of the June 14 HPC meeting. PROJECT SUMMARY and APPLICANT'S REQUEST: This meeting 0/1~ constitutes the fourth formal review in continued public hearings of the Collins Block, and the sixth in total including the pre- application and one worksession. As you recall, staff separated 42 the application into phases in order to organize the review process and to move the Collins Block restoration activities along. The HPC is being asked to approve the conceptual development plans, as presented during the meeting of May 10, for both Phase ~ Two (the revised second floor loft plan) and Phase Three (the infill plaza structure). Phase One received Final Development approval on May 100 STAFF COMMENTS: Staff and the entire Committee have adopted a policy of "negotiation" with applicants in an attempt to create a W jA win-win situation. However, we feel that on significant historic c landmarks. of both local and national significance, the protection and retention of the original character of those structures is the first and foremost responsibility of the HPC, as stated in Article 1 under the revised HPC By-Laws. With that in mind, we are extremely supportive of the revisions the 9 13 applicant has done in nearly meeting those goals. Revised plans (as presented by the applicant on May 10) have been submitted which indicate that the third floor concept has been completely eliminated. We find this to be a vast improvement over the last many revisions. While we are pleased with the elimination of the third floor, the new lofted second floor plans still indicate an above-parapet projection of 14". The Planning Office is still unable to recommend conceptual approval for this revised plan, however, we feel that we are inches away from a plan that we may support. 6 The probability of a lowered first floor of approximately 8" (without jeopardizing the original windows and their orientation to the floor levels) would allow for a lowered second floor and loft. State Preservation Planner, Chris Pfaff, feels a lofted second floor plan with no projection above parapet height, or at the maximum a few inches above parapet height, would meet the Secretary Of the Interior Standards for Rehab Tax Credits, provided transit/view diagrams would clearly demonstrate the "invisibility" of the rooftop alteration. The east elevation wall is proposed to be extended upward approximately 18" to provide a parapet, the height of which would exactly match the west and north elevation parapets. Staff finds the parapet extension reasonable and will require the salvaged east wall brick be used for the new east parapet (extension). (Note: An HPC sub-committee approved the applicant's proposal to disassemble the recessed portion of the east wall and reconstruct to exact dimensions using the same brick, which is being stored.) Additional committee discussion has been given to the general use of the roof tops throughout the Commercial Core, and concerns have been aired regarding mechanical equipment, skylights, "dishes", umbrellas, trees (landscaping), hot tubs and people seen above parapet height. The "what you don't see (on the plans) is what we get" concern seems valid when looking at overall building integrity in the historic district. Therefore, IF rooftop access is not prohibited as a function of design, the enforcement factor of rooftop elements may become moot over time. Staff is, however, primarily concerned with permanent rooftop structures and diminished integrity to the historic character of the structure. Umbrellas are reversible. The State Historic Preservation Planner agrees in concept with staff, therefore, from a Secretary o f the Interior' s and "building preservation" point of view, staff defers the issue of "umbrellas VS. no umbrellas" to the Committee. We would prefer to see nothing extend above parapet height. ALTERNATIVES: Actions the Committee may elect to take are as follows: 1. Grant Conceptual Development approval for Phase Two as proposed 2. Grant Conceptual Development approval for Phase Two with conditions, such as any one or combinations of the following: a. The maximum height be reduced 14" to at-or- below parapet height. b. The second floor loft plans be revised to 2 allow light only with no roof-top access C. That no roof top equipment or items extend above the parapet, including mechanical equipment d. The maximum height of the second floor loft be reduced 8", projecting no more than 6" above parapet height, provided that complete transit angle/diagrams be submitted showing each elevation, from the intersections of Galena and Hopkins, Mill and Main and Hopkins and Monarch. d. No materials that cause glare or create reflection be utilized in rooftop construction 3. Table action to June 14 to allow the applicant time to incorporation the alternative design solutions (agreed upon in this meeting) into the plans. The deadline for submittal is Friday, June 2, 5:00 p.m. Also, we recommend the HPC direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for Conceptual Development approval, to be approved and read in the June 14 meeting minutes. Language for the Resolution shall be drafted and voted upon at this meeting. 4. Deny Conceptual Development approval for Phase Two, finding the proposal does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office's recommendation has remained consistent throughout this project review. We remain non-supportive of the current revised plans indicating a second floor loft proj ecting 14" above-parapet height, however, we are willing to recommend tabling one more time to reach a negotiated agreement at this meeting with the applicant. We recommend the HPC direct staff to prepare a Resolution for Approval (for Conceptual Development approval), which will be approved and read into the minutes at the June 14 meeting, and will include all the conditions for Final Development application approval. If an agreement to grant Conceptual Development approval is not reached at this meeting, the Planning Office recommends denial for Phase Two. *** PHASE THREE SIJMMARY: As so much meeting time has focused on the other 3 Phases, the infill design has received the least amount of attention to date. Clearly, every element of this plaza parcel is the HPC's responsibility to review, with the exception of "interiors". Any element that is exposed requires review and approval, which means the interior working of the plaza/mall, the individual storefronts, lighting, landscaping, paving, signage, (flags, eagles!), etc. How does the space function design-wise for the pedestrian both a street level and just inside the arched entry? Are awnings proposed? How do the individual storefronts relate to one another? What rooftop equipment is proposed? Is there rooftop access on this portion of the parcel form the second floor east balcony of the Collins Block? The HPC should feel comfortable with the answers to these questions before a conceptual approval should be granted. The Planning Office feels strongly that this entire plaza proposal requires careful study from the HPC in review, and a more detailed submission by the applicant. The HPC will be reviewing Phase Three for design compatibility only, which means that if this plaza design concept is inconsistent with the Development Review Standards and incompatible with the Commercial Core Historic District, a denial is appropriate. Historically, small commercial structures were built on single 3,000 sq. ft. lots. The 1893 Birds Eye view map indicates a one story structure occupied this parcel at that time. Staff does not support the plaza concept as proposed, with eight very small storefronts, should the HPC approve a plaza concept. We recommend the applicant develop an innovative plan to utilize the exposed east wall of the Collins Block in the overall site design. Significant changes to the street-edge facade have been recommended by the committee to the applicant in previous meetings, (please refer to staff's May 3 worksession memo) which staff has not yet seen a response to. Therefore, we are recommending the HPC table Phase Three conceptual approval, one additional time, to June 14, giving clear direction to the applicant on appropriate design alternatives. Once again, we are requiring a detailed study of all the plaza/mall elements be submitted for conceptual approval. The HPC should take clear action at this meeting towards a conceptual approval at the June 14 meeting, or deny conceptual approval altogether. We do agree with the applicant that the infill design should not appear to mimic the Collins Block (or appear like an addition), yet have individual merit. We feel there are many ways to design to such a limited space to create interest and excited without over-elaboration. Staff feels the plan competes with the Collins Block, does not harmonize with it, and incorporates too many details and heavy materials. We strongly suggest the east wall of the Collins Block become an interior plaza focus if possible. 4 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may wish to consider the following action alternatives: 1. Grant conceptual approval for Phase Three as proposed 2. Grant conceptual approval with conditions for Phase Three 3. Table action to June 14 on Phase Three, giving clear direction to the applicant on appropriate design alternatives. The Planning Office deadline for revised / submittal is Friday, June 2 at 5:00 p.m. 4. Deny conceptual approval, finding the proposal does not meet the Development Review Standards RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table conceptual development approval for Phase Three one more time, to June 14, giving very clear direction to the applicant for appropriate design alternatives. The Planning Office deadline for any revised submissions is Friday, June 2, 5:00 p.m. Phase Three conceptual approval could be included in the Resolution of Approval recommend for Phase Two. memo.hpc.204sm.4 5 THE BRAND **** MEMORANDUM TO : ROXANNE EFLIN FROM : RICHARD ARNOLD. PROJECT MANAGER DATE : 16 MAY 1989 RE : SUBMISSION FOR THE 74 MAY HPC MEET.NG COLLINS BLOCK ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND ELEVATIONS OF THE ROOF ADDITION AND THE Â·inp IL_ 21 . L:- . -,.2. A MODEL OF i HE PROJECi JS BEING CONSTRaCTeD AND WILL BE READY FOR THE WORK SESSION ON 24 MAY 89. IN ADDIT).ON YOU HAD ~R~ESTED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION. THE 32' INCHES IS AS FAR AS THE ADD ITION CAN BE REDUCED OR LOWEREN DUE 10 THE EXISTING SECOND FLOOR STRUCTURE AND i : 7 7-4 i f ti- :~ i. 1 1 1 i.#- A TWIC-'-1.--1 I.-q Â·...; 1 1 L L L., 7. T. ti i EL /Â·i n:.Ff'l * 1 IM LE:/ML :-IC.M.tuitaUP' a AS WE HAVE PRESENTED. THE 14 INCH STRUCTURE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE MAJOR VIEW PLANES AND CONFORMS TO THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RECOMMUNnaT T nNF - r-- ,- 3-0,; 1 LI -FiÂ·h i .11 4 i. r-. t--.Â£-- Tr- r. i x a -7- -r n i. b r. r. T r-Â·r ,- C . 1-7 rul-1....., 2 1 4- iNÂ· Mt* COCF.VH : il_,!M DIE. imr :3. WE SINCERELY HOPE TO PROCEED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ROOF ADDI T ION AND) THr bEL>E511,Nt p b I ket , r-n-t.px#; 2 tujv }HE INFi,1 4 RibetuRE AT THE MAY 24 WORK SESSION AND HPC MEETING. Â·Â·. 3- -, i.-1i :C 1-3.1' T E-it.iâ‚¬:3 Â£21 E-:ftÂ·,u.AL- ~~~A.' 1 ME /1 l 205 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303.920.1800 FAX 303.920.3602 3 1. . 0 r CITY OF ASPEN ~ t. * .Â»' 130;sbutn *alenastreet aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 1989 TO: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office FROM: Fred Gannett, Staff Attorney RE: 204 South Mill, The Collins Block I have reviewed the letter dated May 10, 1989, addressed to you, signed by Harley Baldwin, with respect to 204 South Mill Street, The Collins Block. As you will remember we discussed this matter briefly as to the sufficiency of the document. I am of the opinion that for legal purposes this document does not provide the City with sufficient commitment that in the event any structural damage caused by the foundation repairs proposed to the Collins Block will be repaired in accordance with Uniform Building Code and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. As I suggested to you earlier, I would direct Andy Hecht, as the attorney for Harley Baldwin, to prepare a restrictive covenant which runs with and burdens the Collins Block for the benefit of the City of Aspen and commits the applicant to repair, at his cost, any structural damage caused by foundation repairs. Further, it should specify that any foundation repairs should be in conformance with the Uniform Building Code and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines and will be accomplished in a time and place contemporaneous with the original work. Harley should execute the document subject to a notary provision and forward to the City for recordation purposes. In the event this document is provided for your comfort and you determine that the City does not need a more formal document, this may meet your purposes. Call me if you have any questions or comments. FWG/mc }1 63 //2 1036 08 [PCÂ©Cil M o CICÂ©99 CmER ~ MCP Â® DUP ..â‚¬%â‚¬g;Sm/M.=Pes'r9:,m FmR â‚¬*trp *D 'r&â‚¬**6--Â¥ . ~ TO' e . ryâ€ž*, ma:tyv 2 90Â¥ Glikep ~ *2Â» teÂ»'*f - ,- -... 1 TO FROM 7340 %<- rÂ»6 bl <2 4 I 36 . * *4**ZE iF~-t~<1 3 *42-11 4-2 2*f~ 4%*% tulk:y*) ~~'6*w**#14%,&~4%%4<1*1*vi ::ki~~ 3'' *~ #4 1 SUBJECT DATE 6-/ 17/2 f I ~ MESSAGE i ff-%33â‚¬- fjfac 0,0PicES (-3~-yer-FUEhAâ‚¬-6 3 liu lic (09 ~ j K~ 0,1, LJO l h.~ 6 /Â¥LSD 1-}-4 43 / 10 9-r u. fhâ‚¬Aâ‚¬EL . C 4-1 AJE-- ~ lf-F-391 ou'Â·F-)3 <Bl e c 9 4Â»j 43<i - 1+36Â© 49/Â·\-tfbES A-u--i- Ap,J E- 1 m IR...6--2~7~\-1 .Uff-63 1-t-kE- 32-77-<ze-jo C.e\J--Ile/Â¥L. ,410->6122.2. 1-2-â‚¬%1 1 1 1 '-1--~ ArS 7.1 -0 -*1 2- 71.-1 (37 ki ao 6- CD F-- 5-2 a/kl.PE- ~IR/Â¥c- R, Au-â‚¬> 1 24 3 AY C LE -i i 61 CD Â·21 -7-71--6> Ad 1,4 Â»\ 67\J Z , 1% I Chid Â«- ~ 4 Â· -0 21-39,-1 1 3 9 7 tyÂ« 1 1 I-* 1 ~ % 6 0/4,~ 0 2/ \ 2 -0 0 3 <- /\J 1 ; l * SIGNED REDIFORM 45 468 ~~~~ NO REPLY NECESSARY ~ REPLY REQUESTED - USE REVERSE SIDE POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P468 L.--j carbonle- /*Â£.*& W N *9 Â¢r . L. . -4 . .. *,2 addition to the Aspen Hardware Store build- ....N. .Or .ai . ing (Collins Block) is appropriate. ..3...j.4: 44' We strongly believe that the flat roof to this . National Register building should be left a#it 1 9 is, and that the owner butild his penthouse.,6 above thb proposed infill or not build it at all. 2-2 TheEiddition[ may not be Visible from adia: S cent viewplanes but certainly it can be seeh.4 from.Red Mountain, Smuggler and Asped t Mchmtain. among other vantage points.:, aske46 -1; -; .2' r 4 Em Cr â€¢ Â· 9,4.9â€¢*fÂ· r w*Necisiod is also precedent-settbitl-'KA&1* g HPC Â·has alreddy expressed displeasure over ~#* the rooftop equipment and activities,on111% 1, Elli's and Brand buildings. It is time to take a A - -- stance and just say no. ff .- * 9, !51 fit>:. The HPC is divided on the issue. Chairnian 9 rooftop addition Bill Poss has vacillated on his stand from thal ,/Â·IÂ·';* I. start; but Poss will likely provide the pivotal > , .ifi-c.vi is inappropriate vote next week. .:: , We urge the chairman and his committee to r Next Wednesday the Historic Preservation re10ect the building's historic integrity intl 1. , Committee will decide whether or not a rooftop vote. to deny the proposed addition. . a , & /7-Â·Pt . -, i '. i; I b 1 f ill M 1 -- R 5 R 3 . *34#U,Ldj.litEdia:Miw. fultitit*:,91.4.*tivt*REi Yr, , rry ' 1 1 1 1 / 'li' r i U.d i 1 .----1 1 1 11 . 1 6 0 L. L. 1 -1 5 =0 9 k Ck - 4 8 2. 4 L i v B ./ 9 4% T BL E.4 41-,O 4 44'- 1-0 1 1. 1 m .. : Â· Â· ' i -Ir-!-rl ITT 11 ---~ , 1 -1 31.-r--------------~----- .. .10- fr r! 12 - ' A , 1, . 1 CIA 4,-,> i d :.L .411> / K.-1 Â£ 5 -f- â‚¬ L-t ./,-f,- 4 .: 1% U - f .1- V A 1 1 g -1. C k â‚¬ <N90 -1 G , F.1-,C / P -'. t '- $"erâ€¢13 prl,9 ' 2_ r _3.2---_a :=Â·y=ni~i 7Â·-7.-' ~1.14 -4â€¢i.-, â€¢1/.-a 11â€¢fl , 91.0 -1.... RE ~ 1 -3321/ 4--4 1 -= - f r..7-4....O.11 1 -.... -64 IIi ftqrS' j 4,'771, 'llg:â€¢ dll '114:1'11:1 b~1.-Di,-11:- ,-1:i'-14-;!-6:i-Â·4,Â·~11:1!11.cÂ·,c.: ; 4 -11Â·~ 4 ' 'll 'ililli'/1.1111,Ilim:'Jiltl'n. ti::,t Z 3730,03 [11111.111 ! i li gi l l] 1.lili.11[ ji di J il , A*,i l # u iti liku I 'r i J j al l] 11 ~ Â· 11 ..11.._tf..ti 1-11 11_27 _.1-14 - .+/1 .Dy:-,3-Â¥- b..<1 8 56 9.-, pl.- ,-:..*r..> 0+--4 Q C k 1.-11.....0, 1 Â·Â· Â· , f. Â· --.L- . 11 l' 11 1. .1 1:Â· 3#4~~ ~ thinun J 1 1 . ... 1.-1.==72 "1 1.1 1 7 4 ' [ 4# r ir n 1 . z li ll i 11 li li li I ; i , 11 ][ /JÂ· r--- 11.--11222.1_,LI_2-1- -- -: I -=f -- -:-- - -.-ILit~Z-2-2 . ,- --- -- - *-I ---14 , ' * J. ... . 1 1 ---.~____2- 12--21/2222-1122-72/EL... 2 -1 1 1! 15 --- ~'riÂ·*< TI~ 0if~~314, i.....-- i-t:Â·9Â·j ..~ Â· .Ftic*11<I-!~11 t-I Â· ~~1Â· .1~ A G 1 =1 - Â£1.-==tri__A_ * A :----IL=p: fL__.1I1.:. 4.1 -=zfk=*Â£44{946Â·11--:In... --11 - .Ilt-... il-=j _plâ€žÂ·Jl=.U,Ell-,niti.=441= =- 11.-U_n _= 8 -4 J.1.-al._ rl_J~J~-~f ifi-_~ 1% ./ l Fr,fle, .1 f ..r )4 1 't .. .. 5.6.lrÂ· F.'â€¢r,r --. 1 , V .1 - 1 I . i . r -=. t . 1.1 , 5 o u -i- t.i E L #v 7 - 71 / & O 1 K / --9/.9.4.6 , 1 i .l -- 2 Â· Â· 4 i Iff---/U - ---- Ef -- 1 - 1 0.-1 0 - 1. 11 ' Â· ' . 1 1 i , 1 ' 1 1 + L.--Â· 1 L- Ltv-- 3 1=-Â· . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 . 11 Â· i . . , 1, 1 1 .1. 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 _- '.,J . 1,- â€¢ I 1 .*- i-- --2IU --n-77- * ---/*---r / -.=-- &L'-=---Il- K- -- .- . F- 4, 1 -- 1 1 E ...1 r - y-Â· - T--7- Â·Â· Â¢FÂ· flpfil ' or n -dfl= n Fli :099[304 1 , 11 1 lu.t. ubl-i~ r-- U , '- ;bl-Jilidail LL,L 'ti. i L d . A L ..l. . JL. 1 11 4 d it 1, r - 4 1 f j] f-3-- 5 1- -1 l. 11 1 1. 1 I i I r 1 1 bi t. 1 " li Â· I+ 1 : . ir-- Tr L L--ir----7 12-- 4=-7-j li -1Â£ 1 1--:41 - l 2-2 ] : f.--2-3 4 A. --1 , p-,.--4-1 k-- 1 r- - -- L- . ' 4--4 6 0 'u - 1 A 5 fl> L. O 1.k_ / M 0 4--r *1 - 2- L- e- V Bjft - r-1 1/+'.= )'.t -7 ..1 E. 4...IN . . 4- ; -:1!.1 Mi; 1*HN44 hitin,AlÂ·: 9*.2.1 ;.2 01#fitip.. 1. .'..;Mt-, 7.-- 1r- - 1! ' st,ti \A,Â·â€¢r' 1 trk"r 9-1 1 --- f l' 1- It -70/ilii- 1~ 2~ 1 1.Out.,4.- : I i 1 1 1 0.-Â· : R 1 '1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 ' ;! 1 ~ 1 l- . -& 4 It , if. 3*1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 f'F <".1. 1 XII .. 1 1 / 1 - Ii.1 4 N , url 1 f'r 1"1.Â£,4 : - <4 1 - -1 . . 2-1 1 11 H....11 1 ! , r ,\1 Iii. 2 6 ' Â· :1 4TmliMAI+tfAffri <:114(,~HUT/ iIi - 11'; 1 111 !,il .. r t - lib 1 .1.... ?.. ~-11- ----- -T..1 1.- ... . Jash',11\.i'!4 1 apE r "1. C; dz. ..2, 1 . 1,41 nlirtÂ·-14 ' 19-Â· - iC , 1 â‚¬9,9, ACE . 11 -tit'.~ .f/Uil-Fi-ilillitlilidP. . --1.., -'Â· 4 - 4 f -Mu~-1-ri L-: i-11-1 ' I r t-I !.1...T 1~UPT I-~ 1-2Â·. ' ' Men_hu ' ' 0 â€¢ U 9-2 L ' . L__ L tl It ' 0 for t.Â·L'.1-' .- L -r =6-----=2.2.611-42.irÂ·f~---,1-2:~Wil fie-i-~111_31 S 29 :7' ' JIT---~lhfi~ : -z 11@1 I'qu / 4, ry & , 1., .Uku '" 1 tiu.ov~k A-- 3-3111 .k @d U 0 1 1 1!. -litz./ .: .- r lili:1 J. - 1 H 1 12.,1 HI i! '' ' I li ' 4 311 4 1: 1 - i.-1 -.11 Â£ ii ''. 1 1 11 -J -*449 111!11 0 1 Â· l, 4 1-*__-.Ed.LL- 6--- 11 5 .Â·J Â· 14 /T ~160 14 LÂ¢*c E --=llc 1 ' t i1 --in- - I. =--- IN/Â¥*/6- 111 .11 + r - 11 for l'r /1," -4-21-ZIU 1 5 e. c 'T I o r-0 a T a . 3 1- a Â« A T I ' M or * C t. A (\ A , m. 1-0- 80 V G. 0. a,2 9 4 ha 1- 5- 0( He. 1 MAT 14.- 1.-'. " ....rEÂ·J 1 ./.i Â· Â· ..Â· Â·f" Li. , , 7 U . 4, E /9/. P 4 e 6 f~' ' r , 1 11 !1 1 , r 1 . . 4 Â¢ 0 .. -- 1 -4 1 . 1- f --u - - FFET---W--3 - - TI- -- ~~-7'-~ i _---11.f---- 11- -7.-- Er-----U---11 ---7- UT 37* mIN'[TE---7 11-r-- - -- 11 -- -7--lit --- lf ----17-----~ tr------IT---U--U f ' -III 1 1 lift 0 1 11141 O. -' -- C :~ I ' ~ ' ' ' ' P 1 4 1 + . ~ . 4 11 I -* - *.- --d- - lF ' 1 -TO:041.12'.4 , Â£4 1 4 . . 11 ,- Â·Â·fidi tfti~Elliti'.4/bi?31, u L.' r~r;nt:r :tâ€ži MY# i-47- 1 - 1 !,1 11 . 1 *â€ž-4,==â€ž1:==+# -, . m=T '1 -----i -- 1 1 1,1 1 1 .iJTE--~417,1:Fifru.D #- ,,,~ Aâ€žu==_'~;~iLâ€ž-ti~ .Â·, i i Thwliflit:93 At t..... . . . -7 r,-p 1,4 1 , r91 1 1 1 0 1 6 r . i r.'94611â€¢râ€¢ -4-:. . f/f 1 B ' -- i \ , -1 I k'. *V I 177'Ty-'--'---1 1,14 . 1 Â· , ---- Â·Â·--m== n---r-Â·Â·--Â¥-â€¢,=.=w= *Â·---------:-=--or,-Â·4-Â·~==Â·r:-Â·Â· ~~=-Â·M -- ---Â·4 r'Tr--1 '1:Â»11'/ 4:.'.,- 13 y " ' â€¢ - ~--I...7/ I '. ~ 4 1 1Â· F: -. r .9 ., 1 1r .i 11 : -0]u ujult- Got v,--P. --'. 1090-03-1]90Â¢ . . 11 -1 ': 6/1UL . 1 . -. t. - - k 1 1 . . 1 . . 1 '. Â·.iiT.'l'. ...4Â·' 11 3 .... - ---. , 1,1 1 M Â· , - Â·Â·Â· 11 1 .. ,I 11 41â€¢ - 1 L .1 1 1, 1 . ' 1 1 ' 1 1, i h.4 . . -- 77 ..... 1 ri-'. . 4 11 t . F-1 . Ii . '1 ' . P . I 'll h . . Â· 1 1 I. 11 1 1 . 1 1 -f '~ 1 Â· f ..... . Â· ~ Â· . -7 - r-1 L L TÂ·Â· _ r---1 1 - 1 . 1 1 0 u I Â· . , 4 6 o. d L zi A 5 23 6 0 1 â€ž; kU' ..2. .1 1 0'4: Ph-'7r~ -7. -- Â· ES- ' L. f. v' 8 1- 1 0 9-1 - , 1/4- r = j '.... 1 , . .. ' 0 0 .. .. ..