HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1365 Mayflower Ct.A088-98
;-.,,-,
1'"""-"
~
DESIGN: REVIEW APl'EALS COMMISSION
.~
November 5,1998
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.......................................................................................................................................1
HANNAN - 601 SOUTH ORIGINAL........................................................................................................................1
GALAMBOS - 1365 MAYFLOWER COURT ...,..............................................,......................................................3
FI.YNN - 1203 EAST HOPKINS................................................................................................................................3
6
.~
.DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION
NovemberS, 1998
Chairperson Steve Buettow called the Design Review Appeals Commission
meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with members Bob Blaich, Mary Hirsch, Gilbert
Sanchez, Roger Moyer and Tim Mooney present.
Staff members present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Chris Bendon
and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
Sworn in: John Wheeler, John Galambos and Jack Palomino
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Gilbert Sanchez recused himself from 1365 Mayflower Court.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HANNAN - 601 SOUTH ORIGINAL
David Hoefer stated the affidavit of notice was provided to meet the jurisdictional
requirements. Chris Bendon, staff, provided a photo board of the property for re-
development for Kenneth Hannan. There were 2 requests for waivers of
residential design standards: <D Volume standard for windows in the 9' -12' zone
and @ Garage setback, which was a 10' setback on a 3,000 square foot lot..
Bendon said the applicant would like to reduce the porch by 2' (which was where
the 10' was measured from), reducing the garage setback to 8' .
Bendon stated the criteria for a variance were: a) better addresses the goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; b) better addresses the problem a given standard
or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related
to unusual site specific constraints. Staff did not find the criteria had been met
for the either the window or the garage setback variance requests and
recommended denial of both.
Hoefer noted the proposed Resolution #98-09. John Wheeler was sworn in by the
Deputy City Clerk. Wheeler stated there were 2 items on the design that required
a variance from the residential design standards. He noted the single family parcel
was located in the midst of multi-story, multi-family lodges or larger buildings.
He said the window was no higher than it needed to be, it was not out of scale with
the neighborhood and faced a private alley. Wheeler stated the street facade
maintained the guidelines and provided. photos of similar windows in the
1
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION
~.
November 5,1998
neighborhood. He said there were extenuating circumstances that the board could
see fit in granting these variances.
Bob Blaich asked why was the portico to be made smaller. Wheeler replied it was
a detail more appropriately set into the wall as opposed to projecting out. He said
the 3000 sq. site was constrained with the 2400 sf building on it; it had to be to the
maximum build out. Bendon agreed with the patio structure being too long, but
the garage with a bathroom was long.
Mary Hirsch noted there was a building permit issued on an acceptable design; she
asked the change. Wheeler answered because there were times that a design could
come before a board because it wasn't quite what they had in mind, it stated it the
review that the glass could be changed for this design.
Steve Buettow asked what on the portico was to be changed. Wheeler stated the
18" projection would be cut-off. Blaich stated the requests were not unreasonable,
since they were not on the face of the porch or making it shorter had any effect.
He said the design was an asset to the neighborhood. Blaich said the site specific
criteria would apply.
Gilbert Sanchez agreed with Bob on the site specific and created a more animated
building. He supported the request. Roger Moyer concurred on the window
issues but held firm with staff for denial on the garage.
No public comments.
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved the Design Review Appeals Committee
approve the requested variance ofthe residential design standard for
volume, the window, for the Hannan residence at 601 South Original,
pursuant to criteria "c". Gilbert Sanchez second. Roll call vote:
Moyer, yes; Hirsch yes; Sanchez, yes; Blaich yes; Buettow yes.
MOTION APPROVED 5-0. .
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the request for the variance
of the residential design standards for a garage setback for the Hannan
residence at 601 South Original, pursuant to criteria "c". Gilbert
Sanchez second. Roll call vote: Moyer, no; Hirsch no; Sanchez, yes;
Blaich yes; Buettow, yes. MOTION APPROVED 3-2.
2
~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION
November 5,1998
PUBLIC HEARING:
GALAMBOS - 1365 MAYFLOWER COURT
Gilbert Sanchez stepped down. John Galambos was sworn in by the Deputy City
Clerk, Jackie Lothian. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the affidavit
of notice was received and met the jurisdictional requirements of this board.
Chris Bendon, staff, stated the windows were not representative of windows the
standard meant toprec1ude. He said the windows met criteria b.) more effectively
address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. John
Galambos stated that he represented the owner Mark Thee. He said the gable on
the south elevation had a sloping roof which blocked the view of Aspen Mountain;
the proposal had two windows which would not only break up the facade but
added to the over-all character of the building and also allowed views of the
mountain. He explained the setback was 57' from the end of the pavement into
this cull-d-sac.
No public comments.
MOTION: Mary Hirsch moved to approve the proposed variance from
Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards
of a single.family residence at 1365 Mayflower Court, Aspen, for a pair
of windows on the south elevation and the east elevation (exhibit A)
based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses
the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to.
Roger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Bob Blaich, yes; Roger Moyer,
yes; Tim Mooney, yes; Steve Buettow, yes; Mary Hirsch, yes.
APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FLYNN -1203 EAST HOPKINS
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record the affidavit of notice
was provided and Design Revie\V Appeal Committee had jurisdiction to proceed.
He noted this was Mitch Haas' case which would be presented by Chris Bendon
tonight. Jack Palomino, Ted Guy Architects, was sworn in by the deputy City
Clerk, Jackie Lothian.
No public comments.
3
,
r--.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION
~.
November 5,1998
Bendon explained this was a re-development of an existing house on the comer of
East Hopkins and Park. He said the applicant requested variances from two
standards: <D volume standard forwindows.in the 9'-12' zone; @subgradespace
of the front facade of the house. Bendon explained the window went from ground
floor up (20'). The standard statl,'ld thl,'l area of interior space be charged twice for
floor area calculation. Bendon noted the applicant has a building permit based
upon the windows being broken-up; this would be a change order to that permit.
Bendon said the other standard was the window well in the front of the house met
the life-safety requirement. He noted they have a building permit for one of the
window wells and again this would be a change order adding a second one.
Bendon stated that staff recomml,'lnded denial of both variances because they did
not meet the criteria.
Bob Blaich commented the project was under construction currently and asked if
the light wells were according to the original building permit or have they been
laid in, hoping for approval tonight. Palomino said the footings had been poured
for the approved lightwell and the other one, in hopes for approval. He said if it
was denied, then the second window well would be back-filled.
Tim Mooney questioned the non-conforming setback on the east side and asked if
the new part of the house could be built in the non-conformity. Hendon replied
that it could not be made more non-conforming; adding a second floor without an
existing second floor could not be done. There was discussion of the original
house encroachment into thl,'l setback, footings, over-hang and roof plane.
Bendon noted there was not a hardship issue because. the building permits had
been issued based upon the original designs. He noted the property line. Blaich
asked what the problem was with the additional light well. Bendon replied the 3
criteria for review were all that could be used. He did not believe the light well
more effectively addressed the standard or the AACP or represented a site specific
hardship. Roger Moyer noted there was no sidewalk on that side of the street.
Palomino answered engineering asked that the sidewalk be placed where ever the
driveway approach was installed. Mooney said the sidewalk would be placed on
that side only on this one block. Mooney said this driveway maybe one of the
most hazardous because of the driveway coming up at a steep angle and close lot
line to the street. Palomino noted there was a 4' drop in the road at that point.
Mooney noted the intersection of Hopkins and Park was controversial.
4
.~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION
November 5,1998
Palomino stated the city required the driveway be brought back 50' from the
intersection, which was done. He said there was a request for grading to be no
more than 30" below the street grade elevation, which was complied with. He said
they were required to maintain a 900 angle for the view plane, so someone backing
out of the driveway was able to see approaching cars.
Moyer commented on a preferred placement of light wells that was determined by
HPC with a terraced landscape plan. He asked what could be done about light
wells that looked like these which went against ordinance 30. Moyer requested a
plan for the light wells subject to approval by staff. Julie Ann Woods stated when
ordinance 30 was reviewed, this was not anticipated. Buettow asked ifthe light
wells would be required to have guard rails or grates. Moyer added or terraced.
There was discussion ofthe design of the light wells with conditions subject to
staff approval which continued to include guard rails should not be used around
the light wells but rather a grate to meet UBC requirements.
f.'
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the variance request for the
volume standard regarding the windows in the "no window zone" as
stated in the community development staff memo dated 11/5/98 for the
Flynn residence located 1203 East Hopkins. Gilbert Sanchez second.
Roll call vote: Moyer, no; Blaich, no; Hirsch, no; Sanchez, no; Buettow,
no. DENIED. 5-0.
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the subgrade variance which
must meet safety requirements of the code using a grate based upon
finding criteria "c" has been met, for the Flynn residence located 1203
East Hopkins. ~oger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Hirsch, no;
Sanchez, yes; Moyer, yes; Blaich, yes; Buettow, no. APPROVED 3-2.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30.
-'
ckieLothian, Deputy City Clerk
5
~
.1""'\
.~
NJ3.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Design Review Appeal Committee
THRU:
~.
FROM:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Mitch Haas, Planne~
1365 Mayflower Court request for a Variances from the "Volume" provision
(Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) of the Residential Design Standards
RE:
DATE:
November 5,1998
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section
26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for
review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain
a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with
the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is
found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant
may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings. to the Design Review Appeal
Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. "
Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a single-
family residence on the 1365 Mayflower Court site for compliance with the "Residential
Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staffs review, it was determined that the proposed
designs violate the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance from this
standard (which is described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural
designs as proposed. The proposed design is provided in the attached Exhibit A, where
. Sheet A-3.! highlights the noncomplying windows.
Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential
Design Standards may be granted ifthe exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with
the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given
standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related
to unusual site specific constraints.
Staff is recommending approval of a variance from the Volume provision of the
Residential Design Stand-;rds for a proposed window on the south elevation and a set of
windows on the east elevat.ion based on a finding that the proposed design more
effectively addresses the issue or problem the 'given standard or provision responds to.
APPLICANT: Galambos Architects, Inc. (John Galambos)
LOCATION: The site in question is located at 1365 Mayflower Court. Mayflower Court
intersects with the north side of Highway 82 east of downtown, between Riverside Drive and
Crystal Lake Road. The property is zoned R-15/PUD.
I
.~
,~
STAFF COMMENTS:
Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume
The proposed design contains two violations of the "Volume" standard: one on its south
elevation, and one set of two windows on its east elevation (please refer to Exhibit A, Sheet
A-3.!). The "volume" standard reads as follows:
For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building
or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to
its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of
greater than ten (lO)feet, shall be counted as two (2) squarefeetfor each one (1) square
foot offloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between
nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular. semi-
circular or non"orthogonalfenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the
level of the finished floor.
Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows
(facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet
above the finished floor height of the particular room.
Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the
choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept
the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the
entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second,
they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the
"volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the
applicant could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board.
Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant
has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are
not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the
volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the
three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memorandum).
According to the pro osed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent
of the "Volume standar "is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing
architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the
walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code
amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this
information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard
attempts to address.
Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan, if the requested variances are to be justified, it would need to be on the
grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing
2
,
.
~
~
architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the
walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets
the exact letter of the "Volume" standard.
In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e.,
topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed
noncomplying windows must be included in the design. The desire and potential to
maximize views from every possible location within a given room is not, in staff's opinion, a
constraint, and therefore, not a reason for granting an exception to the rule.
With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural
details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance. the walking
experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact
letter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on
these grounds. Neither of the proposed windows for which a "volume" variance is requested
(south and east) would have an impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street.
The east facade would not be visible from the street, and while the south elevation would be,
its noncomplying window would be set back some fifty-six (56) feet from the street and
nineteen (19) feet further from the street than the frontmost portion of the facade. The
significance of these distances is amplified since the south elevation's noncomplying
window extends a mere one (1) foot into the so-called "no window zone."
Given these considerations and staff s feeling that the noncomplying window of the south
elevation augments the overall design of t y complementing th~ ~"mrlying.
~indow groupings an orms of the street-facing elevation, staff recommends that .the
requested variance be granted on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively
addresses the issue or problem a given standard ot provision responds to than would a design
without the noncomplying windows. As currently designed, the proposed structure
effectively provides architectural details and elements that reinforce local building traditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve a variance from
Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for both the
proposed window on the south elevation and the set of windows on the east elevation as
indicated in Exhibit A to the staff memorandum dated November 5, 1998. The variance is
granted based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or
problem the given standard or provision responds to.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve a variance from Section
26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for both the proposed
window on the south elevation and the set of windows on the east elevation as indicated in
Exhibit A to the staff memorandum dated November 5, 1998. I move to grant this variance
based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem
the given standard or provision responds to."
.:b
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package
~o
~~.3
.~.
~
ASPEN/PIfKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Applications Fees
(Please Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~k'^- h'""lq"",k,j:.
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for p~A C- ~Vle..J
l~""-~ ?1~oJer u.....rt (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996)
establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining
great cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are
necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of
recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project
approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the City's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of$_4"='o which is for ~ hours of Planning staff time, and
if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of
processmg.
CITY OF ASPEN
#,~~
. ie Ann Woods
APPLICANT
I~
e>l,,(A
~ M,o..flA. st.
C,.,~"",~.,lel Co ~l0Z.~
Community Development
Acting Director
City of Aspen
-->' Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
Mailing Address:
r",
.~
p;...1" f...., M,:,/c.J.. f/"",,,c::.- - c.-i t1 "f A::-r~-
"1z.o ~ ~ ~1
0Ill0bIr Z6, 199&
To; D.IAC 1MA llt -r&
Cil:yQi ~
RE: 136S~CourIDllA.C~.~2~
1, M'lIn:"o-, 'bo;ln& 1l:I8 0_ oftlle ...,'r~'lCelDcat;:d at 1)155 1"",~ Com, ~
CaIDmdo, ~ J'oIllll"...I_bos1o '''1'''' J my i-.ns.1hc PR!l(: bI:oIIriaa of
~5"'.1!i9.. "
~,{
~ .".,
,
i:<l w.es:Z\ fI56~ ~ ".0
0\il.6 lIlU 0/.t : 'OW 3>0<.1
:to! ~ SlY.!l.! H= SOS:~~~ : WIlll~
, ".-i
,d W~60:0, 866, 8e '.00
PHlSil 6<:S LI2l\? iN! Si3\'H:Jm ::l1:\rh r.01:;l f'j'l't'l '11!1 a6/SL-i;l<>;-IilL
0SL6 v0L 0L6 : 'ON 3NOHd JNI SlJ3iIHJ~~ SoaW~l~~ WO~~
FROM : GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC~. PHONE NO. : 970 704 9750
~ Oct. 26 1998 12:26PM Pi
___ - --"-1
'('-- I
I
:;1Z
)r!
..t.,
~i
t:,('t
..."P
1'{
")tV
.
~fl
c.~
~~
!~
,
c:
Ii\.
..::!J" -:-;
..a_oft
::i:'
.,.
I
I
i
-"
~
i
't
t'
III
~.~-.....
~ ~1'
:t ~~l;.~
.:. rt~
-a. ~S
~~~
.1f/Z"
~
(fJ
U)E-<
Ou
~~~
~~.,
~l:l::
""
.
;l
,
n'
.~
~ ~'
r
, I
i
~ ~ ~
n; ~ ~
~ .. n
.r~iiUl..
!" ~ a; .
~ 5 ~ ~ I'
~ ~'J ~
",,,,~,-.._-,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,~:,.,.".......
I~E
~~!
~If
JT9l0 0::> 'N:;J:dSV '.tHao::> H:ilAl01..JUW 90CI
NOUV AON:3:M H:3:.M.01.iIA VW
.. -..,.,-..-.-.."..,,.,,..,,,.- .,...,...................
~
.
"
,
I {"I!)
,
I
T .. ~~__ r ____. ____0:011! Cf
., i ' --'>I'i'."'- ....--,.. .-.-----.....T----.-.~-- .... . ,. . ..;. ""1
, I.
I ! ~i i !
I]i~;(!) ~,,~,~,;- "r 1 i~1:m
110"" ~c......_ 11 ~" '1
<
.
~
... - ~ ...,~L -~..-...+--:IrW ~, IIII
,\:V ...'" .~/l r t ',1 "'.,' t i
- '- ~ __._ ~ - u____ j P _ n____< ' I ! I
-" -":;oon":-- ..-- @ ....:.5:' ~ i" I
:(.tiJ @ , ..
~= .." ......WF .. "-~. r - ,@)
=. I ._\ J~~rc@ V!!;~>lL@j
... ..... .......... /~. Il...
!~ . i~ $ i~~..i. ,., ~;,: i, ~ . ~!" : f- .:~ ~
il 8 i. ~ ~~. !' h ~: : >~ ~: !.. ~ .:l
,.. ~:::::!~~::. ~ ~ u..
I " ,,'" .... -. -
:i :: <( -
", - I" '!l' "t:".-
:-J H..-.-' .L!
. . ."--"-'" --@ ~ i
()I
(t)
,
r--
0)
. ._--.--0)
-- - ... .. ....(%)
0)
"
~
,.-
~~
~
@ i(...1l l
~~:: .~
III ....,. ..... P
I ....... .. 1II
. .I ... ~j .. ~~
~f'l i@,@ ~
· @~~~~1
lll-! j;'
~ .~.; ~~ ~.~).,_.J....'.
\:J~r:Fl1 G; -:~"C/
~. ,,..."
-'~-'I-- '~'-ll=" -t) . .. -~.. --
, ~" ~ ~7
, I
I ~ :
c,L cl! i' (~____m H =:=.:~~:,;---
"
~
(~)
I
~-lln+tr-
"''')
Q,
';!/
j;'
18
.---
.' ~ ~
1-;;'
~
I;!
~
(-)
.. ".......... - - -8
r--
· Hi I'
~ . ~.
~ ~ ~.
! ~ nfi I
ij H~ ~
II i III1
u i ~~ II
"~~ ~ ~II r
" Ii b 1.1 ~i
~ ~II~ ~1.lIt
~ ,~ I~I~ If
~ Ih'I~I;1
~ d doll! J
,^[jJ
& ot.;
1Il~1.)
,~.'-~ ~~(?t
'- ~~
-- c,~ ,
",
'-"<-'",~"'c,'.Y""":""t='I"""'"
~
'",..........."". '''-'''''''~-,.",.."""""",,..,,.:,.,,._-,,,,,,,,.,.~-
I I
i I
II~
~J
~~i'
~
fUHO 0:> 'N:;ldSV '.urno:) HUO'M,tVN 9gr.r
~I ~! I
p!~ ; Iii"
,!II Si ~ ~
~ E ~.l;
~ ... Ii
~ ~ ~
NOJ,J,V AON3H>>3M01,{AVW
',,,_, .._'--.....,.,~."""""""'"""'~="'.."..-,..",..,..,.."'".~.,..,....r"'_..'-~....,,'
c~:) (oJ)
I. ,I
!'. if:';:; it
I I
,
I
,
"
"
"
"
. .....ll_".,..,~_______ "..x.. /.
.----:-::1 r:=:-:"..----..-::::=:::...:.,___ ..__,_ ._______".~,,_,_
I I I
, J' i
I ! '
, I I
I I ,
0']:=_' 'r- '--r - -
.. ~ .~L~_~_ ~_ . ... ..... i uu ~I :
cL 0',9 (1) ,-,,~...___.__.;%t.~,;~__._____~_-.,_ ~ "',S .~)
~,
C~ .,"-",
.
S-
'0
~
k'1t}
,
I
,
,,-,
,
e
~
w
,!.
'0
... '
; I
i1~,..
<$>-1'
0~)
~
'"
~
(}
r',
;ill ~
~ ~ I~ ~
~ g si I
i~ H~ ~
II IIIII
!I ~ l~ i I
, ii ~ d~ II.
i II U ,.; U
~ ;! II II,.! i~
g Ih~ i~ I If
il~ d d .u ! J
~.," '. ..(t_uu__.;+.Cf
. ""'""'u....-.;!.r-.....'" .,k,." r 1""'1
~h I 'l' I' I
. iM ! ~11li ~
[f[ ~'; i I
.n~ nl_M ~.0
! i I
!' i
I{ ~~ ~ i il! (i) II ....~ II : ~
/ ~1I1 111! i!B :
~@\j[_~@~trr-"'~'-j ~ ',,~--@
. ... ........). ..... [[ -'11 ~~~I ' . -
..:. I(lt~ H . ~s m_.cmJ__.~~___...,. -,. "_...',.,-..--"... ~<ID
.'._-,-' f. r i i! In
@ .-- l~t · ! Ii
: : ii
i i ~~ ii ~ ~ -4 '
"line ~ II !I lill I, ~ ;
Ii
,
I
,
I
, i
!@:I
'..1
@t
@ll
I
@
~)
/ii/I
.,-@
~
'"
~
~i
~
-1
lL
III
o
~
IL
~
~
~~
<{-
\!l~
~i
t
~
CIlCll
oG
IJ:lI"lU
::!lE-<Z
::553-
...:U
'-'~
...:
~
,-...
,~
,"-'
<. ~
II ~
i.~ ~
!n !
t. ~
tU ~ I
i@~ II
ti t 2
tlJ IIp ~
(; ~~< j g
Z h" ill;
Z !.~ ~ ~
:5 .~i ~ ~J
~ nn ~ I;
~
!I~
~.:
ue
!
'..
~''i .":,., E~' ~,
~. ""''''':''::'';''''" ..:;:,..,.....
I ~ J ' <,,',..,,:;'. ,
r I. l~ ~~ ~ .... .'"i><,'.:~ '
,,/ .../ : .:'--.:,,,, -~:, ":::"<.::\~~~/ .
~," i,' -...---....ir. .1':.' - ~ ~ ,... . ,.~- -~
~.~ ,~~ ';";'l~. "'-~./ ~
" u U U' ,I J rH." " ",':
~ . ~'"'' ~ '. '-", I
r =..oii ~ ~ '.)-, ---- ---.._- - i- S /
90~ ,';~ :ni i.l ~J .;~~~~. ~tl :r; ~;,,"! ..~&;..:.;'=~iil"'-\
, .. '~'; -<= =., .:~~~~ t;" ;,~ \ .. ~ (' ,I 'it \
\: "" "I: , ~';~/w i i n ii .. \
<0; :-:.;j I'. .-, ....='--,..,"--_.'..~::rf~ "'t.:.,~-: \../ /~ ~ i i u': ,
?I,\!~ 'I" 'Iii,,,.. .,' .......--. ':'~.~ ~'" lL
. '-,; \ ,-,,;, .j. r." ..J d ~ ~ .14 ',. .".".,' ~; ii
\/ .';) 11'''''',' '! . IS! SI ~,'~~, j) \, ) \i
, 1 I ,. lo ,'" ...;'"''
~ ".. I!... ",/ \/ ,'(~.~;" :o~' -G',....., , tl) \~
6 '" //" \ _ <:'l\ - \ '"
q ~/-" \.. 0_ "
\, \ \\).
" ,,'j....'-.q-; 0-
o ;,........, \ 0'. -'
. ...'" \I), _, \
._,.-"'- .J:::J', 9. " \
g.. \ '.
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
\
\
TI 919 OJ' N:i1dSV 'J.lIfiOJ 1I:i1M.01dA VW gge I
H~
.
ti
...
r
NOI.L V AON3H H3.M.Ol.!1A VW
,... C\t
, 0
'"'"....':"
-<., "
o\<~, ,
,.......~ '"
<S'o I
/1
;'
'"
....9/
, .
~
t~1 ~t~1
fa~; M;
~~~. ~~~.
nn un
'". J~' , L
~':I _. t~.~: ':." ", I
a
p
~
I!
211I
"0
/
j
.$'0
:/'........,
-\- "
'- <5:)', 0'.
-' -'
<- G', "
" " -, "
0',
c.,
,
,
"
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
\
= ~
~ ~ I
~ ~..!@
hi ~ H -
OJ I:! S ~
~ ~
OJ il
/
/
7"-'-'--'-/'
(J~
z
.q
-l;;
D...;g
ill .,
I-~
\J'lil
-,~
u ~"-j
I""""-
0"
~
~
r
em"~
~
~
0)-
~
;:;
()"
.""
. , ~ ~j ~
~ ~ n t
~ IIi i
~ . m
ilj I~ ~
III !III
!i; I~ I.~
i~ ~ till
g I~ Ii J.I e!
~ d Ii tI," ! IJ
81i ~; Ii ~ t,
it 31 !ulU
,~W
UJ Eo'
Ou
~..~u
....z
~, '
u
(~ ':';1
(<(')
I
~
1T9TO OJ 'N:ildSV '.Lano;) H:JAl.01d,WN 99&1
'I!
~~
I~<
~
NOUN AON3H tl3M,01L~AVW
~
'-
r
-"-----.,..,..-~..""'.,..,......,..,.,...,,. ,.-, +-... .......-,..."".,, ,.'~"""-"'-.
(m')
I"
I
I
,
I
-I
I
c-~
~
~d
~!I
)
E~~=:3
I
!
i
,
I
I
,
"
~.
......-
"
~
~~
~
"\,
",
"'",
I
.
.
I
I
II I
.. ill Ii
~ ~ I:
I . il! j
:r~ - 0
Hii P ,
'" ~ a ~
~ ~ ~.~
II '" l:
~, tlJ ;;
~
;
~
..~.. t ~?S ~r
'~--~ii~""~ ..,-".'....._--'._".-,- r" -.-----..<":iTrjj:F----- .~..NI.~s'.'l
, II ,
! ;i~ i !
I il !
+~':~-.=----~' ,~-.-ur,'-=-'~--..~~-, ~
., ,; I
II ,
....-~, "...."~ i i !
I~I ,
~~I I'
/
//t- J~ --
"" ~/ ./ r ' -4
,,/ f,. ~_ ' . ----q}
--I . t - 1
I / " lID
5itHlll} / _., "..,." r-_~_
A/ .. _-, @ ,r I~
~ t ~ -I I ,~
/
~ i litl~i i
~ ii' ~ ~ii i
I ~ I J ..J1iJ'l I
(~; "J;'.r-~-:::- ' :=-=:"--:~.~,; ---:::=::::=-~ ~fi
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
ki~}
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
! ~ '
I ~
~ I
i.A"'''''J(
'\1V !'Ii
{~-qlrll
:'11
Iii
I!
~
~
..--@
~
...0
\ .
@jB
z
<(
-1
0-
~
()
-l
II-
-l
2
()~
~...
\l)~
~~
~..,......",.,.... [fJ ~ --.."._--.._."..'....-".......~~ ,.,...........""",.,. . "
: ~ II I ill ~
[f) E-' ~
~ Ou ~If TT9IO 0;) 'N3dSV ' .Lano;) aU01,um 9gel f~ ~~il
lJ:l~u
~~~ ~ ~ ~~Ifs ~
~~ NOU,V AONaH HaM.Ol.!!-^. VW j ~ I I ~ I ~ ~
c;P:: 0 :l ~I
.~ ~
- ,~.. ~ ...
~
(1)
,,-
(0)
(N)
i
~--i:n
~if,...
IX
i,JL
()-----
r..,
~ ~ ~i ~
~ ~ ~~ t
i Hi I
i~ i I~ ~
1IIIIil
Mi ~ I~ d
~~ ~ is I
~~ ~ I i.
J~ Ii 1.1 ~i
~ d UlliPJ
<>: Ih~hU II
~ dd~h~h
(4:) (m)
r Ii I
I 3; IV
lOll}
~I:'
I LLe
O<J
I rid
\,
I
,
I (:Ji)
I
Cr,' ~ '.~ ~,~ C?
, ~~~ ~~f1f l I
I @l!iO~ a~~ 'I'
: ~~~~ ~~~ !'
! sh1 ~~ I I ,
I 'i I
J-'_I '
+-1-,- ---
'i I
I,
: I
I ,
1'1
I,
--- --
---0
__c~
?.;If]
~ :f~
<( >-0..
m ~"'J
!}i~ lH~~-
@~ ~~~
~ J
lh ~
" '
~fli!
000
aoo
~~~
d
-'
;'S
UJ-n
:;.:z
@~
~~
~
@
---<ID
-4D-
---<J}
---(0
'>L
I,,)
LU
D
I
,
I
,
-r--
,
I
,
I
,
-k
(I~
I
,
I
i --.------- --.---8
,
I
,
I
,
I
0L)
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
(4:)
"
I-
I
,
I
(rn)
I
,
I
,
I
,
~
(j;
z
<(
--l~
0..._
~
t~
~~
~
JT9Y9 03 'N3dSV '.LlIfl03 1I3M.01dAVJ'/ ggey
CI.lCl.l
at;
Q:lP<:lu
;:;:E-oz
.::is::....
<u
00::
<
!
II~
~8g
~~
I
&
~ '
..
Ii .
...
H
too::I Itl :;:
~ ~ ~ f
la~H!~~
g ;II l~ .c
!l; !li s.s?
I! ~ l::
~ '" ;;
NOUVAON3H H3.M:01.fAVW:
,., ,., Ub
!~ I "'I I , ~i ~r g
d ~" ~ ;,~
"'. I ~ d '" -a
~ ~ ~ g if ~
I t I~ ~ I It 3-
, I d I I @l 'i , ~
~ . . ~ ;E
0
~
CZ) c:9
a
~
II
I
,-...
@
~".
-
-
8
1"\
(
~ 1'11111
J ~., ~ I I !!t ~ GJ
~ ; ~ ~i 'i ~. H ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ II ~~ ~ ~ =
~~ ~ dl;~~
~ a ~
.I"S
".,
.t.~
,-...
,
Zr
2j
~
~ @...
w
:c
I-
:::.
o ~
Ul ~ @ .'. ... ___._.
:s::"
~~
".
".,
"'~~
~ ';'J!!
iix...;
"'""'~
~ ~
J!! 0;
9 ~ ~ I
I ,
ff... " --- ......- -'- ._...~-~-- - _ _ .___....
W~ j I
f . I
II ! . .18
~
.~
EEi1
.~
[Em
/8Ibt/ '!{!jl
Q
(0)-----
- Q
IWJ
B'kct#ill .-
e~ _-.
~...
=
@--
.~"--, .
- .-,.--
I
.' ~
'"
" ~
'"
i
Q
I
r
Zr
OJ
I-
~
W
....J
W
I-
Ul
<( ~
W~
:S::"
W;J.
Z:Jl
N
UJf./)
ot>
~ ~ IIl~U
V ----~ ~5~'
t~~
,.-....
o
@
~
@--
0---.
r",
~
~
li~
~8~
~r
I
.,...._.._~_.. _.-..-.._._...,.._.,.,._"'.,.....,".'~,..,
~I ! ~
l~ ~.~~
. lil,'l:dll ~"
~'il ~ ~~ ~
S ~ ~.~
~ l:l ~
Tl9 HI 0:) 'N3'dSI' '.LlIIIO:J 1IaM.01o!1A\'J'i: 99&J
~
~
"
~
I
NOI.LVAON3H ml.M.OrVIAVW
--""-~-'"" '.
p.:~
~ U I
i ~
~ l I I
I ; I
b
~ ~ .
,. ~ ..,,~ -_.....~
n.-
.....-
- ..
-
.
_c.
" -
P
I I
, i
11
/~IlPI'...-J~I,.il n-.:1~\:"f,-!, J'--l..._:~~,_
~l It"tJI-
'! I I I
! II il. ,
II[ , ,,/
i ill I':
I.: ':1''--['':0::'
III 'J---
tw \='i
r
I
rn
[I::nJ
Zf
~i
~
UJ
~
~i
~ ~ ~
I
~
-I
c-: ,'I
J-'
n ~~
~~ ~~
'E ~
I! I ~ I
~; I
~ ~
..~--- J-~
In ~~
2 01>/ d~
~ ~ :?:
it I ~ ~
I I .
~
'", Ht-
'~I~
)1 :
" '" I
i
d
II
II
I
L .'
I~-
(l;)'
I",
,
@
-=
'--~'.
- -
.-- --..
'E
~~ ~i
~~ ~~
~l ~
...
i~
'"
.... "~--p:J ..- -----/I-,
(0)- '... C-' ..' .'
@------,.
I
j
191
@- . - .,-,.. -- --,-- .. ~"._- - _. .. -..-
5f
I-
~
....J
UJ
In
~i
s::~
~~
N
.