Loading...
HPB 08-15-07 • MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH REGULAR MEETING MEETING DATE: August 15, 2007 LOCATION: City Commission Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Snider, Toni Del Fiandra, Roger Cope, JoAnn Peart, John Miller, Linda Lake STAFF PRESENT: Amy Alvarez, Terrill Barton, and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman John Miller called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. Chairman Miller read the City of Delray Beach's procedures for Quasi-Judicial Hearing for all the items on the Agenda. II. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Ex parte Communication. Mr. Snider advised he received phone calls from members of the public. Mr. Cope attended workshops, received e-mails, and phone calls Mr. Peart spoke to Mr. Chuck Key and received an e-mail from Matt Grabham. Ms. DelFiandra received an e-mail but did not open it. Ms. Lake received phone calls, e-mails and attended workshops. Chairman Miller received e-mails from Mr. Chuck Key. A. Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for City initiated amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which intend to clarify the current regulations, provide parameters, and define compatible development within the historic districts. The amendments are primarily based on recommendations provided by REG Architects, the consultants hired during the moratorium to find resolutions to the recent concerns over the level and type of development affecting historic preservation efforts within all five (5) of the City's historic districts. Ms. Alvarez entered the file into the record and presented the proposal for a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding City-initiated amendments to the LDRs that resulted from a comprehensive review of the existing regulations, as they relate to the City's five (5) historic districts as stated in the Staff Report. Staff recommends approval of this item. • Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 Chairman Miller stated this is not a Quasi Judicial item and therefore public comments are not required. He did, however, open the floor if anyone wanted to speak. Public Comments Ms. Carolyn Patton, property owner at 16 Marine Way stated she supported the LDRs and that they should go forward. She thanked Mr. Hernandez for all his work but that a critical change needed to be made. She continued that change would be in Section 4.5.1 E (2) (c), which is a text change (survey area). Her comments are summarized below: ■ That as the ordinance currently exists, it compares new construction to the historic buildings within the district in an attempt to support the districts; ■ That the survey area has grown (since the last time it was looked at) to include both the contributing and non contributing structures in the eleven (11) house survey. ■ That will compromise Historic Districts going forward; ■ That 70% lot coverage houses will be taken into effect which would not be fair in the Historic District; ■ That she has spoken to Staff and that "both the contributing and non contributing structures" language should be removed, and leave it as "contributing structures" only; and ■ That the additional changes should be made throughout the matrix as well. Ms. Claudia Willis, 60 Marine Way was confused by Section 2.2.6 in that she wasn't sure about the variance process (4.5.1) and what this process would do regarding following procedure. Mr. Matt Grabham, 350 SE 7th Avenue, stated the survey area has always been contributing and non contributing buildings. His comments are summarized below: • That they are supposed to be clarifying the ordinance and that the definition of what is historic, is confusing; • That he e-mailed most and offered the States' definition which was presented for the record; • That the City's definition does not state the same; • That a letter was written and read from Randal Scott Architects stating that the comments of some architects practicing in Delray Beach have ignored and not addressed some points, summarizing the guidelines are too restricted; ■ That a copy has been submitted for the record. Ms. Aleida Riley, 65 Palm Square, advised that the Board needs the privilege to have engineers look at buildings that have to be demolished. Her understanding is that when a building is proposed for demolition, an engineer has to deem it unsafe, yet in West Palm Beach they have to have the construction department state in strong language that it is a public hazard, for it to be considered for demolition. Mr. Jerry Barding, 711 SE 3rd Street, stated the properties along the Intercostal have significant value to it and to restrict how a demolished home could be rebuilt would create a hardship. He continued that the newer homes in the area have more significant value than his own home, and that is unjust. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 Ms. Barton confirmed that the resident could rebuild what was there before (if for instance a non conforming structure is damaged by a hurricane), although you couldn't build something new next to it by the new standards. Mr. Barding clarified that if someone wanted to buy his house, tear down the property and build something new in the same footprint, it would not be possible. Ms. Barton agreed. It was agreed that the land is the value, not the house. Mr. Francisco Perez-Azua, Perez Architects, comments can be summarized below: ■ That he was present a the meeting regarding feedback on the guidelines; • That most (architects) had a problem with the survey area; • That someone insists that the survey area must remain in the LDR change; • That it has been over a year that the survey area has been in discussion; • That he previously stated this creates for inequality between properties and the respective owners rights; ■ That compatibility means co-existence not size; and • That a professional has to hired to survey surrounding properties to determine what can be changed at the site in question. Ms. Shannon Dawson, 527 N. Swinton Avenue, comments are summarized below: ■ That she was at all the meetings and there are some good ideas in the guideline book that Rick proposed, but the LDRs are the issue; ■ That the attempt at a previous meeting was to clarify the LDR, not to re-write them; ■ That the intent of Historic preservation is lost and it is more about size and keeping things the same in the name of compatibility; ■ It is not easy to understand what is trying to be stated; and • That a relatively easy ordinance has been traded for complicated code. Ms. Karen Goranson, 232 Dixie Boulevard, stated she bought the "eyesore" on the block years ago which she improved upon over the years based on the city guidelines as they evolved. She stated she is confused by the term "Historic Preservation", in that she believes it means keeping the property preserved and keeping it in good shape to enable it to appreciate and be retained. Ms. Goranson continued that demolishing what exists and rebuilding is not Historic Preservation. She added that watching her neighborhood change through the years, is contributing to losing the integrity of what the historic district was. Ms. Goranson stated she is in favor of guidelines but hearing what she is hearing tonight is distressing, especially since she has followed the rules for 26 years. Ms. Goranson concluded that she doesn't understand how new ideas, whether it be for financial gain, or because of a personal taste, relates to historic preservation. Rebuttal • Mr. Gonzalez stated the study is almost a year old; • That there was a follow up meeting with Staff to clarify the issues; and • That there are ways to work around some of the comments stated by Mr. Grabham. Ms. Barton addressed the comments by Ms. Willis' question pertaining to 2.2.6 (D) (4). She 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 advised that was changed pursuant to a recent lawsuit that came out of Tampa where there were historical preservation guidelines and a developer wanted to build a fifty (50) story condominium building. The courts stated that since there was no explicit language in the ordinance that provided for the historic preservation guidelines, they could trump the requirements to the LDR regarding zoning, and build to the limitations of that zoning district. In essence, Ms. Barton added that the Board could apply lesser limitations (stricter standards), than what is provided in the code, but that it could not be arbitrary regarding what our LDR zoning categories provide for, in reference to compatibility. Board Discussion The Board's comments are summarized below: • That if the guidelines are such to maintain the integrity of the historic district, there is support (from Ms. Goranson); ■ They questioned if there is an alternative to the survey area method; • That the properties within the three hundred feet (300') radius are within the historic district; • That there are differences to the contributing and non contributing areas as to the past and present; ■ That the pieces independently are inconclusive and that it is a modern compromise; ■ That it is specified as to where the survey area is; • Whether there is an official to review the demolition and will certify the demolition; ■ That the language on page five (5) is acceptable; • What the Type A and historic structure reports look like; • What is the basic difference between Type A versus Type B; • In reply by staff it requires looking at the type of zoning, if it is a residential structure by definition, and all proposal in the (RO) Residential Office District, it would be Type A; • If it is individually designated, or if additions are being built to contributing or non- contributing that do not fit into Type A, then it would be Type B; • If it is under the 25% change of the exterior and it is in the back, you do not have to concern yourself with the guideline; • The radius determination would need to be requested and it is inexpensive to obtain; ■ That the orientation clause regarding a garage is conflicting, but it is clarified that if they do not have a garage, there would be a problem. There would have to be a consistency with the majority of properties. Also in any and all cases, you want to make sure it is to the side or there is an alley from the rear. The holding capacity would be two vehicles; • Ms. Barton added the language needs to be either"shall" or"may"; • That avoiding the commercial parking lot look is part of the guideline; there is flexibility; • That if the second story exceeds more than 50% of the first story, it is a two story structure; • That the roof lines are all very eclectic and as long as the street is complemented it would be suitable, but mixing of architectural styles should not be mixed together on the same property; • That the lesser of the four (4) options part, is not suitable to Mr. Miller (pages 23-24 and 30) but all other points are agreeable; • That variances can still be allowed so as not to restrict development; • That the restriction of the survey area is being compared to contributing and non- contributing structures alike; • That the existing definition is different from the definition in March; • That the LDRs are all inclusive; 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 • Question about Mr. Barton's house and whether a larger structure can be built on the Intercoastal and whether he has been informed of what is allowed (approximately six or seven thousand square feet (6K or 7K)feet. • That the survey area is the most important component of the report, as a domino effect could occur in terms of building larger houses in the area; • That they lost sight of those who appreciate the small historic district area that is trying to be preserved; • That this has been rewritten for the sake of SE 7th Avenue; • That some of the architects are part of the problem; • That everyone is supportive of the historic districts and that the set of guidelines have done a lot to preserve what exists; and • That provisions be made to review the guidelines as the process proceeds; Motion/Findings: It was moved by Mr. Cope, seconded by Ms. Peart, and approved 4 to 2 (Ms. Lake and Mr. Miller dissenting) to move approval of a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board of the amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) associated with Ordinance 68-06 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 5 NE 1st Street, Delray Beach Historical Society, Old School Square Historic District — Delray Beach Historical Society, Applicant; City of Delray Beach, Property Owner; Digby Bridges, Authorized Agent. Ex Parte Communication. Ms. Peart stated she wrote a letter in favor of the project and spoke to Mr. Bob Ganger at the Historical Society. Although Ms. Barton indicated there might be a slight voting conflict, as a result of Ms. Peart not benefiting by any financial gain, she would not have to step down. Ms. Alvarez entered the file into the record and presented the proposal for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness that incorporates a Class III site Plan modification, Landscape Plan, and design elements as stated in the Staff report. Staff recommends approval of the item subject to the conditions as stated in the Staff Report as well as an additional parking condition pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (2) (b), the parking spaces and alley shall have a combined minimum depth of 42' and a minimum width of ten feet (10') when back out parking is located on an alley. The provided depth for the five (5) spaces located along the alley is approximately thirty-eight feet (38'). Applicant Presentation Mr. Ganger President of the Historical Society stated that the City has ownership of the property and its land and therefore, the City decides what to do with their land. He furthered that the issues are minor, that young people will be touring the house museums and it is a privilege that Delray Beach can still maintain them. In addition, a little village is attempting to be created with the Hunt house. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 He said the driveway will have some sod, but that it will probably be asphalt. Deciding how to separate the cars from the people will be the issue. Mr. Ganger is in agreement with the conditions. Morning Thunder Construction is the contractor and is a specialist in restoration. They have been working with the Society for six (6) months pro bono. They are attempting to work together as quickly as possible. A grant has been awarded by the State and they will be working with the CRA. The Hunt House was a vegetable farm in the past. Public Comments: None Board Discussion: The Board's comments are summarized below: • That the entire area could be sod using as less asphalt as possible; • That Turfblock could be utilized as there is more grass than concrete; • That the City would be saving money not using concrete; • That it would have to be acceptable to the City Engineer; • That the applicant would prefer the area look rural; • That the applicant does not have the budget and is appreciative of the City in deciding to keep the environment and children in the forefront of their decisions; • That the roof is in question as to what it will become, based on budget; • That the chimney may be recreated and when doing the roof, that is the time to consider the chimney; and • That the house will be moved in early November and that two (2) trees on the property now, will have to be removed. Motion/Findings: It was moved by Ms. Lake, seconded by Mr. Cope, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class III site plan modification (2007-242-SPM- SPR-CL3), landscape plan and design elements for the property located at 5 NE 1st Street, Old School Square Historic District (Delray Beach Historical Society) by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in the Sections of the Land Development Regulations analyzed throughout the report, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 1. That the building relocation and the associated foundation building permit may be approved prior to Site Plan Certification; 2. That all other required building permits not noted above may be approved after Site Plan Certification has been received; 3. That all setbacks are noted and illustrated on the site plan; 4. That the handicap ramp is illustrated on the elevations; 5. That the handicap ramp is made of wood and this be noted on the plans; 6. That the roof material(s) is noted on the plans; 7. That all hardscape materials are noted on applicable plans; 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 8. That all Site Plan Technical Items noted below are addressed prior to site plan certification: a. Provide existing elevations on existing roadway including edge of pavement and center line. b. Provide finished floor elevation. If finished floor elevation is less than 8-inches above centerline of adjacent road a certification is required from a professional registered engineer stating that the property has adequate drainage to ensure that flooding will not occur in a 100-year storm event. LDR Section 7.1.3 (B) (2). c. Site is required to retain 5 year 1 hour storm (3.2") in addition to meeting water quality criteria (1"). Provide signed and sealed drainage calculations and indicate how storm water will be retained on site. See LDR Section 2.4.3 (D) (4) and (7). d. Clearly indicate limits of right of way and center line of the road. e. Indicate sight distances at all ingress/egress points and all intersections. Sight triangles should be indicated on landscape and engineering plans. Provide copy of the approved landscape plans. Per Section 4.6.14 of LDR's, any landscaping in the site triangle "shall provide unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 3- feet and 6-feet"this includes tree trunks. f. Provide location of existing water service on engineering plans; please indicate how building will be served. g. Provide 2-feet dedication in alley and 20' x 20' corner clip at corner of NE 1st Street and N Swinton Avenue. h. Indicate location of existing sewer service on engineering plans. A cleanout will be required on the existing sewer service at a maximum distance of 18-inches from the right-of-way line and/or easement line. i.Provide on the detail sheet City of Delray Beach Standard Detail WW 4.1, WW 5.1 or 5.2 (which ever is applicable). j.Provide a detailed description of how each of these comments has been addressed with next submittal, along with two sets of revised plans to the City of Delray Beach Engineering Department, 434 S Swinton Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33444. 9. That a two foot, six inch (2'6") right-of-way dedication along NE 1st Street is made prior to site plan certification unless otherwise required upon DSMG review; 10. That a two foot (2') right-of-way dedication along the alley is made prior to site plan certification unless otherwise required upon DSMG review; 11. That a bicycle rack is provided on site; 12. That all new parking spaces and driveway spaces provided for surrounding the property shall be either stabilized sod, brick pavers, or Turfblock; and 13. Parking shall be provided along the alleyway and shall be done in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.9 (D) (2) (b) of the LDRs, and the handicap parking spaces shall remain as is. To clarify, Ms. Pyburn stated the handicap spaces shall remain as they are. Ms. Willis questioned whether the teacher's housing which was torn down is at the same location. Mr. Gangor didn't believe so. He continued that the location has five (5) or six (6) dwellings there and that the Bradshaw House which is one of them should be saved. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS Public Comments The comments are summarized below: 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes—August 15, 2007 1. That when using the PAPA website it is fairly easy to put in square footage of a property and; 2. That wanting a second opinion from an engineer is difficult to obtain as a civilian, but perhaps the City could ensure that the second opinion is obtained. The Board's comments are summarized below: • To thank John for his Board term; • That there was no intention to discourage all architects; • That the majority of comments are directed toward not allowing the developers to do something as opposed to what is in the best interest of the community; • That the districts should be left the way they are and saved; • That the part of the LDRs do not allow for demolition as easily; • That if there is restriction of the districts, the return may be better, citing Key West as an example; and • That the restrictions may devalue the property resale price. Staff Comments Ms Alvarez asked the Board if any guide books are needed, and informed them that there is an Advisory Board workshop tomorrow night. V. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The undersigned is the Acting Secretary of the Historic Preservation Board and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for August 15, 2007 which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on September, 2008. 0.b.rbvi-e.,' ralic Denise A. Valek If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above then this means that these are not the official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 8 eb ,_ tea FOR (r j3. ct ( 4 P- 47)1freij • b y Li�`f' -q,mu L ,4_ ? /r )x- } C ___,i s& 2 , 2 o A-, 4 z, J-, / - ...------<,,, U 67 \ „ZS .-- '9 —1),r-2 7.-17'__ (2-ez2- --'° 0 , (5 g,&- G, , e_.://a,c. - __ c 4-7_ e---( 7 l— f 7 (c. Xit; 1 ' -'4414&- --r2 in 2,L: . / (il i 6/1. ,, * , (-) I it) --• r-----N-e-- ,,•- , _.e_., -1, - __,_____ „2/.2„/"-- //Le /.7` / atro4") ) C- ) L.--,771 \, ! I 1 1 . ,Z.',„_' „ 0, cfA Tlici, an_Q-0.,..,\ .r it)Z4/ 4 �� f 7 ;17 --______________6____44L- ei— `-- — 4) 0 / . -Z6 e 4 0)' -,2 4 i ( e,-Lit l ` -o , z-v N-v \ d7'2 ,471--- 9 - ii ,--c:7--___,.._ . 2 „,-,-7 - , ( .,_, , ___ y-- , 3--, / , , ,,,,„,;(._ .4 / ,, ,__ -27- '/2'e/d,v J /. , -- • ' .. . 0) , A - -- \ • i.,- , -/eifil L i,.4 , /_ --K' i--4 `--- a =i, 1 / , 1 g ' ) c&'7 1 A) .--z ::2 2' ) -._-- f )j r2i /(, ---- 0 ),)7' Y . ) . / j/(' / 5 a 7,, 1 / ______- ---i, y ' Y . 17/4:-'00 G-; -------z:=5=7 ,______; ------6 14- - T- , -. ---- -. 2...-----e---A-) ,-- ,,! . z.,,,___ ' i j 4 -.iy, (---- „),. (27. .,... 7 6-b_A-L,_ G% P i T c c_i____ ?— ~ ) al 1 . .1 J . 7-- c_.. (D L_____9 / ) -7 Z -c_,; e-/4,2 ' _-- _y J � a--- CC/ r f�- (li_ /922-3-- tglib ' ---7--- ---k L,,e4.640 --2 ----- -- Q-____-,.. _ 7 . ./1 u-N, C_' 7 ,_____eep-c-el z i -----c, , _0.,,a-A , z. i 1 a-- --� -„____:‘ i ---------" ,---- --) 2 -- a . --/--7 a.,---- „2 I ir N _ 6'----7 / — ._ C / - ,,,----- -----c=>1-7 — ' ) — L , • / - `,.R_,,t,t_tLQ_ 1 9 /A 1 (-), /e. t-- j`-'4) ' ,---,------, C,- -- , 1 / /( NNIN ) / ' .---' e,- ,2_7, / b h- Z 76 e G2— ,- \ ems. / - / /// 0. e>4( ‹ -c:k G -- - -_ C 4 , , L.) ;2 /L-c70 c,-, • 26:-k C ` /ty L, 9, c Pp c- __,-----Z j --- , - , ' --------- - ___-, \ , - I L 1 / 93 ____----1 - 52- ,e, o- , , 67.._ 7NV 4---:' c'77- ' . ,--- / ).-"; / ,,v•-- -,-7-c____„ 7-'7' - 2 . ic cLA...c___ G G_r� ron J vim0 //7-- - - 6 \ '/0) 5 -7-7T3,/ / 1 ___-,-.---- ----i=%r-\- - L. c-- - - - _ `..7 - Pc: _ • r, _" ,2_, ,/j ? - 2-, z 2--- 2 1P 4 2 6 - e--t - 0 )...-- ___A...)) : __.P- -d- 2 v 2 _ -_- _ v -__- 7_ ÷- zi 1 , ) 'e---72---- 7 ,------- ) i142/ ..._____ _ --- . ) - ) e __74/p ____z, •,______, ) ,/ ---' i c_ k__, - i 1 6( . --> -----° d7 r i z 11 1 - 7 c fs - 67-)-k, -1- 91),iaLq 9 ' (J = ) . 9-` i d L___, _� -- / i J --t) z_,/ (2) •€_-, ' 7_---,a) ,------, , „( 0`),, ," C/ , ', 6 --/-/- , 2rz.D o :- --7-7'. • __-_____ 2 / ' ..'' A d- , _ ---(----- .____ i '04 . .___-. ' e___0 ,.;_4_, L)-7 / c,7,—. ---7 _7. ' 7 / , t,-e--/\ -,...., i ,,,,,_ 4 6,,,,, __.___._._._.________ -2-- /. 7,' M J C % - Y ,-----cd°/, ), D - . __.r...?, 1 • — /--/- ____---- s'•,--'-'1*--- --.____ .----1 -7 -----7 , 1 -i%/- e- -1--e— / , 1 c )---(. 21.. .,.,.. 5.......) ...-_o 2_,--) „-----Th 1 ........—\___„-• I /0) J2_ e67 J • •_____, /..}, ----.. / ---75-- p ,i.2-- -2 A 7 ,,,&4_-_,(,, - --- '--7-2 7L--/ Ke7 i • ,(?. —77 , ..,...._._.__,, /,( ,,.../ti,j„ ( t-e,1- ;s_,±_z_, c.--> ,_ ___22-ff q // 7`- ,-----c-----'( u __A_e„c_.__x, ...,,,.. - ,,... .._,. ..Z__ .4 7 , -(Z- --/- �� / i2-i? i u zi , - 6,} /1-- 1 ____________________ 4 ) pi/ 7 //1?V6-0(4 -D`t/ C2� lan-t-ci) ;) q -) r y fififib/P'" 6\ 0-,YY er 6„, , 2±±±_a) f" r7 / i4it„„ ` --`:P -Ca - , - Uti - D /--r___ e/ c--k :---------C-, ) ----e ;;;;71 /-J / ili . - ,,. . )7(-- /-.& N ti ' ,‘( - - _ ---- --- - -- --- - --cox-�{- ------ _1; ac./ , Ix - — -- -- - -- 7-- -- -- - --1 cam. /4L.--V "--/ * 2 2_..-- -1--_ ____ ___ ,,:„..___,4.__--.../7 d-- // 2. 6P- 2--. 4 ____J2 ,)) 6 ) (?--e --t_ i Y.z .! > si- c .. I ..aha_- - " , -;.-V'--. - 0,1470-1, !1 • �� ��/- C% (- i ! - r% , cr/-e_, ---\ o) - i `7- - 6---7/s _ \ f > \ --- 7 _ . ----------'—,:-- (,,,--) , -' 7 In ii )) 0 / ____------. 3 ia2/ ir ,,t e ---. 1 ) L____ 64 - C ' -'2AA°1-63A-------7--- LYZ --_72./../, sue. . 1h. .. ___--------_ )— ) 7v-- \ --------c---i c) L) 11 ----- -----L)- -/L-1 /:- --- - -1--- ° v , ,t2,, i ,___(' ' H ) ) - --- - . _ , 6 el „ te---- 7-efAfPuill ; _ _ frktryu_ , )--- /'-- • / _- - 2-- ,1 , ) ‘' , 1 1 CD 7 q9 (KJA 414 j___70P-c) 0 — e • nn /1. . - - - - - fir- - - - CJ Qom- O 4 , 6,j--, 0---Q- -4k 02 % _ a. ) J---- 74- ----,-----__L__-------- . -7 t') &A z )02 , )_ 7- ,----) __ i< ,,___-/ Cam-.-, - ----- - -_ r7 -----7 _ z ( , ,/7 . - - _ / J U 6 r //62 / c=.2--, 1 i -qr , , , /TA ,__1_257 . -A7--- i , 00,11: ...., (.____ ----- 1 . ..))„.;,,,,,a:,, _ _ _ 1 ) _ . I • _ _ / I c______,_7- 7 oto/ : —r i C. 1 1 J- -�- --'---- -�v�---�-� -'-------' !---�----��' -------�-�- -- _9 '--- - - L.-$2 g------741.-- ..._ _/ 71)7 -. ,,, -/- eirra.-.4 cZ4 ii, , 2 ./)-'< ----- -, _ . -- --' ' -Qc-r---- ----e i 1 -sZ-•.l'- 9 . ' - r ,,---- 3 , c_, - t, d '_) , &L (,, i.. ,,,c--- (==. , 62,1 hetia--I> z--,--7 ( * /S .,77 ,— _____c-- ,/', . 6___, i _____,_,--_ ( & r-- .,)-' ',,, 1- -.2- " -- ,.. © a. _- f r v-fit .9- - -- ---- _ 1,0z-e_AL i cLx „__. z_ )) gctolo ' C - -i 'd /6) d / - B ‘, 2_,------,.. . ,..„,. ...,.." L__ ,- ,---@-----.'- .___ 1___,.2_, 6- b d ,_.,--) �, _. ( , - 9 c _,- - - ,____)j---,,. ______, ..--- .., ,.___7/ `;' -' i ' . C 6 0 l-r s _ jj -447 __________ _c, 11/1„.. al- _________ „", - 1 c--t-L.c-t.),... '412171---- 2 ' 29 J c1 i • .A / _Po , ,„_,A) / J_. .7) 0) ) __ c- (t/.) ) A ( 11 /( tj) 1 k 1/) 0,e Kr O._ -Q- r1- 7/6c , � 4-6,?-------Th. • 0 .d ., ', . .) (i'a v?/7/ 92/Li 2<, /T. / ( 71A-tit-ozi , ,---zi-v 4-- b---9---- --->„-- ) — 1 ) 1 ) • • 03. "• 7)- 7 I ' 7 rOD c /P) . ->/c 2 • —) c6? v )Om if_r ---- ----off - - - - L 1 r - -.6/4 1 / / or„d q / / --li_ 6DgoerS i .,, ,7 c> . z-, - y K: 2 fr_ _4.../ 72 'N (77 o D___ ) _. ' /I.722 _.=:=2_.zz,---. / Z , -l C/ .1 2 , - c T /--- 92 ,. , - ./. ' - ) )Lc ,, -- .7„.„) ,_ ' - 1 op) ..___--0) j'--° 4 --/ ' 0 ,,I) '_---- :72-, 2 e----c--/ Ltt. --_ / Q v V --- l 92 - ----- ---- :ta>' -- __, :21 _ z / ( 4 c--) ,) t------- e/ / N ./( C ' ZI / ) -- Z92 ) // -1 _i 1-1 -- 71 'C '' ) P ‘ „--25--2 --_ j -1-- 4 ,,, , ----00--- -', .7, Y / 7 I 7). -_ I I i I e /75/2 I /1 -Th i i 4_9 - - --