Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02121991 . . . e II MINUTES Historic Preservation Commission February 12, 1991 The regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Pete Raab, chairman, at 7:30 p.m. Present: Ann Landis, Mike YawmaR, Tom Johnson. Absent: Teresa Goldsmith. Planning Department, present. Guests: Arthur, John PIlling. Liz Smith, Pete Raab, Christopher Carson, Rick Sepler and Catherine Johnson, Sheri Robison, Patricia Warren, Bernie Landis moved the minutes be approved. Yawman seconded. Carson asked that they be amended to reflect that he did not excuse himself from review of Application 9101-01 but did state for the record that he had had a conversation with Nancy Lamay concerning the possibility of being hired as the architect for the project but, because of current jðb commitments, has turned it down. The minutes were approved as amended. Correspondence The letter concerning construction of a retaining wall at the library was written. A letter from Darlene Bloomfìeld, Leader, concerning publication of meeting notices was received. A letter was received from Keith Harper, City Attorney, concerning the "Appearance ef Fairness" issue as it pertains to the HPC which answered most of the Commission's concerns. Sepler will get back to Harper, however, to further define what ean be done when a Commissioner is professionally involved with a project that comes up for review and his testimony is necessary for complete presentation of the project. Legal precedent at this time makes it impossible for a commissioner to switch roles during a formal hearing such as a design review. Sepler introduced Planning and Building Department assistant, Cathetlline Johnson, who works with Sepler in preparing for design reviews and is responsible for assembling the commissioners' packets. Old Business Application #9010-2, New commercial retail/motel to be constructed at Fleet Marine site by Ambleside Construction; (proceedings taped) Sepler presented the staff report, concluding that the project contributes to the historic district as conditioned. (see report attached). Public testimony: Arthur and Pilling spoke for the project. Warren presented a letter reporting the position of the Jefferson County Historical Society concerning the project, recommending that, because of "major deficiencies of the proposal and lack of attention to the City's adopted design guidelines" HPC find that the application does not contribute to the District: Robison, represrnting . . ~. Main Street, stated that there were three main issues to be addressed: 1) the projec~ not compatible with bUildings. the area. 2) The pr ject Ss not enhance public accessibi y to the water. 3) The project does not enhance the unique character of the District, but is, instead, an entity in and of itself. Committee report: Presented by Carson and Raab. They recommended that the applicants submit items 1-10 of the "Revised Draft Recommendations" and, in addition, provide a simple mass. model of chip board, 1:20 scale, showing how deliveries and dropoffs will be handled,topography, and including Monroe Street up to the house on the Jefferson Street·. corner , and Jackson Street, and the sunken area, including the littil:œ building beYli!)nd the boat yard and then extending down to and including the edge of the Marina and the south part of the Sail Loft building. They also requested a site plan showing existing and new grading, revised exterior elevations including neighboring buildings for comparison of scale, a finished floor line for each floor and vertical centrol dimensions per City guidelines, and a landscape plan showing buffers. They asked that the design be revised to be brought into conformance with guidelines as spelled out in the "Urban Waterfront Plan; Preferred Alternative - both general and Point Hudson, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Water Street - Historic Diestrict (p. 31 #8) and Secretary of Interior guidelines, #9. John PIlling left during the committee report. Raab emphasized that a critical step was missed in that there was no pre- application session and stressed that theHPC can be used for guidance. Raab and Carson further recommended that the preject needs handicapped access. It was suggested that a motion be made to continue the design review hearing when the materials required of the apI'>1icants are ready for presentation. Smith so moved and Landis seconded. tlnanimously approved. Application 9101-03, reconstruction of the Chetzemoka Park Bandstand by City of Port Townsend: (proceedings taped.) Sepler presented the staff report with recommendation that the design does contribute to the District, based on 1974 National Trust Historic Study guide- lines. Public Testimony: Barbara Marseille responded to a question concerning redesign of thy balusters to conform to current code, stating that in her opinion, they were not too modern, but appropriate to the early 1900's period during which the original gazebo was contructed; that more ornate balusters would be inappro- priate. Committee report: Committe of Yawman and Goldsmith did not examine the plans and make a formal recommendation because of tim constraints but because due notice was given, this did not deter the process. Goldsmith, chairman, is out of town, so Yawman, chairman by default, approved the staff recommendation. Smith made a motion to accept the committee report and issued a design certifi- cate Carson seconded. Vote was Unanimous. New business: It was asked if the HPC notes a problem in a design appli- cation which is not under their jurisdiction but which they feel should be addressed by the appropriate governing body down farther in the process, how should this be handled. Sepler suggested that the HPC can always write memos concerning such issues and ask that they be reviewed and direct such memos to whomever needs to De maae-aware of~suchsituations. --~~ Yawman moved and Smith seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Approved unanimously. ~es ectfully submitted, -S.~ . arbara arseille, secretary . . . . 2/26/91 amendment to 2/12/91 minutes: . YaWIDan stated that he had a prior professional involvement with Ambleside Construction. D' ~r' I"' ~ \~~~'\ ,\\"~~i>-º--_ Barbara S. Marseille, Secretary /' ¿ e - < . JEFFERSON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 210 MADISON STREET, PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 (206) 385-1003 12 February 1991 Historic Preservation Commission City Hall Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commission Members: Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Jefferson County Historical Society: . Guideline 1.2: The Society concurs with the staff report. In addition, we note that the proposed use and its design severely detract from the marine orientation of the existing site and its surroundings. Impact of the proposal of the adjacent uses, space and activities must be considered under the Guideline and a water- oriented, commercial activity best maintains the nature of the area. Guideline 1.4: The Society concurs with the staff report. The proposal bears no meaningful relationship to the existing character of the Point Hudson District. It is out of scale with both the existing structures and development intensity of the District. Building materials are incongruous. Architectural form conflicts with the plain, utilitarian nature of buildings in the area. Massing and even height fail to reflect the unique setting of the site. -f Guideline 1.5: The Society concurs with the staff report. The Point Hudson compound has several identifying characteristics which must be maintained in order to enhance its historic theme. These include . * Building form which is simple and utilitarian in nature reflecting the history of government use of the area. ;v 4'\ . . . e . * Building scale which is at a level of detail oriented to the ground floor and pedestrian activity. * A sense of openness between buildings creating the compound character of the District. * A regularity or pattern in building location which contributes to campus-like setting composed of small, non- competing structures. * Use of materials and colors which reflect the historic use of the site. Guideline 1.6: Design of the site as proposed prevents pedestrian access through the site as well as any relationship to pedestrian activity in the area. The reflecting pool and landscaping further separate the site from the intended high level of inter-related, maritime oriented activity of the District. Guideline 2.2: While views from the top of the bluff may not be impacted, the massing of the buildings and its lack of relationship to the street foreclose the possibility of public views through the site. This result creates a sense of mass out of keeping with the Point Hudson District and the relationship of buildings to space within the District. Guideline 2.4: The Society supports the staff report. The campus- like quality of development is a defining characteristic of the Point Hudson area. Both pedestrian and visual access as well as a sense of openness are lost with this proposal. Its orientation to the remainder of the area is isolating rather than participatory and the elevated, fortress-like nature of the building form is hostile to the notion of discovering the City. Guideline 3.1: The Society supports the staff report. The setback of the proposed structures, their elevation over pedestrian level, the nature of the construction, the building scale and orientation all relate to the creation of the street character of the District. This proposal uses the street as a point of access only and does nothing to engage the pedestrian. Guideline 3.4: The Society supports the staff report. The proposed water feature serves primarily as a building amenity and fails to , . . . t\! '-1, /<lr \J e e relate to unstructured public use of the space. It only further separates the development from its surroundings. In addition, the enclosed public space functions largely as a private hotel courtyard and is likely not effective for activities unrelated to the building tenants. Guideline 3.5: While no significant major vegetation exists on the site, proposed landscaping should take into account the campus-like quality of the District. In this regard, expanses of lawn between buildings are more appropriate than extremely formal planted areas which enhance the notion of separation. Guideline 4.1: While the site is not historically associated with the. block pattern which exists in other areas of the downtown, a lesson can be taken from this guideline. A significant defining characteristic of the District is its campus-like quality with low scale buildings spread over wide areas in a regular fashion. Any proposed development should maintain this feature in much the same way that blocks create the development pattern of other areas. Guideline 4.2: The Society concurs with the staff report. This proposal fails to recognize the existing character of the area and is incompatible with the scale, composition and detail of existing structures. Guideline 4.4: The Society concurs with the staff report. No element of the proposal reflects the style of the District. Guideline 4.5: The Society concurs with the staff report. The proposal fails to incorporate the predominant materials of the District in a meaningful way. Guideline 5.8: While described as a mixed-use project, the proposal devotes minimal space to uses other than the dominant hotel. Neither the design of the facility npr the arrangement or allocation of space meet the spirit of the Guifjeline. Point Hudson Development Guidelines: The proposal is not compatible with the former Coast Guard buildings and does not contribute to the concept of transition to the Civic District through materials, scale or site design. The proposal does not incorporate the use of small clusters of buildings in a campus setting. The proposal is massive and isolated from its surroundings and is . . . . e e detrimental to the historic character of the District. Materials are out of character with the District bearing no relationship to its historic features. The proposal incorporates only token mixed use elements and is not in keeping with the low scale/intensity, maritime oriented nature of the District. The Society urges the Commission to take a strong stand regarding this application. The proponent failed to seek design guidance from the City and should be fully responsible for that choice. The Commission should respond with a finding that the application does not contribute to the District. No attempt should be made to "fix" the proposal at this stage. Such discussions typically lead to projects which painfully fit the letter of the law but which continue to defy its purpose. Clearly the major deficiencies of the proposal and the lack of attention to the City's adopted design guidelines must be answered with a firm decision. Sincerely, Patricia J. Warren D i recto r - j ì · · · " ... e e ~ íd.R::.~ tl f'i.¡;¡ ii I ~,a, I'nr~.. , ~--~' liII!_, ........~ iü~1fi.~.~}!j~ CITY "'AU. 1891 City of Port Townsend Historic PIese1 ndon Commission 540 WalCt' Stn:ct. Port T~ WA 98368 2061385.3000 FAX 2061385~290 STAFF REPORT (Moorings Motel/Residential) Application: 9101-02, Ambleside Construction Date: Revised: 12 February 1990 To: Historic Preservation Commission District: Special Overlay Design Review - Point Hudson Review Standards: Sec. 17.zz.050 Design Review Guidelines Overall Sec. 17. zz. 060 Design Review Guidelines Subdistricts SUMMARY A proposed mixed-use project of 50 motel units, a boat shop, and a restatll7~<:luÐtoþe ... const.;r:';I.lCted... at 419 Jacksc)n Street. . This project was designed prior to the devèlopment of the desïgn guidelines. Although a few elements of the proposed development are consistent with the guidelines, the project as submitted, does not fulfill their purpose and intent. It is recomended that the applicant revise this project to be more consistent with the design guidelines prior to further review. ISSUES DISPLACEMENT. The site currently is occupied by two structures which are representative of marine-related industrial architecture. Potential impacts on neighborhood character caused by the displacement of these buildings will be addressed during the conditional use permit process. MASSING. The general massing and organization of the proposed project represents a clustered spatial orientation superimposed on a platform or base. A clustered organization uses proximity to relate its spaces to one another. Since there is no inherent place of importance within the pattern of a clustered organization, the significance of a space must be articulated by its size, form or orientation within the pattern. · · · .. e- e MASSING (continued). In this project, the ground plane has been elevated by the parking level to provide a platform or podium that visually supports the building's form. PROPORTION AND SCALE. The topography of the site and the proximity to the bluff allows for a relatively large project to be constructed with little visual impact. The size and placement of the majority of the motel units parallel to Monroe Street and along the vacated Franklin Street right-of-way is an appropriate solution for this site. The proposed building elements relate well to each other I but are not as successful at relating to the scale and proportions of the immediate context. The raising of the building above the ground plane is in contrast to the pedestrian oriented ground level architecture of the surrounding district. MATERIALS. The use of stucco as the primary sheathing material is inconsistent with building materials in the Point Hudson District. stucco is a "scaleless" material which is not compatible with the regular patterning of wood siding or industrial metal sheathing. PROGRAM. Significant questions remain to be resolved about the programmatic elements of the proposed project. If the primary use is as a motel, where will the office/lobby be located and how will it be accessed? Where will the dumpsters be located? How will deliveries be off-loaded? How will passengers be dropped-off and check-in parking for the motel be accommodated without impacting surrounding pedestrian and vehicular movement? SIGNAGE. Insufficient information. COLOR. Insufficient information. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELIIfES -- OVRRAT.T. 1.1 City Settinq Conforms. 1.2 The Focus of the City Non-conforming; the proposed development does not enhance public access to the waterfront or create public open space oriented to the waterfront. The proposed plaza level has been designed to restrict access. The street plaza (located at the garage level) does not encourage public use. Access is limited by the descending grade of Jefferson street. In addition, the public plaza would not receive direct sunlight for most of the year due to the grade of Jefferson Street and the massinq of the project. A plaza which has limited access, and does not receive sunlight, is less likely to succeed as a public open space. 1.3 Pyramidal City Fora · · · e e Conforms. 1.4 Distinct and Interrelated Districts Non-conforming; the proposed development does not follow or enhance the unique character of its environs through compliance with the design guidelines. Although elements of the proposed project such as the metal gabled roofs successfully relate to the Point Hudson District, the general design of the project appears to have been developed in isolation. specific Point Hudson Guidelines will be addressed below. 1.5 Historic Heritage Non-conforming; the use of stucco as the primary sheathing material is inconsistent with building materials in the Point Hudson District. stucco is a "scaleless" material which is not compatible with the regular patterning of wood siding or industrial metal sheathing. The use of decorative precast concrete panels would be inconsistent with sheathing methods used in the District. Heavy timber trusses (such as the one proposed for above the restaurant/club) represent a historic method of construction which is not found in existing Point Hudson District structures. In general, architectural elements used in Point Hudson are proportionately scaled to carry structural loads. The buttresses supporting the walkway surrounding the yacht club are grossly exaggerated, and as such are not compatible with other structural systems and architectural elements in the district. The proportions of the proposed project are not consistent with those of buildings found in the Point Hudson District. While the use of a gable roof is appropriate, the relationship of roof height to ground plane is exaggerated resulting in "bluff-like" facades and "extruded" building forms. 1.6 Drive and Walk Generally conforming; project parking will have separation and screening from the pedestrian environment. A significant programmatic question remains: how will passengers be dropped-off, and check-in parking for the motel be accommodated without impacting pedestrian movement? 2.1 MODmaents and Markers No provision indicated on plans. 2.2 View Corridors · · · ", e -e Conforms. 2.3 The Waterwalk Not applicable. 2.4 The Meander Non-conforming: the siting of this project offers little public access through the site, providing no sense of a "meander". Limited pedestrian access is proposed only for Jackson Street. Al though this project is intended to be a private development, public amenities are appropriate for this district. The opportunity exists for a pedestrian hill climb through the project, or increased public space (daylight hours only). 2.5 Downtown and Uptown Not applicable, although an opportunity exists for the creation of a pedestrian connection between the downtown and uptown areas of the city. 3.1 The street Non-conforming: the project at street level is largely foundation wall and parking garage entrance, with limited visual access to the proposed boat shop. The street- level plaza, although a positive gesture, is partially obscured by Jackson street. 3.2 Intersections Conforming: the massing of the proposed project acknowledges the pedestrian scale of the Jackson/Jefferson street intersection, and "steps" down toward it. 3.3 Parks, Courtyards and Vacant Lots Not applicable. 3.4 Areas of Many Functions Non-conforming: limited access discourages the possible pUblic use of the plaza level. The street plaza is primarily composed of a water feature which physically discourages any organized use such as for outdoor concerts or group gatherings. 3.5 LandscapefHardscape Not applicable: site is in an altered condition, with no major vegetation. 3.6 Furnish and Liqht Generally conforming: the proposed light standards and street furniture are consistent with those used in the adjacent Historic District. The applicant has requested guidance as to what would be appropriate in the Point Hudson District. e e · 4.1 The Traditional Block Pattern Not applicable; the traditional block pattern is not evident in this district. 4.2 Buildings as Good Neighbors Non-conforming; the proposed project does not reflect the principles of design of the surrounding buildings in proportion, composition or architectural detail. It is not clear what the basis was for the exterior vocabulary. This is seen in the use of "non-contextual" design elements such as the butresses or pilasters "supporting" the yacht club, the exposed truss details, the unfamiliar exterior materials, the proportions and types of fenestration, and the unrelated chimney details. The proposed development is more of an "image" building which significantly departs from established architectural style in the district, than a respectful and supporting "background building". 4.3 The Facade Not applicable. 4.4 The Craft of Building Non-conforming; (see guideline 1.5 above) · 4.5 Materials Non-conforming; (see guideline 1.5 above) DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES -- SUBDISTRICTS 5.8 Point Hudson Marina District Conforms with an encouraged district use (mixed-use project) . Development Guidelines 5.8.1 Non-conforming; as detailed above, the proposed development does not use materials that are compatible with those found on the former Coast Guard and shipyard buildings in this district. In addition, the overall proportions of the facades, and the varied types of fenestration are not compatible with existing district structures. 5.8.2 Non-conforming; the proposed development does not give the appearance of groups of small buildings. This is primarily due to the dominance of the "platform" or above-ground garage level which "supports" the entire structure. This could be mitigated through windows/openings in the garage level facade. · . . . .. 5.8.3 5.8.4 5.8.5 5.8.6 e e Not applicable. Not applicable. conforming; proposed yacht club and boat shop would be encouraged uses in this district. Conforming. .. ". . . . . e e REVISED DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION Design Review Application 9101-02 The port Townsend Historic Preservation commission has completed its design review of the development proposed by Ambleside construction, located at 419 Jackson street, and described as a Mixed-use (coJlDDercial retail and motel) building. The review was conducted pursuant to Ordinance 2216, and was based on the plans submitted by the applicant dated 7 January 1991 with additional information received 5 February 1991. The Commission found that the proposed design CONTRIBUTES AS CONDITIONED to the Port Townsend Historic District. CONDITIONS 1. Horizontal board siding or industrial corrugated metal sheathing shall be used on all exterior walls. Exterior elevations indicating the placement and type of sheathing material shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of review. 2. A circulation and parking plan which indicates where motel check-in parking, curb side passenger off-loading, deliveries, customer parking for the boat shop, and sanitation pick up will occur shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of review. 3. A complete signage plan indicating color, size and design of all proposed exterior signage shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of review. 4. A complete exterior color scheme, which includes samples of all exterior finishes, shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of review. 5. Direct public access shall be created to the plaza level from the Jefferson street frontage. In addition, the water feature shall be eliminated or reduced in size from the public plaza which is located at the garage level. This will increase the available area for public use, and offer a more realistic opportunity for a variety of public functions to occur there. A revised plan for both outdoor plazas shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of review. 6. Decorative precast concrete panels shall not be a dominant element of any facade. A plan illustrating placement and location of these panels shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a r *., .-- . . . e e 7. certificate of review. The heavy timber truss and the supporting buttresses found on the yacht club shall be greatly reduced in size to more accurately reflect the actual structural dimension appropriate for this type of construction. Revised plans illustrating these changes shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of review. 8. A revised fenestration plan that reflects the heritage of the surrounding district, and is compatible with the immediate context shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate or review. 9. The garage level facade shall be redesigned to reduce the perception of this part of the proposed building as a continuous, supporting "platform". A sensitive design should enhance the streetscape, and give the appearance of groups of small buildings. This may be accomplished through stairs to the plaza level, windows or other openings in the facade. Revised exterior elevations shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of review. 10. The overall proportions of each "building" wi thin the project shall be revised to reflect the existing relationship of roof height and size to the ground plane as evidenced by other structures in the immediate district. The revised plans shall be submitted to the HPC and approved prior to an issuance of a certificate of review. Issued this 12th day of February, 1991. Pete Raab, Chair, Review Committee D:\hpc\moorings.rec 11 Feb 91 - \. 1Yte . ~~t~ ~Œ> ttrld . IW~ ) 8115 Ut~rr t e<JcTt11Jl1) œflNlNÐ ~5Ir£ ('f rttNr ~ 1, fJ)IIDJN((b WtV8 ~ tfJ.f1Vl1fflOO) WIlH ~~. fl. E"t)~$ f\T ~ fR. Off" ~ 8 MAiflIA1S; ~ &Jl1J(ò/ 1IfJ~1l~ WflJlW3 1,£a1tfl5; ~1tòt1r ~ wro~ 8Ut1OO B. flJlJA)/Næ i.fð1!RlUðÞ arwvr;œ, ðJ WJIb, (b. fi1J¥JMlC tvVV 8r1tõ1tr 1M1/m¿o ~, t 1JB WImJr WIVÞ ~ BltWJ1J?D MJtai ~~ ~ lN~, e - ~ I$òN ~ · ~. ~ ff>~W; ~ ~8S ðF EX1Sl7~ flIJWl~k11.!I )-> f\5¥\N'ð ~ NW ft2fl{)l~ -W ~ kt:UTIJCI~tJIK) 1õ a<\5U~ 6JtLDtJXèSo ~ æìCt'tif ítB\ØN ~: 1.lifl7;5 fmôf2A1v1 IN t!(JJ/fIS ~ ttJmt 4 ~ «œ ~ ~ 1õ 1M tZ 3ß1 tlJlW. bllß, fl. fV1 a2ð AliJrJ6, lflB ~ tAJlUI WJJB It PJffiRt1T ~ OF &:n8 fOl1i l~ $ fI}~ 1dlJ~. Q. ~Yòrv læJœ I, Ml\$INß Tõ t}tUaæ ts ~ A~ Mð'" ~ tfM)r ~ aæ tLJ ~ f2 @ðf;U;D f'æF ~ /fìB @Ti). . ß MVlIl1"'.1fWB {)}UJW1'J5 etxD. ~ /f!I;fJr ~ ~ lØ1 WtNa«B. 4. 6m1N ~~ éÐN'ô·wrnt W/Nrew~ ~~. ',i;2~W~ feWaw~~ ~rø. ·6(l)CCð lB. ~ . 13tf)DNtb r RI{:~·NL(.), . 1. ~~~~~~NlJ fNlmJRIr1JI ~._ ~1ID, . t;, alitl1NeL'D ON R'ÚJ B:BM ~ IN ~. q. ~ N:iJJr ~p--~ ~~~ ~/NI f26fr1lV8 1õ ~ /Y£lIE HJD lDRJØ~o 10. ft/iIr ~ ^-~.~W~~ CM3" 'Pt. fIW1 æ ~fflð fêR ~Vf£Vl ðF @~ b Ptfffatf ß12 ~IMJ J1W~ ~ 0, ~MJ$ ffiÐm ~N "-NÐ ~ tb íMN 1V (J1tlB æ f7. _ ~/~ f?x)l/ · fõEæJ f1\œ Cf ~ GfvW ~ . aJl,;flID EÞ1 fàt, ~ øUJr Wool. , Nðf MLttJ @t~ TO 1fl8 ffJEUû; I·'é'. tVHfrT tW1QS 1fIg ~ 10 1AJAtJr1fJ ~ 1fl6 fðflA0 æ:œ. * ~Nf t\iJœMJ t3UtWlAJR/S wmt UWNS HMð f1 d:12JFfJ l~ W/1fi ~ fOf:Uc, ~ #!t ()?d). 11. Q,tm>: ~ 1) ~&1 (])N. D~Ukæ 1º. ~ ttJD ~~ IN 1ltl5 ~caw eB 8MmêR. . !..~. . . I "lI1-~~:~/ tM?Mrr rreM5 I "'to Of 7l1ß IN AWmoo; , fMf6 MÐÐeU¡ ~ ~ NJD ~/Mf_ ~ ~~ I ~ MN ~1^,0 __ ælV,wv 6<Df]W ØPNJI~. , ~r~ EiðlIIf1felli', tJ ~ AND NrJAJ ~ ( ~vø t3UtlA?tAj'¿B , Ffl¡ ~ eh:t1 fìef)f2 ~ VBr2T. ~ j)IM~ ~ ~T cØ~ · VANV%ltPB AAN t1 ~ lõ rve,et\~ , ftr.e,VUYI8VD 1flð lmtòN æ mJ1æV 10 Rg ætrðttT INW . ~æí_ · \.IÆWJ~fWVi ~~lð o ~ -r Pf· tiUœðtJ r¿..~~=h1m18¡£>1 8. ~ ðf 1~ ælJ~OOU1lEb - It?1 Cl) -t æa==r ~M6NJ)ffi()\JS æ ~rmtJ U)f1ft AID'lM ~/AwPf!J wrrn aMf ~ a:. CêJlDJ 10 1ÅB ~ fÞ ~-(XSkôN ~oorerJgo .