HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 10/28/1993 MINUTES
LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OCTOBER 28, 1993
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman
Ms. Patricia Atkins
Mr. James Catron
Mr. Joe Dove
Mr. Adam Klager
Ms. Pam Lakhani
Mr. Govind Nadkarni
Ms. Alclair Pleasant
Mr. Michael Shelly
Mr. Charles Speed
Ms. Bunny Tinker
Mr. John Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney
Mr. Leslie Mabrey
Mr. Donald Victory
Mr. Joe Williams (Advisory Member)
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Michael Gunning, Senior Planner
Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner
Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m. by Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman. The roll was
called and a quorum was present.
ACTION FTEMISk
Approval of Minutes: The July 22, 1993 and September 23, 1993 Minutes were
approved as distributed.
Select Alternate Meeting' Dates for the November and December Meetings: Mr.
Goodman stated he would like to receive input from commission members regarding
cancellation of the November and December meetings. Mr. Goodman continued that in
the past, if a meeting was scheduled in November, the date was moved back to the
third Thursday, since the fourth Thursday is Thanksgiving. Also, it should be kept in
mind that during December, it has been hard to obtain a quorum because of the holiday
season. After Mr. Goodman's comments, the floor was opened for further discussion.
There being no further discussion or comments, the following action was taken:
SCANNED
� •
Landmark Commission Mdgting .r
October 28, 1993
Page 2
IT WAS MOVED BY MR. CATRON AND SECONDED BY MR. 'OVE THAT THE
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOR NOVEMBER BE MOVED TO NOVEMBER
18, 1993, SINCE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FALLS ON
THANKSGIVING, AND THE MEETING FOR DECEMBER BE CANCELLED.
MOTION PASSED.
Schedule A Meeting Date to Review Slides of Phase IIA Properties: Ms. Macon stated
that as she reported at the September 23, 1993 meeting, Phase IIA of the historical
site survey had been completed and accepted by the Texas Historical Commission. The
slides are ready to be shown. The question to be answered is what format would be
best for reviewing the slides. Ms. Macon continued that there were 300+ slides to
review and comment it would take about 4 hours to review them all in one meeting.
Two different meetings could be scheduled to review the slides in its entirety, with
each meeting lasting about 2 hours. Ms. Macon stated she was opened for suggestions.
Mr. Goodman asked the possibility of reviewing a portion of the slides for one-half to
one hour at the November meeting and after that meeting it can be determined if more
slides can be reviewed in January or February. Ms. Macon stated there were several
items that had to be on the November meeting agenda: 11 the grant application has
to be reviewed and approved by the commission, because it has to be submitted to the
Texas Historical Commission before December 15, 1993; and 2) possibly the handicap
ramp will be rescheduled if a decision is not made at today's meeting. After a brief
discussion, it was the consensus of commission members present to begin reviewing
the slides at the November 18, 1993 meeting.
Redesign of the Handicap Ramo for the Sidbury House: Mr.Art Sosa,City Architectural
Projects Coordinator, addressed commission members. Mr. Sosa stated he was
submitting a redesign sketch of Exhibit B that was previously approved by the
Landmark Commission and was included in the bid proposal. The redesign is being
presented again due to proposed siding and the spindle materials. Mr. Sosa continued
that the bids received, based on the design sketch Exhibit "B" were too high over the
amount of money that was allocated for the design, construction, and installation of
the ramp. The spindles have to be made individually and turned, which added to the
cost. Mr. Soso continued that due to that combination, the number of spindles had to
be reduced. The alternative design suggests the spindles be placed at the landings only
and place siding on the inclined portions of the ramp. Discussions with Staff indicated
that this proposal may not he desired, and to that end, several alternatives were
prepared for your consideration. Mr. Sosa continued that the spindles will be placed
at the landings, when looking from the parking lot at the hack of the ramp, the siding
will be seen on the inclined portion of the ramp and spindles will he on the end as an
accent. Mr. Son stated that Exhibit "C" Examples 1 and 2 are the ones that Staff
4.0Landmark Commission Meeting
October 28, 1993
Page 3
prefers. At this point, Ms. Macon clarified the referenced drawings that were included
in the packets. Exhibit "A" was the design approved by the Commission at the April
22, 1993 meeting showing the spindle design throughout the ramp. Ms. Macon
continued that today Mr. Sosa was presenting redesigns and is recommending that
Example 1 be approved. Example 1 shows more spacing between the spindles and the
bottom portion of the ramp has lattice trim, Example 2 shows siding as the ramp
design with spindles at the end. Ms. Macon stated that the Commission needed to take
action to amend the original agreement. Ms. Tinker asked if the Sidbury House had
lattice trim completely around the house and Mr. Sosa answered the trim is underneath
the house in between the piers. Ms. Tinker asked if the lattice trim was needed and
Mr. Sosa stated that the lattice exist on the house currently. Mr. Angel Escobar,
Assistant Director of Engineering Services, added that the crawl space is covered with
the lattice trim and it is Staff's recommendation to leave the lattice trim underneath
the ramp, since it will he attached to the house. Leaving the lattice trim would create
a continuity and be aesthetically pleasing to the house. Also by leaving the lattice trim
on the ramp would prevent trash and litter from accumulating underneath the ramp.
Mr. Sosa stated that because of the cost to make each spindle (the spindles were made
individually and turned by handl, the overall bid increased substantially. Mr. Dove
asked how much higher was the bid over the amount allocated for the project and Mr.
Sosa answered the bid was $10,000 over the budgeted amount. Ms.Tinker added that
she did not like Example 2 with the siding. Mr. Sosa interjected that the redesign,
through the project architect, had siding throughout the ramp with the exception at the
end of the landings. Ms. Macon clarified that Mr. Sosa is submitting three proposals
for the Commission to consider: Exhibit "B," which shows the ramp with complete
siding and spindles at the end, Example 1 showing more space separation of spindles
only and Example 2 with space separation, siding, and spindles at the end.
Mr. Goodman stated that in his opinion, Example 1 was the redesign that was the
cleanest looking with a few spindles at each end and a few spindles with spacing in
between. Mr. Soso stated that by placing the spindles as shown on Examples 1 and
2, the spacing between the spindles does not have to be as close together. Mr. Sosa
went en to explain that for any differential in elevation in excess of 30 inches, the
building code requires tighter spacing. Once the elevation is below 30 inches, the
building code does not apply as to how far or close the spacing has to be, as long as
it is stable. A question was raised if by increasing the space between the spindles
would it lower the cost of the project and Mr. Sosa answered it would help lower the
cost some. Mr. Sosa continued that Staff found out before the meeting that the bid
was over by $2,300 instead of the $10,000.
Ms. Tinker asked for clarification as to whether or not the slope of the ramp had been
changed and Mr. Sosa responded that the slope had not been changed. Mr. Sosa went
Landmark Commission Mee" g
October 28, 1993
Page 4
on to say that building code requires a 7-112 inch space between each spindle when
the differential in elevation adjacent to the ramp is over 10 inches. Mr. Sosa
continued that the top end of the ramp is in excess of 30 inches so the spacing has
to be tighter at that point. Mr. Sosa commented that one of the proposals shows
tight spacing at each end for symmetry and wider spacing in the middle because the
differential in elevation is below 30 inches. This proposal would be more cost effective
because less spindles would be needed.
Mr. Goodman asked for clarification if Example 1 was closer to the original design
approved by the Commission, except for this design has fewer spindles and wider
spacing between them; otherwise, the design remained the same and Mr. Sosa replied
yes. Ms. Atkins asked if the cost would be within the proposed budget if Example 1
was used and Mr. Sosa answered that the cost would be somewhat more, but it would
be workable.
Ms. Tinker maintained that she would still like for the lattice trim to be removed from
the ramp. Ms. Tinker continued that it is obvious that the ramp is not a part of the
house. Mr. Goodman asked if the lattice trim was included in the original design and
Mr. Sosa answered yes; that the lattice trim was approved on the original design. Mr.
Sosa was asked if Example 1 was approved would the cost still be over 52,300 and
he responded in the affirmative. Mr. Sosa added that spindles are expensive because
of the method that are made.
Mr. Nadkarni asked if lattice trim was at the back of the house and it was answered
yes. Mr. Nadkarni asked Ms. Tinker what was her objection of the lattice trim on the
handicap ramp, which was at the back of the house and Ms. Tinker responded that the
area is too small to have lattice underneath and spindles above and it is not like there
is a big gaping space between. Mr. Nadkarni continued the lattice would keep trash
and littering as well as small animals from under the structure. At this point, Mr. Sosa
interjected that the lattice trim will not he removed from the house where the handicap
ramp will he placed; so there would still be some security.
Ms. Lakhani asked what was the spacing between the spindles and Mr. Sosa answered
7-112 inches. Mr. Sosa added that the spindles could be spread out more at the lower
end at the intermediate ramp, but the symmetry would be lost. Ms. Lakhani asked if
the spacing could be increased and Mr. Sosa answered yes it could he done, but it
would not be aesthetically pleasing to look at. Mr. Sosa continued that if the entire
project is to be tied together visually, the landings should be identical.
Ms. Tinker asked a question regarding the number of spindles and it rails would be on
both sides and Mr. Sosa answered it depended on which proposal would be used. Mr.
Sosa explained the difference between Example 1 and the original design. After all
comments and questions had been received, the following action was taken:
Landmark Commission MeeTing
October 28, 1993
Page 5
IT WAS MOVED BY MS. LAKHANI AND SECONDED BY MR. CATRON
THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE AMENDING THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT (APPROVED APRIL 22, 1993) TO COINCIDE
WITH EXAMPLE 1 AS PRESENTED TODAY BY MR. ART SOSA OF
ENGINEERING SERVICES.
MOTION PASSED.
Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Mr. Sosa and Mr. Escobar for attending today's
meeting and presenting the new proposals.
Approve Including the Video Production As Part of the Grant Funding Request to The
Texas Historical Commission In Addition to Funding For the Continuation of the
Historical Site Survey • Phase IIB and Attendance at Preservation Conference: Ms.
Macon stated that at the last meeting, she presented a proposal to include requesting
funding for a video production on the City of Corpus Christi. Ms. Macon continued she
wanted to know if the Commission is interested in submitting an application with the
request to produce a video. Ms. Macon stated she received a sample video and would
like for the Commission to review a small segment of it to see if there is interest in
producing one. The sample video highlights the history of several areas in the western
part of Texas. At this point, the commission reviewed a 15-minute segment of the
video.
After reviewing the video, discussion ensued regarding if it would be a good idea to
include the funding in the grant request. Mr. Goodman stated if the video was made,
who would be the audience, how could it be used and how are other cities using the
video and Ms. Macon answered that other cities have placed the video in their local
museum, and is using it in the entrance of their city hall as a running video. Ms.
Tinker asked how long was the video for $10,000 and Ms. Macon answered the video
would be 30 minutes long. Ms. Tinker commented she felt that it would be hard to
produce a 30-minute script on the city's history. Ms.Tinker continued there was more
involved than just producing the video .. the funding, promotion, and targeting an
audience for the video were also important. Mr. Wright commented that some of the
things you could buy for 310,000 are not as valuable a video on the history of Corpus
Christi. Mr. Wright continued that he felt that the history is here and the production
of the video would be a means by which to document it. Mr. Goodman added he felt
there were still a lot of unanswered questions regarding the video and whether or not
funding can be obtained. Mr. Goodman continued that even if funding could he
obtained, there were many other projects that were more worthwhile that the money
could be spent on. Mr. Wright added that visuals are important since the school
district is using videos in the classrooms and this is a good opportunity to help spread
the history of the city. Mr. Wright continued it would be good if we knew of someone
who was very knowledgeable in the history of Corpus Christi to help guide the
Landmark Commission Meeling
October 28, 1993
Page 6
production of the video. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Catron if the video could be used in
the classroom and Mr. Catron commented that the video could be used in the
classroom, and the Education Service Center could reproduce the videos. Mr. Catron
added that he felt the cost of the production was too great. Mr. Catron continued that
another aspect to consider in education is the fact that the district is heading towards
using compact discs(CDs) instead of the video. Some schools have already begun using
the CDs and they are just now beginning to produce materials that can be used on it.
Mr. Catron continued it will be sometime in the future when all of the schools will be
using only CDs. Mr. Catron continued that it would be worthwhile if the video was
well-written and well-produced, but again the cost is so great. Ms. Tinker asked how
would the video be marketed and distributed to where it would do the most good. How
would it be implemented into the school district and to ensure that all classroom
teachers had access to it. Mr. Mager commented that he was concerned about the
control of the production and how would the commission guard against receiving a half-
hour of fluff instead of a good quality video with substance. Ms. Macon stated it
would be hoped that the rights to the video production would belong to the City.
Ms. Atkins asked if anyone had considered talking with KEDT-TV's production team
about making the production. Ms. Atkins continued that they do have grant monies and
broadcast to all of the school districts in our area. Ms. Atkins continued she did not
know what their cost would be, but it would be something to research further if the
commission is serious about the video production. There are other local production
companies that could also be considered. Ms. Atkins commented that KEDT-TV did a
wonderful production job on the series Lone Star.
Mr. Goodman stated at this point, Staff needs to know if the commission is interested
in applying for grant monies to pursue the video production. The grant request would
be three parts: continuation of the site survey, attendance at a preservation
conference, and the video production. Ms. Macon commented that she knows the site
survey and preservation conference will be included in the grant, but she needed
approval to include the video production as part of the funding request. Ms. Macon
continued that the production of the video can be done by Forest Glenn or KEDT•TV.
Ms. Atkins stated that with the commission's education mandate, pursuing the
production of the video would be a good effort toward That mandate. Ms. Tinker
commented that she feels no one would be willing to stand in the atrium of city hall
to watch a 30-minute loop on the history of the city or stand a child stand and watch
a loop for 30 minutes at the museum. Ms. Macon asked if the commission would be
willing to consider a video production for 15-minutes for $5,000 and Ms. Tinker stated
she would be more willing to consider a 15-minute video for $5,000 more so than a 30-
minute video for $10,000.
At this point, Mr. Goodman requested Staff to further pursue the probability of
producing a 15•minute video for $5,000 instead of a 30-minute one for $10,000. Mr.
Landmark Commission Meeing
October 28, 1993
Page 7
Klager asked if commission members would feel better about the video production if
it was privately funded and the response was yes. Ms. Macon stated if the video was
pursued, it is possible that funding can be obtained to produce a 15-minute segment
for $5,000. Mr. Goodman commented that at this point, $10,000 for a 30-minute video
is too much money. Mr. Goodman requested Staff to further investigate into the
feasibility of producing a 15-minute video for $5,000 and report at the November
meeting. Ms. Macon clarified that she needed an answer today regarding whether or
not to include the video production as part of the grant request because the application
has to be reviewed and approved by the Commission at the November meeting. The
application has to be submitted to the Texas Historical Commission before December
15, 1993. Ms. Macon added it did not matter whether KEDT-TV or Forrest Glenn
produced the video, but she needed a response today. After all comments and
questions had been received, the following action was taken:
IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WRIGHT AND SECONDED BY MS. LAKHANI
THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION
REQUEST TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR
CONTINUATION OF PHASE II-B OF THE SITE SURVEY,ATTENDANCE OF
TWO (2) COMMISSIONERS AND ONE (1) STAFF PERSON AT A
PRESERVATION CONFERENCE,AND THE PRODUCTION OF A 15-MINUTE
VIDEO DEPICTING THE HISTORY OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI.
MOTION PASSED WITH MS. TINKER VOTING NO.
DISCUSSION ITEM(S):
Update On The Walk Through of the Four Woods' Houses by Representatives of Habitat
For Humanity: Ms. Macon stated that two weeks ago, she, Mr. Tom Utter, Group
Manager for Development Services, representatives from the Rawlins' Estate, and
Habitat Representatives, and City Staff members toured the four Woods' Houses,
including an additional house that was on the site survey. Representatives from
Habitat were interested in the twin Jalufka Houses and one of the house across the
street facing Mesquite. The group was not interested in the other two houses. At this
stage, their board is investigating the cost of moving the three houses and they will
contact me on tomorrow (October 29, 19931. A meeting will be scheduled with
representatives from Habitat and Mr. Utter sometime next week. If they take the twin
Jalufka Houses and the house on Mesquite Street, they would like to see if the City
can assist them in moving the structures because most of their funds are dedicated to
restoration of the houses. Mr. Goodman asked if the houses would be moved to the
lot next to the Seamen Center and Ms. Macon answered the houses will be moved onto
lots that Habitat own. Ms. Tinker asked if the Twin houses could stay together and
Ms. Macon answered if the group has two lots that are together, the houses will be;
but at this time, they do not have two lots that are together. Ms. Macon stated the
Landmark Commission Meli g
October 28, 1993
Page 8
land that the houses are located on is not for sale, and even if it was, Habitat probably
could not afford to purchase it due to its close proximity to Shoreline, increasing its
value. Ms. Macon added that she will call Jennifer, who is the coordinator for Habitat,
to see what the status of finding lots has been thus far. A member of their board is
looking into the cost of moving fees for the three houses. Ms. Tinker asked if the City
was going to pay for moving the houses, why can't the houses be moved onto the lots
behind Heritage Park and Ms. Macon answered because the City does not have funding
to restore the houses. Ms. Tinker added that the only thing getting accomplished is
the non-demolition of the houses, the houses being removed from the neighborhood, the
twin houses splitting up, and the group taking some and not all of the houses. Ms.
Macon added that either the houses will be moved by Habitat or they will be
demolished. Ms. Tinker asked why would they be demolished if the City pays for
moving them and Ms. Macon clarified that the City would not be paying for the total
cost of moving the houses, they will possibly assist with the cost if Habitat wanted
them. Mr. Dove commented that if the City moves the houses to the property next to
the Seamen Center, non-profit organizations will be needed to restore them and Habitat
uses the houses for residential purposes. Mr. Wright asked if the City owned the
houses and Ms. Macon answered yes. Mr. Wright continued that he agreed with Ms.
Tinker that the houses should be kept together and why can't Habitat contact the
landowner and see if they would be willing to leave the houses on their existing sites.
Ms. Macon stated that the City was given the houses from the original owner who
later sold the land to new owners. Ms. Tinker asked if Habitat did not want the
boardlbatten house; which she felt was the most important one of the four houses and
Ms. Macon answered no they did not want that house. Ms. Macon suggested that the
commission tour the interior of the houses to see the state they are in.
Mr. Goodman asked if the City owned the lot located next to the Seamen Center and
Ms. Macon answered yes. Mr. Goodman continued that if several of the houses are
moved onto that lot and restored by Habitat would it be possible to sell the houses to
potential home owners and it was answered by Ms. Macon that residential houses
were not in the original plan for the green space. It was added that having residential
houses on that lot would not fit into the City's plans for that area. Ms. Macon
commented that the City is cautious in owning these types of houses because of the
maintenance cost factors.
Ms. Tinker stated there should be some leverage to having those houses moved. It
would be awful to lose the yellow house. Ms. Macon commented that Habitat is
sensitive to the twin houses and she is working with CDBG in trying to find two lots
that are together that the City owns. Ms. Tinker asked which house on Mesquite is
included on the site survey and Ms. Macon responded that the house is located one lot
over from the corner of Mesquite and Fitzgerald. Ms. Tinker asked if it was one of the
four Woods' houses they accepted and Ms. Macon answered no - this was not one of
the City's houses; but it is included in the site survey.
Landmark Commission Meek
October 28, 1993
Page 9
Mr. Goodman asked Ms. Macon what was hoped to be accomplished in meeting with
Habitat representatives and Ms. Macon answered that she will meet with them to find
out what their board decided as far as their moving needs and their lot needs. After
the meeting with Habitat, COBS can he contacted to find out what can be provided.
Ms. Tinker requested Staff to ask Mr. Utter to attend the November meeting and to let
him know that the commission is concerned about the yellow house and see if he can
provide a proposal that would work out for everyone's benefit. Ms. Macon stated she
would contact Mr. Utter to see if he can attend the November meeting. It may be
possible that before the November meeting, additional funding would be found for
moving the houses and if additional lots can be found for placement of the houses.
Ms. Tinker referenced two published articles: "Wake-up Call" for Dallas' Endangered
Ethnic Neighborhoods and the 1993 2nd Round Affordable Housing Program
Competition. Ms. Tinker stated the article on the housing program was just a point of
information to inform the commission that it is still a hot topic. The article on the
Dallas neighborhood looks just like the neighborhoods in this area and this is a group
of eight historic, multi-ethnic, residential neighborhoods in Dallas which is among
America's 1993 most endangered historic places, according to the 1993 National Trust
for Historic Preservation.
Ms. Tinker stated that at a previous meeting, Ms. Atkins suggested contact the Caller-
Times to see they would be interested in including a series of articles on remodeling
older homes in their monthly publication on homes. Ms. Tinker stated she has the
request form for the Old House Journal; which they sent in addition to copies of
several remodelings from the Journal and permission was obtained to see if the Caller-
Times would publish them as part of their publication Homes that is part of the Sunday
paper on a monthly basis. Ms. Tinker continued she copies fourteen (14) articles that
more or less applied to our area. Architectural styles are also included and could be
included as in-fills every third month instead of an article on remodelings. The
remodelings were done on homes throughout the country; not necessarily from this
area. Ms. Tinker stated she has a complete packet that is ready to be taken to the
paper, but she wanted the commission to know what was being done. Ms. Tinker
encouraged commission members to take out a subscription to the Medallion
publication; which is very informational. Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Ms. Tinker
for presenting the information to the commission.
Landmark Commission Meng
October 28, 1993
Page 10
Mr. Goodman stated several commissioners' terms would be expiring at the end of
November and they should let Staff know if they were interested in being reappointed
to another term.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6 p.m.
41-di
Faryce Goode con, City Planner
Staff Liaison
EXHIBIT "A"
APPROVED by LMC
CXKT. W A L. le, (conic pAVED) —_} APRIL 22, 1993
•
GLLARD,wiL 1-‘, Haiti{
PEI.00ATE rJ NC
x IST Parasµ RA4L7 -CONDENSER UNITS
y--MIO-LNJDIHb / oN NEW GLNG PAP.
Ir 1,
Z" \
0 . . _
.. . . t .' L:\
.‘.... .
11\itsr.HARD/Gu 0 - e \
RAIL H6
MATCH ExIST ap C
4. I \\IX
_, .: lii .1T) ..
"4
r
- , ' s !
a 1mi
NEw WE HAN
V 70( -I RAILS To MATCH
I.1 GXIST.
P><IST. STEPS
u r Exirr• wP. PLANK DE..G.K
(TOP W/ pecw-Y ail • 70 —
REDyGE cOss SLOPE To I:So)
71 1CI (QE ax15-i.ST• c O 44 R T L calc.s. rAvcp)
bra . Howse ENDWALL
t I HeEW MATGµRAMPs-sWT. IN9.P.GIDEA
IL III
•
tlT
! I !ll' {i rr '
2 coMc. RANP W/ IAUM.N.WDMIL
yg • FKED WD. EPEE` S{{ VENEER To SIMYUITE EXIST
-as
RIO - E L E VAT I O tl 5/Ib°
g.
EXHIBIT "B" •
`/ 'IS RECOMMENDED REDES GN OF
HANDICAP RAMP FOR
SIDBURY HOUSE
-4-t ov zr. i
_L _ =— - -1-
Ci I lti d VOIV.I TTD NANO—AI—=____..7 :n
SIR 7.>Tci'cE MAC. v.,E '
II
`. ..zasttii i, 15E.0...0x,-2 Opt 777, POI- I..
Yy c. H 9Avpw,ce VPAME it
--ELEVATION of H.C. RAMP at SIDBURY HOUSE
rairAT ,
ell
ea
Hi- l to-a JIt ^
li
2 ,..0 ow 'aen" % T NCPGe WIC 1'
,et Per-r- .. cn.kro- '+c11 ewers- Es
v.io4 ve
3.F_lo '., EDS--
S ad NeLLSeNrr_ "a+i.as.srwds: -J` SIUBURVI
1 r To A[r IY elii
-.11 / yc. I auiN4
GeWM1.•01i.A l o N E%16T.
NCfrril G. >'/// Ic W W .g cea- FAKT. `II1
ie,, „par, r L. u rod-n°.4 J012Tb 1
WUL Pen el 6" t Gco ue4 TOOL}
P AM en./. Y , ,tower 4/..• 'h• .. l retµouwoep
;/LNIllea lyar _r+ tit. CO CT. O PORCH DECK '' !
M.Mafia
15
u .s m
PE PLACE NJCI'Ie`.!M W
'y _ • +_Q—JI_
C.
v ✓ c.de wJFFe fro 2
e.roNee ro 7/Ic3
'N yr C. , • .r Iii
GILIII•111•MINMSINIMIIISII
P
M
= c
_ = yX V N kid 10
Q
VO6 .v O
O_ i_ w
u_ :n - a
=J ¢
X
= w
IT
eeh
)
i IIl
III i
. _ I [
I
I
I
JI
L . -i L I
•'
4 .r .
S
O
X.
a
a
- - h
'11&4:44,01
� ;
1 � Y
k
ii ► I
Iik�
ii, ..
ttil ,
:
SII
IS
o
44
1 i1
JT I1
it
f
i 1
1
I itil
:lib I
r -