Loading...
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 -