5E - 413 Spruce St (HIS2008-00177) Landmark Alteration Certificate to demolish the contributing garage MEMORAIVDLlM
August 20'i`, 2008
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
fames Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to demolish the contributing garage at 413 Spruce Street,
per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-00177).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 413 Spruce Street
2. Zoning: LR-1 (Low Density Residential Established)
3. Owner: Bruce & Cody Oreck
4. Applicant: Jim Logan Architecture
5. Site Area: 7,866 sf.
6. Date of construction: Pre-1929
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board denies the application to demolish the contributing garage
at 413 Spruce Street as requested in the application dated 07.09.2008 finding that
it does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate
in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. and is substantially inconsistent with section 7
"Garages, Carports, and Accessory Buildings", of the General Design Guidelines
and section U of the Mapleton Hill E~IStUYIC District Design Guidelines. The Board
adopts this memo as findings far its decision.
SUMMARY:
AUL+:NUA I'I'I?NI #5L PAGL
S:\I'I.AN\data\longr<u~g\1 iIS'i~AL'1'CER'f'S'il-(istoric Di;tricts~Vlapictou }•li!I15pr.~ce.413\08.06.08 n~emo.doc
• On April 5, 2006, Landmarks Board approved a xequest for a Landmark
Alteration Certificate to relocate the historic garage on the property and for
the construction of a new garage.
• The 2005 accessory building survey recorded the garage and established a
pre-1929 date of construction with recommendation of its contribution to the
Mapleton. Hi]1 Historic District.
• No additional information has been provided with this application to indzcate
that the historic integrity of the garage has changed since 2006.
• Staff recommends the Landmarks Board deny the application finding that it
does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate
in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981.
• Staff considers that the garage can and should be rehabilitated, perhaps
utilizing state Historic Preservation tax credits.
~J ~ S
` ! L.1
-
0~
IV__ -
- - ~l
~ ~ -I~~
E
L T
a
Q
Q~
Q
Q
C~~
Figure 1. Location Map
BACKGROUND:
On April 5, 2006, Landmarks Board approved a request for a Landmark
Alteration Certificate to relocate the historic garage on the property and for the
construction of a new garage. DuruZg construction of the new garage, the historic
frame building was moved off-site. Upon completion of the new building the
frame garage was recently relocated on the property as per the original
AGENDA ITEM ##~E PA(TF
S:\Pi,AN\dataUongrang\i[IS'IlAl:i'CTiK'fS\iiistoric llistiictsUvlapletoe tfill\Spnice.4l3\08.06.08 memo.doe
application.
f ~ ~ 1
r r > {,'S t~ i-~ err ~+~s, r
~ ;
i
~ cf y,
' _ 7 ??I a ~ ' 1 .,fin _9- j i t~. 'l~t~~(,ttaS~)~
~,r ' J 9 ~ Gj ,
'Sr.~' :a - ~ -Vn h T ytgp
.r ~ a
- -
r +c~ C. ~ V Jar
- .F ~ ~
Figure 2. Garage at its origitta.l location at 413 Spruce Street
ANALYSIS OF IIISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPERTY:
Constructed about 1900, the one and one-half story masonry and frame classic
cottage at 413 Mapleton features a low hip roof, south faciTlg dormer, segmental
arch window openings and turned spindle work on the half-width porch. The
Historic Building Inventory Form (1988, Front Range) identified the house as
representing "a type, period, or method of construction" and mentions the
adjacent garage (Attachment A). At the time the property was surveyed this area
had not yet been added to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The 2005 accessory
building survey (Ramsay 8~ Barth) recorded the garage and established apre-
1929 date of construction. This survey recommended that the building be
considered a contributing feature to the Mapleton I Iill Historic District.
The 1929 tax assessor card photograph is taken from the southwest and as a
result the location of the garage >.tnti12007 is not visible, being blocked by the
main house. However, the tax assessor card does refer to a 10' x 20' frame
"private garage" with a concrete floor and wood shingle roof being located on
the property in 1929 (Attachment I3)_ ~ 1958 aerial photograph shows what
appears to be the garage in questitm at the north end of the property (see Figure
3).
AGI?tiDA ITEM #5E PAGE
S:U'LAMdata\longrangWIS"I\ALTCIR'rS\Historic DistrictsUvlapleton Hill\Spruce.413\08.06.08 memo.doc
' ~ Cara eat 413 ~ ~
` ~ _ Spruce Street
i t ~ ~
4 ~ A J
y Y i
I' i~;ure 3. 195$ Aerial Photograph showizzg location of Garage
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST:
The applicant requests approval to demolish the contributing frame garage
finding that its historic significance is questionable, that it does not fit
aesthetically with the existing }louse, that it has no doors, and is structurally
deficient.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation Ordi~riance specifies that a Landmark Alteration
Certificate may not be approved by the board or City Council unless it meets the
conditions specified in Section 9-"11-1$, I3.P.C_ 19$1. Specifically:
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features o.E the
landmark or the subject property within a historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historical, architectural, or. aesthetic interest or value of
AGENDA ITEM #SE PAGF
S:U'LAN\dataUongrangUllSTIALTCERTS\Histonc Districts\Mapleton Hill\Spruce.413\08.06.08 memo.doc
the landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures are
compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site
or the historic district;
(4) With respect to a proposal. to demolish a building in a historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
ANALYSIS:
1. Dnes the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property
within an historic district?
The 2005 accessory building survey of Mapleton HiII recommended the garage at
4"13 Spxuce Street be considered a contributing building to the Mapleton I Till
Historic District based upon assessing it to be awell-preserved example of early
twentieth-century automobile architecture. Despite some alterations over the
years (including removal of the historic garage doors), staff concurs that the
building is a contributing feature to the district and considers that its demolition
would damage the character of the property and the district as a whole.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest ~r value of the district?
The staff considers that the contributing garage is a familiar visual feature u1 the
district and that its demolition would adversely affect the special historic,
architectural, and aesthetic interest or value of the district.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangerent, texture, color, arrangement of cohr, and
materials used on existin~~ and proposed buildings compatible with the character
of the historic district?
No new construction is proposed in place of the contributing garage.
AGENDA ITEM #Si? PAGE
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\H1ST'\ALTCh:RTS\IIistoric I)istricts\Maple[on Hill\Spruce.413\08.06.08 memo.doc
4. lloes the proposal to dernolisl~t the 1~~uilding within the Mapleton Hill Historic District
and the proposed new constrttxtiorr to replace the proposed derrtolished building meet
the requirements of paragraphs § 9-11-18(6)(2) and 9-11-18(6)(3)#-13-18(6)(4) of
this section?
No new construction is proposed to replace the contributing garage.
5. The Landmarks Board is required tv consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incvrporatiort of energy-efficient design, and enhmtced access fvr the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Corti
fixate.
No information provided
UIJSIGN GUIDELINN;S:
~I11e IIistoric Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landtinarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted. the Design Guidelines to help interpret the
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed
demolition with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended
to be used only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a
checklist of items for compliance.
General Design Guidelines _
7~ GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
7.1 Existing IIistoric Accessory Structures
A pri»tar~ concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes ira historic districts is the
protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district.
GUIUP.i.TNES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Retain and preserve garages and accessory The demolition of the contributinf; NO
buildings that contribute to the overall building will have an adverse effect on
clrarnc.ter of the site or district. the character of the property and the
district as a wh<~lc.
.2 Retair: and preseri~e the character-defining The materials, features, and details of NO
materials, features, arrcl details of historic the i~xisting contributing garage will be
garages nncl accessory buildings, including loll.
rants, materials, zrirrdnzrs, rrrul darns.
S 1PI .;1_ti`~tf iuill,,:~. 'r : ~.t` I I I ~l'`.:A LICPR'TS~f l~~~tun~ f >i ,•u~ l ~,',~1.~~,Irl~m Hill\~pr~cc.-I 1 i~rrti (r;; nr~ nx~.coc
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines _
GARAGES, CAItNnR'I'S Atill ACCT+:SSOKY S'fRUC'1'UKI+;S
1' - - -
i~ t`(Ult'tf Uf r1CCe~Spr"~ L~UItC1In~~ llil~ I]t'('!! aClahiEd~Ur ilSt a5 ~~~ll~a~~'C:i 11f iIIP 1Vlal)tet0r! 11.'!i tiltijc~r'!C I,~iSt)"IC't.
Wlretlu~r ccn•ricz<~e houses or sheds, these structures have certain similarities. They are plain arrd utilitarian
arrd arc lot ated ut the rear c,f .the pro{rerttl nn the allr~/. Materials arrd brtildin,Q elements are vaned.
Guideline: Consistcn~y:
1/~urr C_iutin~ structruc~ is h, be rv,~~! rrs C~uide:incs do not contemplate the iV'( )
'1 ct garage the historic clu:racter of the
demolition of contributing buildings.
building should be respected- ns few However, when alterations are
cltnnges as possible shotdd be made.
considered, principle ~f least change
suggested. Demolition of garage does
not respect the historic character of
the buildin
The Board's 2006 decision to allow for the construction of a new garage in the
location of the contributing garage at 413 Spruce Street was based upon the
understanding that the contributing building would be re-located in front of the
new building on the property and rehabilitated. The basis for the decision was
that the garage is a contributing feature of the Mapleton 1-fill Historic District.
This fact is reflected in the analysis section of the staff memo (adopted by the
Beard as findings for the decision) which reads,
"Staff considers the proposed relocation of the existing garage and
adjacent new construction appropriate in terms of site plaalning, mass,
~~ale, materials, and detailing. Many of the other lots within the
il~~mediate neighborhood also have smaller backyards due to the smaller
lot size. The proposed footprint indicates it will be secondary to the main
home and will be similar ii size to other historic buildings in the area. hz
addition the proposed re-location of the historic garage set forward in
f runt of the proposed new construction means that it will remain a
~ haracter defining feature of the property and the streetscape of the 400
l~lr~~~l: c>1 Shruce Street."
\o additional infortnation has been provided with this application to indicate
that the historic integrity of the garage has changed since 2006. Rather, the basis
for the request is based upon the applicant's opinion that the garage is newer
than the historic lunise, that it does not fit aesthetically with the historic house,
S ~+.I'1.;~A"~,l:~i.:'~i~m;~rwc\I lf5~I1;AI.TC'L•K Iti~l I~.~ru: is I riti~iicls\Ma_~le'~~:: ll:l'~Spnicr I ?1US Oh.OS mcrno_dn~
that it is structurally inadequate, and that because it has doors and is an
"eyesore".
Staff considers that issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the
demolition of the contributing garage would be inconsistent with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Guidelines. As such, staff finds the application inconsistent with
Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Desigr2 Guidelines.
However, staff does consider that rehabilitation of the garage should occur,
perhaps utilizing state Historic Preservation tax credits. As part of the
rehabilitation, appropriate new garage doors likely can be installed. Such
rehabilitation of the garage could be reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review
Committee.
I'INDINGS:
The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application and evidence presented,
that the proposed Landmark Alteration Certificate application is inconsistent
with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
1. The demolition of the building would destroy contributizlg architectural
features of the subject property within the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
2. Tl1e proposed demolition would adversely affect historic architectural
and aesthetic interest of the property in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District.
3. The proposal is substantially inconsistent with sections 7.1 "Garages,
Carports, and Accessory Buildings" of the General Design Guidelines and
section P of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: flpri12005 Cultural Resource Re-Evaluation Dorm for garage at 413 Spruce
B: Applicant letter
C: Site plans, existing elevations, photographs
AGF~NDA ITEM #SE PA(:,1
S:~PLAN~dataUongrang\EiIS`IIALTCERTS~Historic Districts\Ma~leu>n Iii111Spruce.dl3\08.06.Ox memo.doc
Attachment A
Address: 413 SPRUCE ST
Boulder, Colorado
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Cultural Resource Re-evaluation Form: Accessory Building Survey
1. Resource Number: 5BL2347 2. Temp. Resource Number:
3. Attachments: 4. Offical determination:
(Check as many as apply) OAHP USE ONLY
U Photographs ? Determined Eligible
Determined Not Eligible
f~i Site sketch map Need Data
L~l U.S.G.S. map photocopy Nominated
n Other
Listed
[ _l Other
? Contributing to N.R. District
? Not Contributing to N.R. District
5. Resource Name of Primary Building
6. Purpose of this current site visit: Resurvey
7. Previous Recordings: Front Range Research Assoc. June 1988
8a. Description of Accessory Building:
Gable roofed garage with composition roofing, wood siding, Outbuilding Type:
cornerboards, and trim. Side hinged doors face south. A small arched Garage
window is inserted into each door. Outbuilding Material:
Wood Frame
Outbuilding Covering
Wood Siding
Outbuilding Roof Materia
Asphalt
$b. Date of Construction: pre 1929
8c. Date of Construction Source:
Historic Assessor's Card, Carnegie Library: 1929 note, 10x20 frame garage with cement floor exists.
1921 Sanborn Map: does not cover this area.
1988 Survey: garage listed as an "associated building."
9. Condition: Good
10a. Changes to Location or Size Information:
10b. UTM Coordinates:
r-
Cultural Resource Re-evaluation Form: page 2 of 2 Address: 413 SPRUCE ST
Accessory Building Survey Boulder, Colorado
Temp. Resource Number
11. Current Ownership TELLEEN JON
413 SPRUCE ST
BOULDER
CO
80302
12. Other Changes, Additions or Observations:
13. Eligibility Assesment:
Individual District
National Register: NIA National Register: NIA
Local Landmark: N!A Locai: Contributing
Locally Designated Property: NO
14. Management Recommendations: N!A
15. Photograph Types and Numbers:
Type: B8W Roll No: 15 Frame No: 36, 37
16. Artifact and Field Documentation Storage Location N!A
17, Report Title: Accessory Building Survey
18: Recorders}: Kathryn Howes Barth, AIA; Lara Ramsey 19: Dates}: Apr. 2005
2t}: Recorder Affiliation: Kathryn Howes Barth, AIA; Ramsey Planning and Preservation
Colorado Historical Society, Ofrce of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203
SBL2347 413 SPRUCE ST SITE PLAN
~iN~ ST
~ ~
~ ~
N V
l ~n
vG~ s~
5~
1 ~ .ate . 1 'y ~ . tt,~~ ~t ,F R f ~ i ~ rr ~:k y ~ `f4~~. Y,•A 1
a{.t,~e ~ _ . Ilr :a a~ rf+i.~ `~,y~~~~C ~ ~+~+.~s~..~i~`yr'? 1l~~YVI ~ ' ^yrF~.
C•~SSi Ir:1-, t' ~\~1. 1_ rllr-#~c `~,'}I ,~r.j 7r4' ' /~N ~ j ,`a .a
r >TM 1„J ~ ! e` BIAS . X'i aA] 1 yJ 1.,
. y n i,~ ~ ,•s r .rte c•,~~ y. i~.1 I y ~ j
',Zs`~~ n 4 ~i. f' i i/ '~F:•t `j ,i a l`I`~ tt T\ t
~'y ` it ~J J ti~ u~ F^ ~ ,
y ri' `'111'`% -~K.."S 1~ ~ T ~ ~ +t_ ~,-..~sy,p~
. ~~j.~~: ~ 5 } ~5q,~~,~1 w...w-y 1~..ar~ 1 .Y~'"~4t.~ y ti.. Z ~ ~ -d.'.
r
4 . ~ ~ ~ r r.
mot, F _;'1~4 F t- ~ ~YY _ t4 rr S//~r y•'~
r ~ ~:.t all to a'r - ~}1' l~Pi~~{KC.
1 ~ s } ~ yl
~ FYI gIn . ,f < i,~- ! ~ ^~rd~;;'i'' F
n t ~ t /
4' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ \~Ci "1 ,C4:f J~ j`. as ! .t jq~• 1'+'' g, y /Y (c
t{ v tc + 3 ,rb':l i a .,Spti ~.g 'y i ~`r . R i .A 'ar .i
c ti ~ t - ~~i, ~r*`Yij~f :,r.) .y'i,.s ~ r 'i~ 1 r
4 ~~1 S trs 4 1 / f~' lc~ ~ `~"s Y {},ys; ~ KY... ~Y - ~ .l. _
.'7,r x • I t'~'I e'll': r~ I'r 1• N.:"
ry~~r~ ti ' ~ Sf ~1-its ~i• f
v. 41.c r ~ ~ w: 4. y. l 'r.
I,,. .~f r I f.
~y~~k IlF'~ ~ .1f~141t~i't - ~ ~ ~ l~'_ ¢ I}'Y~ ~~l J 1
- 9• 1 tl'b ~y~~Y~ i
Attachment B
;uly 9, 208
To: Landmark 1'reservatien Advisor~r [i;~arcl
Re: Application to Remave Garage J 1 M ~ G A N
A R C H I T E C T S
Dear Board Members,
We are writing at the request of our client, Bruce Oreck, who owns the property at 413 Spruce St. in
Boulder's Mapleton Hill District. ~X/e are applying for a landmark alteration to deconstruct and remave the
dilapidated garage which now sits at the front of the property.
During the construction of new buildings on both the 413 and 429 Spruce St. properties {both owned by
Mr. Oreck), we secured a landmark alteration certificate to move the garage to a rernate location, then
Drought it back and set it upon a new foundation at the front of the property. Having invested heavily in
the historic aesthetics of both properties, our client would like to deco~7struct this more modern garage to
improve the profile of the street.
We give the following reasons to support our case for removing the garage:
• The garage is newer than the histaric home on the same lot. The Amber used in its construction is
of standard lumber sizing, 1.S" x 3.5" (Photo X1,2). Lumber standards detailing these dimensions
weren't in existence until 1970.
• The garage does not fit aesthetically with the historic home on the same property. The frame
structure has a different roof and eave profile than the home, reflecting its more modern
construction date (photo #3).
• The garage is nor structurally self-sufficient. The contractors who moved it had to brace it
substa:aially to prevent it from collapsing (photo #4,5,6,). Before it was moved, it had come to lean
on a pile of earth which had built up and rotted otlt its northeast earner (photo #7,8,9). Even on
its new foundation, it requires modern sill plates, and bracing which prevents it from being used
(photo # 10).
• The garage has no doors. The original doors did not fit and would not close, and had to be
removed (photo # 11). In addition, the current door opening is not large enough to allow a modern
car to park inside. if we are not granted permission to remove the garage, we would ask that we be
permitted to add doors to the garage, as it is currently an eyesore.
The client has invested a great deal in the }>reservation of this strtlcttlre, but it still appears dilapidated and
out-of-place. Since it is so prominent in the front of the site, we feel that t'ne open space character and
historic continuity of the street would be better served by removing this garage and donating its materials.
Thank you for your consideration,
Collin Tomb
Jim Logan Architects
1451 YARMOI'TH .AVE STF 114 • BOIILDER, CO 80304 [e! 707 449 3?74 Jna 703.417 1781
r ~
~q~ti`- f~R 44.66 ~ I `~--q fd 68~~ \
44, ~
5~_~
-o N \ r 0I N • ~ ~ _ _ ~ , ~ _e In \L I "J~\ ~ ~
1 . - - _ 50.7j'r' 1.~ <k, ~~~1 ~ - 150.77
j % `iO \ ~
~ ~ ~ ; / ~i lj 111`'=_~; ~ ,
c~i - ~ ~ 1 1 ~ R N ~I
~ Q ~
` ~ - -
unawiaaana~ _ 1 _ ~ ` ~ a _ _ _ - - J
' 1PR0POSE0 REMOVAL) - ~ ' " ~ REMAINING SLAB , - - ~ r
~t ~ AME GARAGE 5 ~ i
~ . ~ yo+ - ~ 429 SPRU~ ~ ~1~ SED FGR,PARKING) , _ _ 429 SpgUC£ St.
1E' i ~ f 18' o i~ \ f
9.3' i
~ _
I ~ ti - - 5' ~ ~ , ~ - _
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ vi~1 I~~ ' ~
1 N 1 ~I 11 1 _ _ _ _
1
1 _ "
~ ~ a -
1
2 _ ----LS"C--- Q= _ ( _111 ~10 1 ` 2 ~
" i
_ ~ ~ ' _
/
o. , J
t T e e t ~ r e e
'nr S 5 t ~
UU ' ~ ° e ~ c e
r-
r~ S B r SITE PLAN BEfQRE S F r u SITE PLAN AFTER ~
_ sr~ r _
-
_ _
~ -
,
SOUTH ELEVATION ~t EAST ELEVATION 2
sr~ ~/r- r-c Al a'y~• r~ Al
~S~
~ - - -
- - - -
NORTH ELEVATION 3 WEST ELEVATION 4
~ r-v At sate r-r At
,
~
r f- fill,.. = a.
• - _ - _ v
-
PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2
''r. >Y _
G t , •
66
'""`'Y nom. i ;~i-o ~ \ ~7__ .i
1 Y ,1 l GT ~~C)) _
{SYl ~ t - - - ~~•(~F_ ~ It - Cc"iA. l1la- ~-Y-
PHOTO 3 PHOTO 4
-l
.1 ~ >
sT
- -
1.
i - _ ' `k' 'r g`''ar-~ ~ ~ :
- ~ 1i T~~~, ice, fj
r. t
_ r ' v , '
ti" .
~ z
PHOTO 5 PHOTO 6
i , - 3 y . 7
- - ~ ~ i~ ~r~ 1`s`f,~ ~v - .Sr sue/
F r ~ +i - l' .
yc ~ n < / _ _
x ~ . / ~ Y¢'r ~l.r S ~ >r, ""t.:' -.mss ? ~ ~w tft ~ ...a ~
Fri t -'~h•~ ~ (r ~ ~ - - ~ rj S. z ~r
PHOTO 7 PHOTO 8
t ,
c~,;ys ~ t.
t
1 r - ~ _
f. - -
~ ` 4\ K - - - .
,c, _
• ,vk~~7 '
1 F. _
PHOTO 9 PHOTO 10
y ~ ~ , ~
~ t t t ~ r; r7
~ -
l 14.
7~,~,
:y. ~
" _ _ ~ ~ - _ `
i;•- 1 - - 5
PHOTO 11