The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-11-2011 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 11, 2011 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street E mma J Harvat Hall 5:15 P.M. A) Call to Order B) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda C) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 1122 E. College Street 2. 923 S. Seventh Avenue D) Report on Certificates issued by Staff and Chair 713 N. Lucas Street E) Consideration of Minutes for July 14, 2011 F) Public Comment Section 106 Review and the Development of a Memorandum of Agreement for the Rehabilitation and Hazard Mitigation Measures for the Iowa Memorial Union, at the University of Iowa, Under the FEMA Public Assistance Program G) Adjournment Staff Report August 5, 2011 Historic Review for 1122 E. College Street District: East College Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Todd McCafferty, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition project at 1122 E. College Street, a contributing property in the East College Street Historic District. The project consists of removing a chimney and roofing over the resulting hole. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Chimneys 7.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Significant Features Staff Comments This large two story house was built in 1908 for Mrs. Nellie Mingus; the builder was Charles Mentzer. The style is influenced by Dutch Colonial Revival. The house is significant for its architectural character, which is well preserved. At present, there is an original chimney centered on the main roof, and a newer metal flue on the roof of a cross gable on the west side. There is no indication that there were other original chimneys on this house. The applicant is proposing to remove the chimney, which is structurally failing and no longer used for venting. This is a brick chimney, and above the roof the brick has a concrete skim coat. The chimney would be removed to a point below the floor level of the attic. The resulting hole in the roof would be patched with sheathing and shingles to match the existing shingles. The guidelines recommend repair of unused historic chimneys, and disallow the removal of prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building, (4.2). A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the removal of architecturally significant components, including chimneys, on any structure within a conservation or historic district, (7.1). In Staffs opinion this chimney was never a prominent feature of this house, and removal now would be acceptable, especially considering its deteriorated condition. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1122 E. College Street as presented in the application. '•'�4y``y'��y�,!y' Z: py'.�'� + "r"'TIr 3 t+w h -� `G^3.c yX� f `LF " lk. 4 {, 17;. 4 t �r + t t L .��`i rc � �,y �� % 7 ,,y + ` ; � 1.. k �'k9 � {1 �. Cpplication for Historic Revie Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation For Staff Use: Date submitted: _07 /� / ❑ Certificate of No material Effect GF-fe—rtificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information (Please Oeck primary contact person) Qf Property Owner Name: Email: tC' iNlr�m Phone Number: Address: �r�57 !� —I City:1QlA .L X� State: �/ \ Zip Code: ®'Contractor / Consultant Name: EI— Email: Phone Number: ( Address: City: State: Zip Code: Proposed Project Information Address: t 661.-L,C-6E < 1 � ' lA_ Use of Property: DE �A L— Date Constructed (if known): Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District East College Street Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Clark Street Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District 11 Contributing X Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric VMW Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans 9 Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) KPhotographs Al Proposal of Future Plans ❑RepWr or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: i i appforhistoricreview-pdf 6/29/11 A IE July 6, 2011 Proposed Project Details - Removal of Chimney at 1122 E. College St. I have recently replaced our old water heater that vented through the chimney, with a high efficiency tankless water heater that vents through the side of the house. Our high efficiency furnace also vents through the side of the house, so the chimney is no longer needed for its original purpose. It is in extremely poor repair and due to the cost we have opted not to have it restored. In the attic, a lot of the mortar has degraded to sand, and bricks can be loosened by hand with minimal effort Attempts to repair it by previous owners are now failing as well. I am concerned that it could potentially fail in severe weather and damage the structure significantly. Since the chimney is no longer needed and has suffered badly over time, I would like to remove it from above the roofline to below the floor level of the attic. The resulting hole in the roof would be closed with3/4" plywood, covered with tarpaper and the shingles would be replaced with left over's from when the house was reshingled in 1997. Since the chimney above the roofline has been repaired with a skim coat of cement at some point in the past, it no longer has the appearance of an elegant, old brick chimney like many of the houses in the East College St historic district The only change in appearance to the exterior of the structure would be the absence of an ugly, old chimney in poor repair. Removing it, in my opinion, would improve the appearance of our beautiful home, at the same time reducing the risk of damage to the structure. Please see the attached photographs. Thank you. Sincerely, Todd McCafferty 1122 E. College St. Iowa City 354-8002 tcmccafferty ftcom Staff Report August 5, 2011 Historic Review for 923 S. Seventh Avenue District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Stephen Yagla, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 923 S. Seventh Avenue, a contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The project includes a new walkway from the public sidewalk up to the house, cutting an opening in the low brick wall that extends from the front porch, and installing a new iron gate in the opening. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.8 Masonry 4.10 Porches 4.12 Site and Landscaping Staff Comments This one and one-half story brick house is one of six similar bungalows built by L. Palmer between 1927 and 1932 in the 900-block of S. Seventh Avenue. Each varies slightly from the others in design, and several have small garages to the rear which appear to have been constructed with the house. These houses are good examples of a popular style of the period, and illustrate the suburban development of this area. Features in common include the first story brick construction, similar windows and window locations on each house, upper half -story under a gable roof, with broad eave overhangs and simple braces, and small front porches with gabled roof and wide battered corner posts on square brick piers. This neighborhood developed following the completion of the Rundell Streetcar line in 1910 and the construction of Longfellow School in 1917. It was the new forms of transportation, both streetcars and automobiles, which allowed residential development to take place farther away from the central business district. This house and its original garage are considered strong contributing structures in this district. The applicant is proposing to remodel the front entry area by cutting an opening in the low brick wall that extends from the front porch, and installing a new iron gate in the opening. A new walkway is planned from the public sidewalk up to the new gate. The existing walkway and porch steps behind the low wall are only accessible from the driveway, and the applicant wants a separate pedestrian path. Regarding site and landscaping (4.12), the guidelines emphasize the importance of preserving historic site features that contribute to the character of a neighborhood. While a sidewalk that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk is recommended, it is also recommended that historic elements should be preserved and any new work should be similar. Regarding porches (4.10), the guidelines emphasize the importance of preserving front porches, as they are the focus of many historic buildings and help define their overall character. Significantly altering or removing a historic porch is disallowed. Using wrought iron elements, unless they were part of the historic design, is also disallowed. As this project proposes to cut into the existing brick wall, the guidelines for masonry (4.8) might also apply. Finishing the cut ends in a way that will preserve the remaining wall should be considered. Original materials and craftsmanship should be matched: bricks should match in color, texture, dimension, and hardness; mortar should match in hardness and color, and in joint width. In Staff's opinion, it would be preferable if the applicant could find a way to add the desired pedestrian path without changing the historic brick wall at the front porch. The wall is an important feature of this house. It is matched by a similar low brick wall at one of the other bungalows on this street. It is a feature that contributes to the character of the neighborhood. Staff also notes that only one of the neighboring bungalows has a sidewalk leading straight to the house from the public sidewalk, and it may not be original. The original design for all of these six houses appears to have included shorter sidewalks connecting the front steps to the driveway. Staff also notes that there is no precedent for iron fence or iron gates in this group of houses. If the applicant proceeds with this project, then more detailed specifications for the new gate and masonry work need to be submitted for review by staff and the Commission Chair. Staff also recommends reviewing the materials to be used for the new walkway paving. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 923 S. Seventh Avenue, with the following conditions: Review and approve cutting and patching details at the masonry wall; Review and approve final design for the new gate; Review and approve new walkway paving materials. ,�� , —wc�.. ,�� F � y. E � �. � �. c x� ( '�� ..,..... ., , .. _ - � � n ' R ^ elf. -. w ��>_ � .s:- l'.�. �,$ � � , '' � :¢ �:.>ay � � .+',� a . � � � � � vA, �+ 4 � R ��, �_ � a�, r e4 �� ► 'r� �� 4�,�, � �; R ,�� ,#.-a .,� . � �. �� s 'T�� ` �� * A t � f � � � � f �' s �t �'. � �F �, � �� a (iia,; � 'z,';, sz � � �"` �-, '� �''. r'� � lilt 4 m INMR { .. �+ kOT, no xrJi � P.fi3Y d A tN.. Application for Historic Review Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Planning & Community Development office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/HistoricPreservation For Staff Use: Date submitted: I / Mi -/I ertificate of No material Effect certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review The Historic Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD office by noon on Thursday three weeks prior to the meeting. See attached document for application deadlines and meeting dates. Property Owner/Applicant Information C, (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: —.%— ) Email: � C P one Number: (,3JCX 4, Address: Ave - City: _ _L_0 State: Zip Code: �0 —4 ❑ Contractor / Consultant N me: �%�,/� Email: Address: City: Address: Phone Number: ( ) State: Proposed Project Information Zip Code: Use of Property:_ %\�S i GC ctX Date Constructed (if known): to z v-,-ek (R 'n Historic Designation (Maps are located in the Historic Preservation Handbook) ❑ This property is a local historic landmark. OR This i7roperty is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District Longfellow Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Q Clark Street Conservation District s ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: Contributing ❑ Noncontributing 11 Nonhistoric Application Requirements Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be postponed. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans A"—,A,,lteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient) ❑ Building Elevations J!Q Photographs ❑ Product Information tr ❑ Consuction of new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demoli ion (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other: Please contact the Preservation Planner at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with application. Proposed Project Details Project Description: scE XAXdei t4 0 ae X Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: appforhistoricreview-pdf 6/29/11 i'4rpas A-L -� AA �� /,r� --�) f� T�, � rf� a�, A"o IP-� I -,f � S nt&n'� ( ��4-t / -ID bj-z;�t 4-r� ra I T074 "�ffO�14� 61ktv�A, I�#t� M;V r4i fa�w ( I, c,,J ke� 49 At Nk"zp- sFBw+� �A C% August 2, 2011 Potential Consulting Parties to the Memorandum of Agreement for Anticipated Adverse Effects to University of Iowa U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Iowa Closeout Center FEMA-1763-DR-IA 7755 Office Plaza Drive North Suite 145, Building G West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Phone: (515) 244-5601 ETAM FEMA _ND J.F Re: FEMA-1763-DR-IA; Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission's Role in the FEMA processes for the Notification of Adverse Effect/Intent to Prepare a Memorandum of Agreement The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission (ICHPC) is being invited to participate in the negotiation and development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) designed to offset adverse effects to historic resources resulting from FEMA funded undertakings. The process of developing an MOA, as specified in Code of Federal Regulation 36 Part 800, can be summarized in the following seven steps: 1. FEMA will make a determination that the undertaking will result in an adverse effect to historic properties, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This determination will be submitted to the SHPO for their concurrence (I0-daycomment period). 2. Upon SHPO concurrence, FEMA will provide notification of the adverse effect to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and will invite them to participate in the development of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to resolve the adverse effects (I5-daycomment period) attached. 3. FEMA will provide notification of the adverse effect to parties that may have an interest in the undertaking's effects on historic properties (i.e. potential consulting parties) and invite them to participate in the development of the MOA (30-day comment period). 4. FEMA will develop the MOA in consultation with consulting parties, the sub -grantee, IHSEMD and the SHPO. The MOA will stipulate treatment measures to be completed that will offset or `resolve' the adverse effect resulting from the undertaking. 5. The public must be provided opportunity to comment on the development of the MOA. 6. Once the treatment measure or measures have been developed, a FEMA Historic Preservation Specialist will draft the MOA and circulate it to the consulting parties for review and comment and revise it accordingly. Then it will be sent out for signature (FEMA Region VII, consulting parties, the sub -grantee, IHSEMD and the SHPO. 7. When the MOA is executed, the Project Worksheet will be revised to incorporate the implementation of treatment measures stipulated in the MOA. It will then be forwarded from our review queue — and eventually obligated. The purpose of FEMA attending and presenting the federally funded undertakings at the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission fulfills steps 3 and 5 of the above process. The ICHPC will be invited to participate in the MOA development process, and may choose to be a "consulting party" to the MOA, reviewing drafts, providing comments and signing the final document. In addition, this meeting provides FEMA an outlet to present the undertakings, the identification and evaluation of cultural resources, the level of adverse effect resulting from the undertakings and any suggested mitigation measures that are currently being considered to resolve adverse effect, to the Public, and provide any member of the public the opportunity to comment on the undertaking. www.fema.gov PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING THE SECTION 106 REVIEW AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE PERMANENT RELOCATION OF UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, DISASTER DAMAGED FACILITIES UNDER THE FEMA PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT The severe storms and flooding in the spring of 2008 damaged many buildings on the University of Iowa campus. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing this public notice as a part of its responsibilities under 36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. This notice applies to activities carried out by FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) program implemented under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5152-5207. The University of Iowa is requesting that FEMA provide funds for the permanent relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music, Clapp Recital Hall (HVC) and Art Building, all facilities substantially damaged as a result of the federally declared disaster, and eligible for FEMA funded relocation out of the floodplain. The Code of Federal Regulations 36 Part 800 require FEMA, as the funding agency, to identify if properties are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; to assess the effects the proposed projects will have on historic properties; and to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. The University has proposed three sites for the relocation of HVC. The Hancher Auditorium is proposed to be relocated north — northeast of its current location along the south side of Park Road, west of the Iowa River and east of the Levitt Center for University Advancement, a contributing resource to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible University of Iowa River Valley Historic District. Clapp Recital Hall will be relocated to a site on the southwest corner of East Burlington Street and South Clinton Street in Iowa City. Currently this lot holds two banks that do not meet the NRHP 50-year criterion or the level of importance required by Criteria Consideration G to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. As a component to the purchase agreement for this parcel, the University has purchased the Iowa City School District Administrative Office Building, formerly the Henry Sabin Elementary School, located at 509 South Dubuque Street, with the intent to demolish the school building and offer the lot as a possible relocation site for one of the banks. As the demolition of the Sabin School Building is a direct result of the FEMA funded action to relocate Clapp Recital Hall, FEMA has determined that the Sabin School is within the area of potential effect of this undertaking. The Voxman School of Music will be incorporated into a high-rise development to be located across South Clinton Street to the east from the proposed Clapp Recital Hall. The School of Music will occupy portions of the first six stories of the proposed twelve story multi -use high-rise, with a skywalk connecting the Voxman School of Music to Clapp Recital Hall on the third floor. The University of Iowa has proposed a site for the relocation of Art Building west of the existing University of Iowa Art Building West, along the south side of River Street, just west of Riverside Drive. This site is currently occupied by a former fraternity house located at 109 River Street, which will be demolished. This former fraternity house is within the boundaries of the West Side Fraternity Historic District, is also adjacent to the Manville Heights Historic District and the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District. In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), FEMA has determined that the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP, and that the proposed relocation site for Hancher Auditorium is within the boundaries of the eligible district. FEMA in consultation with the SHPO has also determined that the Henry Sabin School is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, and that relocation of Clapp Recital Hall will result in the demolition of the Henry Sabin School. FEMA in consultation with the SHPO has also determined that the Manville Heights Historic District and the West Side Fraternity District are eligible for listing in the NRHP, and that the fraternity house located at 109 River Street is a contributing resource to the West Side Fraternity District. FEMA has determined the proposed relocation of HVC and Art Building will require the demolition of two historic properties, resulting in adverse effects and has initiated consultation to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect. The disposition of the original facilities for HVC and Art Building, and any adverse effects, which may result from the FEMA funded permanent relocation of these functions, will not be discussed at this meeting. The permanent relocations have been separated from the original facilities, and therefore FEMA will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the disposition of the original facilities at a later date. Subsequent public notices regarding these projects will be published as more specific information becomes available. Members of the public are invited to attend a presentation of the proposed permanent relocations. Representatives from the University of Iowa, Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division and FEMA will discuss the process of identification and evaluation of the historic properties on the campus, and the assessment and resolution of adverse effects. Any member of the public is encouraged to provide views on how the project may affect historic properties and ways that these effects may be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. FEMA will present this information at the regularly scheduled Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Meeting, Thursday August 11, 2011 5:15 pm City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Johnson County, IA. Comments may be submitted to FEMA for a 30-day period beginning Thursday, August 11, 2011. Comments and requests may be submitted via email at: Fema-ICC-EHP(a,dhs.gov or by regular mail. Mailed comments and requests must be postmarked by September 11, 2011 and sent to: FEMA/Iowa Closeout Center Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) 7755 Office Plaza Drive North Suite 145, Building G West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Henry Sabin Elementary School. 509 South Dubuque Street Architect: George L. Lockhart , erected 1917-1918. Henry Sabin Elementary School's construction was part of a round of World War I era school building in Iowa City that saw three post -Civil War era elementary schools replaced by designs of St. Paul architect George L. Lockhart and one new school erected. Named for prominent Iowa educator and State Superintendent of Schools, Henry Sabin Elementary School was the third replacement school completed after Longfellow School (NRHP-listed) and Horrace Mann School (potentially NRHP-eligible) were finished. The fourth school, Kellogg School, is nonextant. Despite the rear facade alterations completed in the past 30 years, the school still qualifies under Criteria A or C as individually eligible for the National Register. The building is a well -executed example of the Late Gothic Revival Style, sometimes referred to as "Collegiate Gothic" because of its popularity on college campuses. The school features reddish brown -colored pressed brick over tile walls and dressed Indiana limestone for trim. Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity House, 109 River Street Architect: unidentified, erected 1929. This fraternity house is an example of an Italian Renaissance Revival Style multi -family design. It was built in 1929 on the eve of the Great Depression when the second wave of homebuilding in the Manville Heights Neighborhood was underway following the completion of construction of the University General Hospital on the West Campus between 1924 and 1928. Its design is similar to that of the University Art Building designed some years later by University architect George Horner after Palladio's Villa Emo at the foot of the River Street hill in 1936. Because the building retains its original design and a high level of integrity, it qualifies under Criterion C as both individually National Register eligible and as a contributing resource in the potential West Side Fraternity Historic District. The Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity was founded at the University of Iowa in 1924 and its members were housed in other quarters until this building was completed in 1929. The owner of the property at the time the building was completed was the One Hundred Nine River St. Corporation, which had purchased the lots on which this building was erected in March 1929. A corporation with a similar name and perhaps the same ownership, the One Hundred Eight River St. Corporation, bought property on the opposite side of River Street the following month and completed a new building for the Delta Sigma organization, an organization for dental students. In 1943, the building was transferred by sheriff's sale to the Building Corporation of Phi Beta Pi. City directories list this medical student organization at 109 River Street until after 1970. August 1, 2011 Potential Consulting Parties to the Memorandum of Agreement for Anticipated Adverse Effects to Iowa Memorial Union, University of Iowa (Distribution List Enclosed) U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Iowa Closeout Center FEMA-1763-DR-IA 7755 Office Plaza Drive North Suite 145, Building G West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Phone: (515) 244-5601 0 Z0, . FEMA F� �J 'GNU S� Re: FEMA-1763-DR-IA; Recovery, Hazard Mitigation and Improved Project for the Iowa Memorial Union at the University of Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa: Notification of Adverse Effect/Intent to Prepare a Memorandum of Agreement The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has received an application for funding from the University of Iowa, Johnson County, through the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (IHSEMD) for the recovery, hazard mitigation and improved project for the Iowa Memorial Union (IMU) that was damaged by .flooding in June 2008, which resulted in the federally declared disaster 1763-DR-IA. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800, federal agencies are required to take into consideration the effects of their undertakings on historic properties in consultation with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other interested parties. Historic properties are defined as those properties either listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP by the federal agency and may include historic buildings, districts, objects, structures, or sites including archaeological sites. On January 30, 2009 IHSEMD surveyors completed HADB#52-087; Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for 2008 Flood Properties at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Johnson County. The SHPO concurred with the surveyor's NRHP eligibility recommendations for the properties in a letter to IHSEMD dated March 4, 2009. The survey report was revised July 2, 2009. SHPO confirmed the previous concurrence, and concurred with the NRHP eligibility determination for the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District in a letter to IHSEMD dated July 14, 2009. Based on the surveyor's opinions of NRHP eligibility stated in the report; and in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 Identification of Historic Properties; FEMA determined that the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B and C and the SHPO concurred in a letter dated April 9, 2010. The proposed recovery, hazard mitigation and improved project from IMU will include a flood wall along the west side of the building designed to reduce damages to the building in future flooding disasters. This flood wall will enclose the lower level of IMU including the "Hawkeye Room" windows from the river view, and the wall will expand the building to the west and north, providing a terrace at the first floor Main Lounge level. This mitigation flood wall will result in the removal of the 1936 class fountain, www.fema.gov modifications to the IMU Bridge, and a change in the spatial relationship between IMU and the adjacent Frank Gehry designed Iowa Advanced Technology Laboratory (IATL). FEMA in consultation with the SHPO has identified that the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. IMU has been determined to be individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and a contributing resource to the eligible historic district. The Iowa Memorial Union Bridge # 762, including the 1936 Class Fountain, a character defining feature, has also been determined individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and a contributing resource to the University of Iowa River Valley Historic District, Therefore, FEMA has determined the proposed recovery and hazard mitigation project for IMU will result in adverse effects to historic properties and has initiated consultation to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect. FEMA is currently anticipating that additional FEMA funded recovery and mitigation projects at the University of Iowa will adversely affect NRHP eligible resources. At this time, FEMA is providing notification of the anticipated adverse effects to IMU to individuals and organizations that may have an interest in the undertaking's effects to this historic property, as well as organizations and individuals who may have interest in other University of Iowa adverse effects. FEMA is inviting their involvement in the development of this and future University of Iowa MOAs to resolve adverse effects (distribution list enclosed). The MOA for IMU will be developed to include treatment measures that will benefit historic preservation at the University of Iowa as a way to offset the adverse effects resulting from FEMA's undertaking. We invite suggestions of historic preservation -related projects that could be included in the MOA as treatment measures. At this time, FEMA anticipates additional adverse effects resulting from the demolition of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall (HVC) the University of Iowa's performing arts facility constructed in 1971-72, designed by internationally renowned architect Max Abramovitz of Harrison and Abramovitz, New York, NY. The cast concrete structure emphasizes sweeping horizontal forms and modern geometric design. FEMA also anticipates adverse effects resulting from the demolition of Art Building, designed by University of Iowa architect George Horner in 1936, this brick Palladian form structure is a potential National Historic Landmark for its association with Iowa artist Grant Wood, and FEMA anticipates adverse effects resulting from the permanent relocations of both HVC and Art Building, resulting in the demolition of historic structures at the sites selected for relocation, including a former fraternity house eligible for listing in the NRHP, and a former Iowa City elementary school also NRHP eligible. As the recovery and mitigation for IMU is the first of several FEMA funded undertakings resulting in adverse effects on or near the University of Iowa Campus, FEMA is submitting this adverse effect notification to all potential interested parties for this and subsequent University of Iowa MOAs. Should you or your organization be interested in participating in the negotiation of this or other University of Iowa MOAs please contact FEMA and provide your name, organization, contact information and identify which or all of the University of Iowa MOAs you would like to participate in negotiating. In addition, Interested Parties and members of the public are invited to attend a presentation of the proposed recovery project for IMU. Representatives from the University of Iowa, IHSEMD and FEMA will discuss the process of identification and evaluation of the historic properties on the campus, and the assessment and resolution of adverse effects. Any member of the public is encouraged to provide views on how the project may affect historic properties and ways that these effects may be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Two meetings have been scheduled for Tuesday, August 23, 2011. 11:00am to 1:OOpm at the Iowa City Public Library at 123 South Linn Street, Iowa City, and 6:OOpm to 9:OOpm at Macbride Hall, University of Iowa, Pentacrest. 2 Public comments regarding the relocation of HVC and Art Building will be taken at the regularly scheduled Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission meeting, August 11, 2011 6:OOpm City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Johnson County, IA. Public comments regarding the demolition of HVC and Art Building will be received at a public meeting at the University of Iowa, date currently unknown, fall of 2011. Responses to this invitation would be appreciated within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notification and may be directed to Ann Schmid, FEMA Historic Preservation Specialist at the above address or to ann.schmid@dhs.gov or Teri Toye FEMA Historic Preservation Specialist, at teri.toye@dhs.gov. Sincerely, x&wea se"4 Kenneth Sessa Region VII Environmental Officer Encl. Memorandum of Agreement Process 1. What is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)? An MOA is a document prepared under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In this case it will detail an agreement among FEMA, SHPO, IHSEMD, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if they choose to participate and the APPLICANT and/or the CLG on what may be done to resolve the adverse effects of demolition of an historic property. Examples of stipulations or treatment measures in an MOA include, but are not limited to, historic and architectural surveys, archaeological surveys, NRHP nominations, preservation planning projects, interpretive programs, improvement of existing historic property databases with GIS information and publications. More about treatment measures is included in #11 below. 2. Why is one needed? To spell out the responsibilities of each party to the agreement. 3. Who is involved? • FEMA — lead federal agency • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) — federal agency responsible for providing overall guidance and advice on the Section 106 process. • State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) — reflects the interest of the state in protecting their cultural heritage. • Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (IHSEMD) — as the applicant for Federal assistance and a representative of the local government. • Applicant and/or CLG —the organization with a demonstrated concern for the project's effects on historic properties by way of their legal, economic and community relation to the project. • Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) — a designated representative of a tribal organization for all projects involving tribal lands or Native American resources (invited for specific projects). • Invited Parties — Organizations or individuals that have a specific interest or connection to the related project. 4. What are the responsibilities? • FEMA invites public comment • FEMA invites identified interested parties • FEMA writes a draft document including details of the project and its effect on historic properties and submits it to identified parties. • Comments are incorporated into the document and all parties review/make comments and revisions until each party is satisfied. 5. What are the differences between a "signatory party" and a "concurring party"? A "signatory party" may execute, amend or terminate the agreement. Typically a signatory party will have responsibilities assigned by the stipulations of the MOA. The only required signatories are FEMA and the SHPO except where the ACHP has decided to participate. Other interested parties may be invited to be a signatory party. A "concurring party" is a group or individual with an interest in the project who has been consulted about the effects of the project but does not have responsibilities under the MOA. Memorandum of Agreement Process January 2010 Page 1 6. What happens after the MOA is signed? The applicant will work with the SHPO to develop a request for proposals (RFP) to address the requirements in the stipulations. 7. What happens if terms of the MOA cannot be fulfilled? A signatory party that cannot fulfill their obligations may propose to FEMA that the MOA be amended. FEMA will consult with all signatories to the MOA to consider such an amendment. Signatures of all the signatories are required for any amendment to be effective. 8. What happens if a party refuses to sign the MOA? The refusal of any invited signatory or concurring party does not invalidate the Memorandum of Agreement. 9. What are the parts of an MOA? A typical MOA is divided into three parts: a) "Whereas" clauses that describe: i) the funding source ii) the activities undertaken by the project iii) whether the ACHP will participate iv) all participants in the agreement b) Stipulations that describe requirements for and steps to be taken to: i) document and record the site ii) protect archaeological sites iii) deal with any discoveries made in the course of the work iv) resolve any disputes between parties to the MOA v) amend the agreement vi) terminate the agreement vii) report on the implementation of the agreement Stipulations are specific to the project and can also include details of acquisitions, mitigation and/or salvage measures where appropriate. c) Signature pages 10. What are the steps of an MOA? a) Applicant report sent. b) Initial Briefing Meeting — MOA process explained, examples given, options discussed. c) Public Notification — FEMA responsibility. d) Advisory Council - Notified of adverse effect determination — FEMA responsibility. e) Public Meeting - This is only needed if a large number of properties are affected or the applicant requests it. f) Invited Parties Meeting — Discuss and finalize the options for mitigating the adverse effects g) MOA drafted — FEMA responsibility h) MOA Signed Memorandum of Agreement Process January 2010 Page 2 11. What are Treatment Measures? Treatment measures to mitigate adverse effects will be commensurate with the level of adverse effects. Alternate treatment measures may include, but are not limited to, preservation planning, interpretive programs, or improvement of existing historic properties databases with Geographic Information Systems. Some of the more common treatment measures for FEMA projects include: recordation: measured drawings, photographs, written description; curation: collection, preservation and interpretation of elements of a historic property; elevation: a common treatment measure to avoid demolition is elevation of a property at the current site to comply with floodplain management ordinances; relocation: physically moving a property out of a hazardous area, such as a floodplain. In addition to the more common treatment measures, FEMA can develop measures that provide public benefit but are not necessarily related to the undertaking. In development of such measures, FEMA and the consulting parties may exercise creativity and should not limit their options. Alternate treatment measures must have a tangible benefit to the community and must have reasonable costs. Examples of alternate treatment measures include: community -wide heritage preservation plans; risk assessments within historic communities; large -area historic property surveys and inventories; training or education programs for hazard reduction in historic communities; educational and interpretive programs such as museum exhibits; portable displays; or walking tours with plaques, monuments or guidebooks; contributions to tribal, state, or local GIS for historic properties. Memorandum of Agreement Process January 2010 Page 3 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 14, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Frank Wagner, Tom Baldridge, Andy Litton, Ginalie Swaim, Pam Michaud, Alicia Trimble (absent for 1033 Seventh Avenue) MEMBERS ABSENT: David McMahon, Esther Baker, Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: David Wieseneck, Mark Kennedy RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:20. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Michaud mentioned at the Commission's December meeting they had approved a certificate of appropriateness for window replacements at 215 East Washington Street. Michaud said the bidding process has been prolonged and that the manager of the building believes he needs a certificate of appropriateness from the State. Miklo said staff has talked with him; Peterson mentioned she was going to call the State and see if they have any requirements and get back to the manager. Miklo mentioned that Chery Peterson will be consulting with the City on preservation planning and will attend Historic Preservation Commission meetings as necessary. Miklo also introduced Nick Benson as the minute taker for the meeting and a student interning in the Planning department. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1033 Seventh Avenue Miklo said this is a pretty straightforward application and that the staff is recommending approval. Swaim asked if the owner would like to discuss the application and the owner declined. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for a proposed alteration project at 1033 Seventh Avenue. Baldridge seconded the motion. The Motion carried on a vote of 6 — 0 (McMahon, Baker, Thompson, Trimble absent). Historic Preservation Commission July 14, 2011 Page 2 818 N. Linn Street Peterson mentioned the property is in the Brown Street Historic District. Peterson stated this is an addition to the rear of the house on the second floor and a new garage attached to the north side of the house. Peterson showed a picture of the house and mentioned there is currently a 1 car attached garage that was an addition to the house. Peterson said there is also a 1 story addition to the rear of the house. The proposed project is to make the 1 story rear addition two - stories, and the garage will be torn down and replaced with a two -car garage and connecting breezeway to the house. Peterson said the applicant is going to use similar detailing and materials as is found on existing house. She mentioned there is an error in the drawing and that the shape of the house is maintained. Peterson said the applicant is meeting the intent of the guidelines and recommended approval subject to the Chair reviewing and approving the detail of the cantilever off the rear of the house. Miklo mentioned staff had received new drawings from the contractor that will address this issue. Kennedy noted that they would like to use the same eyebrow detail as the first floor. Ackerson asked whether the second floor addition would rise up parallel to the first floor addition. Kennedy noted it will rise up parallel on the side of the house with the air conditioner, but will extend two feet further than the first floor addition on the other side. Kennedy said he didn't think it would disturb the look and feel of the house. Michaud asked whether that the small porch would be kept, and the contractor said yes. Kennedy stated that all the architectural details of the addition will match the original existing home. Swaim asked whether bathroom window will be reused. Kennedy said it will be used as master bath window, and will be set horizontal rather than vertical. Swaim asked whether there will be three windows rather than 4 in the master bedroom addition, and Kennedy said yes. Kennedy mentioned the windows will be trimmed just like the other windows in the existing structure. Michaud asked what kind of siding will be used and Kennedy stated that cedar siding will be used. Miklo said the case generally meets the primary guidelines; the garage is offset so as to indicate it is an addition, the addition is set in at least 1 foot from the side, which is appropriate, and the finishes are complimentary to the original. He said staff was comfortable recommending approval subject to the conditions provided in the staff report. Swaim asked whether the driveway will be a single car approach. Kennedy mentioned that it will be a single -car approach that broadens to provide entrance for the two -car garage. He noted there are drainage problems due to a deep ravine at the edge of the property so they will have to re -grade the land. Baldridge asked whether driveway would be made of permeable pavement. Miklo said that the soil is problematic, and questions it aesthetically in a historical setting since it has a rather modern look. He said the pavement is limited anyway. Michaud asked about the conditions for approval, and Miklo said staff doesn't have the particular brands or products for the addition and that staff recommends these be submitted for approval to Peterson and the chair. MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for a proposed addition project at 818 N. Linn Street as presented, subject to the condition that cantilever details, garage door specifications, window specifications and product information for shingles and siding be approved by the Chair and staff. Swaim seconded the motion. The Motion carried on a vote of 7 — 0 (McMahon, Baker, Thompson absent). Historic Preservation Commission July 14, 2011 Page 3 109/111 S. Summit Street Peterson stated this is a new structure and is a garage/carriage house. She said the structure is located in the College Hill Conservation District. Peterson noted that the current house is a duplex and is almost a full -story above the street. The garage structure will also be a duplex with two separate garage compartments at street level, and two separate studio spaces on the second level. Peterson noted that the second level will line up with the first level of the duplex. Peterson said that the proposed garage structure has the same roof pitch and same details at the eve as the duplex, with cement board siding and stucco at the garage level. Peterson showed a photo of the door selection from Overhead Doors. Peterson said the small rectangle on the side - what looks like a window - is an air conditioner/heater, and will be located around the back of the garage and will not be showing on the front, which faces Washington Street. Peterson noted that revised drawings show the garage/carriage house as 28 x 28. Swaim asked how much space would be between the proposed garage and the existing duplex. Peterson said 11 feet. Michaud asked how far away from the neighboring houses this proposed structure would be. Peterson said they are maxing out the allowed buildable area, so around 5 feet from the property line. Michaud asked what direction the garage doors would be facing, and Peterson responded that they face Summit Street. Michaud asked where the entry doors are located, and Peterson said they are on the back of the garage. Peterson noted that there are sidewalk stairs proposed down the bank from the garage structure to Washington Street. Swaim said proposed design of the garage looks very modern. Miklo noted that staff is not recommending the design as presented. Rather, Miklo said staff is recommending 3 windows at the front elevation so as to pick up on the window design of the duplex house. Wagner signed in as an applicant, and said that they are hoping to design the windows and garage doors to be complimentary, and paint the doors black to match the window trim and the door on the house. Swaim noted that there are going to be a lot of windows and wondered if 3 was too much. Peterson noted that the scale of the windows needs to be studied, but she believed the windows in the drawing are too large. Miklo said the thought of doing 3 windows is to mirror what is going on with the rest of the windows in the house. Michaud asked if the windows are divided -light, and Wagner said that the upper floor windows are 9-light, and the windows below are casement. Peterson noted that the guidelines say that the outbuilding should not outshine the main building, so ornamentation should be simple. Michaud asked whether there should be 3 casement windows in a row, and Miklo said whether the windows are casement or awning is less important than the proportions. Miklo said the idea is to have a little bit of space between the windows. Ackerson said if there are 3 below, there should be 3 above. Miklo noted the guidelines discourage a garage this close to the street and having garage doors face the street. However, there is no other choice here, so garage design is important. Miklo also said that to break up the large expanse of paving staff recommends patterned paving be used in the driveway. Swaim asked whether the windows needed to be spaced differently. Peterson said the staff recommends that final design of the windows be approved by staff and the Chair because these drawings are preliminary. Swaim said she is fine with staff and Chair working it out. Swaim asked whether storms would be black or white. Wagner said the trim is white but that the storms will be black and the garage doors will be black. Ackerson asked how high the garage is compared to house. Wagner said the soffits of the garage will be same height of porch, so the garage windows will match up. Michaud suggested the 3 windows above the garage should be like the first floor windows of the house rather than the square windows. Historic Preservation Commission July 14, 2011 Page 4 Miklo said the square windows are consistent with prairie -style homes. Wagner mentioned he could have the architect do renderings of both styles of windows and let the Chair and staff review the options. Swaim said she originally thought same as Michaud with regard to putting first floor style windows above the garage, but stated this might put too much attention on the garage. Miklo asked if Wagner was open to having windows above the garage that were similar to the first floor windows. Wagner stated he is open to whatever the Commission and staff feels is most appropriate. Ackerson asked if the units above the garage will be apartments. Wagner replied that they will be work or artist studios and that nobody will live in the units. Wagner asked if the Commission would discuss the issue of siding on the proposed structure. Peterson said she had listed that the siding was going to be either cement board or LP SmartSide siding. Wagner said that is correct and that they are trying to make the garage/carriage house siding similar to the existing house. Wagner said he would like the siding boards to have a smaller reveal than on the existing house, and Peterson said that since the garage/carriage house will be smaller than the house, it makes sense for the siding to be scaled down. Michaud asked what is underneath the siding on the current house. Wagner said it was originally stucco. Michaud questioned the two doors facing 925 Washington asked whether there are side doors. Wagner said there are not side doors. Michaud asked if there is a door leading out from basement of the duplex to the garage. Wagner said there is no basement door to the garage. To summarize Miklo said there are some details to work out regarding the siding, but the main issue is the design of windows on Summit Street side. Miklo suggested Wagner present 2 alternates — one showing 3 small windows and one showing 3 larger windows — to the Chair and staff and let them decide. Miklo also recommended details regarding the pavement and siding be approved by Chair and staff. Michaud asked about overhang and roofline of the proposed garage/carriage house. Wagner mentioned that the pitch is the same as the duplex and the overhang is slightly smaller than the duplex. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for a proposed project at 109/11 Summit Street, subject to the conditions that the final site plan, including information on retaining walls, driveway, and exterior stairs, final building elevation plans, window specifications, and product information for shingles and siding be approved by Chair and staff. Baldridge seconded the motion. The Motion carried on a vote of 6 — 0 (Wagner abstained, McMahon, Baker, Thompson absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: 732 Grant Street Peterson said this is a small house with one window on the front elevation that is rotten and needs to be replaced. Miklo stated this is a non-contributing structure. The Chair signed the certificate of appropriateness earlier this week. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 9, 2011: MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's June 9, 2011 meeting, as written. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 — 0 (McMahon, Baker, Thompson absent). Historic Preservation Commission July 14, 2011 Page 5 OTHER: Miklo stated that AT&T has approached the City about applying for a special exception to put a cell phone tower on Longfellow School which is a special exception in a public zone. He noted that it will require approval by both the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Commission because it is in a historic district. Miklo said there are guidelines in the zoning code about how cell phone towers should be handled. Miklo noted the Commission is not being asked to approve the tower tonight, but rather being asked to give guidance on the design of the tower. Miklo showed drawings submitted to staff depicting how a tower might look if disguised as chimney. He noted that AT&T is using the Horace Mann School chimney as precedence. Miklo said there are two ways to handle cell phone towers, and one of them is just to put up a plain, unadorned metal tower. He stated the zoning code says that if the tower is attached to an existing building, it should look like part of the building. Miklo noted the clock tower along Mormon Trek Boulevard as an example of a cell phone tower that is disguised. Miklo said staff has had discussions on whether or not to disguise the cell phone tower as a chimney or just leave it as an unadorned pole and asked for the Commission's input. Michaud said disguising the pole as a chimney would be false sense of history. Ackerson said historic issues aside, a chimney looks better than a metal pole. Peterson said her main concern was about the height of the proposed chimney and questioned whether it would be too tall in terms of historical accuracy. Miklo said the exact height is not known and that it is the type of question that can be asked of AT&T. Miklo noted that this item will likely be back on the Commission's agenda in August. Miklo also said that there would be another item on the agenda as FEMA and the University of Iowa are working on two projects where a Section 106 review will be needed. He stated FEMA and the University of Iowa would like to have a public hearing and use the Commission as the venue for the meeting. He said the two projects are the Sabin School and the fraternity on River Street; both of these buildings would be removed to accommodate University projects. Miklo explained that because these buildings have been determined to be National Register eligible, there must be a 106 review process. Miklo noted that the Commission does not have a say in whether or not the buildings come down, but they can provide guidance to FEMA on potential steps to mitigate the removal of the buildings. Wagner asked about removing chimneys in historic districts. Trimble said the guidelines for removal are how visible the chimney is and if it is contributing to the structure. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm. Minutes by Nick Benson Z O O U Z O F- w U) w w a L) rx O U) 2 0 U w ce w V Zo derN G z w Q X X X XLU X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X X X X X X X O O O X X X X X X 0 X X X X O X X X X X X X X X M O 0 X X X 0 X X X X O O O M X X X X X X X O O a X M N M 7 d N N M N � rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N w M CM cM CM C) CM M CM C) M cM I— Q w Q z Y z N w C) Q = L o Q m w ~ WOZ w Q m � z O o z a z0 0 a o o Q a o Q z C9 y a o Z v Q ui m Qz LL z z E 2 0 -0 0 0 0 z C y � w � a) U) 2.0Qzo a a 11 ll z ii nwMa xOOzI w `1