From the pictures, 1.10m heigth with 1.35m width looks more right; in any case, there's no simple typo:

If the feet are correct, (6.11 ft), then it should be 1.86m, not 1.10m (or 2.10m as you suggest.)

If the meters are correct (1.10m), it should be 3.61 ft (not 6.11 ft).

Wouldn't they write 6 foot 11 inches as 6.11 (eventhough it's confusing and wrong). Because that would make it 2.10 meters.

I suppose that's the most plausible explanation. (Doesn't seem to match the height-width relationship in the sketches, but its the only thing that makes the particular numbers used understandable as a fairly simple-to-explain error.)

Or then the m to ft conversion is wrong.