REVIEW COMMENTS
}.D
I' )N...,
-
~.
,
~~.,.--
MEMORANDUM NO. 91-179
TO:
Commissioner Lynne Matson
DATE:
J. Scott Miller
City Manager
July 1, 1991
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Stanford Park
Per your request by memorandum dated June 27, 1991, attached
hereto please find copies of correspondence regarding the
traffic impact of the proposed Stanford Park as a condominium
project. A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. and filed with their land use amend-
ment to the City (ACLF to condominium); and thereafter, said
statement was forwarded to the County Traffic Engineer for
review and comment. The County Traffic Engineering office has
determined that the proposed amended project meets the 1990
Traffic Performance Standards (See Charles walker letter dated
May 31, 1991 attached hereto).
As Mr. Cutro notes in his memo No. 91-160 only the represen-
tatives of the potential buyers of the ACLF building will be
involved in the meeting.
Should you have further questions/inquiries, please feel free
to contact me.
,,---------,
_ Jk
J Scott Miller
ity Manager
RECEIVED
JSM : j c
JUL 1
cc: Mayor & City Commission
Chris Cutro, Director of Planning
Central File
PLANNli~G DEPT.
RECEIVED
JUL 1
PLANNidG DEPT.
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
J. Scott M\ller, C\ty Manager
Lynne Matson, Comm\ss\oner
June 27, 1991
Stanford Park
I w1sh for the appl\cant to have a traff1c 1mpact analys\s done. When the
study 1s complete, I w1sh for Charl1e Walker at the County to be g\ven the
results. Am I correct 1n assum1ng that all the owners of Stanford Park
w111 be at the July 2nd meet1ng scheduled w1th myself, the C1ty Attorney,
Plann1ng Director, and applicant?
~LfI'--"\'-..f- n \/1 tu''--',J
Lynne' Matson "1 '--~
Conrnissioner
LM:cd
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
Chris Cutro, Planning D\rector
Don Jaeger, Bu1lding & Zoning Director
Vincent Finizio, Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
Central Flle
%e City of
'Boynton 'Beac/i
100 'E. 'BoyIltDl' 'Be/U./t 'lloukvara
'1'.0. 'Bo'(310
'Jioynton 'Bead" :f{oriaa 33425.0310
City:Haff (407) 134.8111
'F::U:: (407) 738.7459
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
~.
April 19, 1991
Mr. Dan weisberg
Palm Beach Co. Engr. Dept., Traffic Div.
P.O. Box 2429
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2429
RE: stanford Park Land Use Amendment
Dear Mr. weisburg:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the traffic study submitted as
required for a land use amendment for a portion of the stanford
Park planned unit Development. This application is scheduled
to be reviewed by the City's Planning and Zoning Board on June
11, 1991.
Please review the enclosed study for compliance with all
applicable provisions of the 1990 Countywide Traffic Performance
Code.of Palm Beach County (County Ordinance No. 90-40). Since
your analysis of the traffic statement will likely be an integral
part of our review and recommendation, and in anticipation that
the statement may be deficient based upon the requirements of
county Ordinance No. 90-40, a timely response is most
appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
~(ttv
Christopher cutro, AICP
Planning Director
MWR:cp
Encs.
.9ll1lerica:S (jateway to the (jurlstream
Planning Dept. Memorandum No. 91-152
TO:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
From:
Christopher Cutro, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Stanford Park
It has come to my attention that Vincent Finizio, Administrative
Coordinator of Engineering, has been conducting a private
inquisition of my staff regarding my placement of the item fOr
the conversion of stanford Park on the agenda.
First, Mr. Finizio questioned a member of my staff regarding the
number of hours that person had spent researching the
development.
Mr. Finizio in an attempt to elicit comments from another member
of the planning staff remarked "What is your boss doing, he'd
better read the codes" and that he was going to "blow me away
and the City Commission" regarding this item, and that he could
not understand why we were spending so much time on an item we
had not collected fees on.
Finally, when I asked Mr. Finizio to direct any questions
regarding Stanford Park to me, his response was "My only question
is, who are you working for and whose best interests do you
serve?"
The Stanford Park agenda item was placed on the agenda at the
behest of the owner with your conCUrrence. If Mr. Finizio had
questions regarding this agenda item, he should have directed
them to me; especially when it comes to questions of how staff
time is being used and why.
I consider this to be a form of harassment and I would ask that
you look into this incident and take whatever actions you deem
necessary to prevent it in the future.
CC/cmc
A:STANPK
,
V. DEVELO~S
B.I
PLANNING DEPT. MEMO NO. 91-149
cc: Bldg, Plan,
Eng, Util
TO:
~ reer, City Manager
Christopher Cutro, Planning Director
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 13, 1991
Stanford Park
DATE:
.".;:.",. '-'<'.
"~"-'."...~-.-., .
~'. "","''''''1ii
. ....;.~ ,:,~.",."~~t!<;9~~~~~~f:~*~~i~c~~
9fe~fdenttal housing. Rather than have them prepare expensive
drawings to modify the PUD I suggested they go before the City
Commiss2on to approve the changes on a conceptual basis. If
approved the applicant would then proceed through the review
process which would culminate with a final review by the City
Commission.
I would ask that this item be placed on the City Commission
agenda on June 18, 1991.
Cltt~~~~~.W~~~t,Jl
A;yc>--~~~w~k~~~
R\A-~~~~~.~~4A-L
CC/cmc _ \ . ~ r. r.: ~-r-: \..J,;
A:STANPARK ~~~~ V-~'O-I"""->.
~ .~il.u.-(U..<>- ~ ~~ ~ ~ k
\flM.,.1J.~~~~ ~qltu..hJS"~
':-uI~
stA
eCl
rrt
----.
. .
I Kimler.Horn I
Klmley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS. PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
4431 Embarcadero Drive Wut Palm Buch, Florida 33"07 401 US.066S Facsimile 0407 863.8175
...
April 1.1991
4279T.00(07)
\
Mr. Reggie Grenier
Inter-Pro Realty
2205 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Re: Stanford Park, Hypoluxo Road
Boynton Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Grenier:
As requested, we have evaluated the traffic generation potential of the proposed
conversion of 220 approved congregate living units to condominiums for the above referenced
project located west of High Ridge Road. The Stanford Park project was approved in 1983
which preceded the application of county traffic performance standards within the City of
Boynton Deach. Consequently, the 220 congregate living units are vested for traffic associated
with that land use.
Utilizing current trip generation criteria as outlined by Palm Beach County, the 220
approved congregate living units would have a trip generation potential of 472 daily trips.
The 220 units converted to condominiums would have a trip generation potential of 1,540 daily
trips. Consequently, there would be a potential increase of 1,068 daily trips with the proposed
conversion. Hypoluxo Road has been widened to six lanes and is only carrying an average
daily traffic volume of 28,214 trips which is well below the six-lane daily capacity of 46,300.
Consequently, Hypoluxo Road should have adequate capacity to accommodate the relatively
small increase in traffic associated with the conversion.
If you should have any questions, please call me.
Very
JBP:map
Florida Registration
Number 19562
4279TOO-RG - Lot0191- Jbp. wp
Anaheim. . Charlota. . o.ns. . Fort lIudlldatl . Fort ,",yef' , Nuhvilll t Orlando , Ptloenlx
RIII'O" . San atlOO . Slulrl . Tlmp. I Vera e..ch I Vlrglnle Seach I Wnl Palm S..ch
Bulldln, clllnl flrallon,hlp. Ilnel 1'17
Board of County Commissi- ers
Karen T. Marcus. Chair
Carole Phillips. Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Carol J. Elmquist
Mary McCarty
Ken Foster
Maude Ford Lee
I r ':"-:
~I~
County Administrator
Jan ","'interS'
.
May 31, 1991
Dep.:\ftment of Engine~ring
and Public Works
Mr. Christopher Cutro
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Fl 33425-0310
RE: STANFORD PARK LAND USE AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Cutro:
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic impact study
for the project entitled Stanford Park land Use Amendment pursuant to the 1990
Traffic Performance Standards Code (Ord. No. 90-40). The project consists of
220 condominium units at a site previously approved for 220 congregate living
units. The County Traffic Division has determined the project meets the 1990
Traffic Performance Standards Code of Palm Beach County.
If you have any questions regarding the determination of the County Traffic
Division, please feel free to contact Dan Weisberg at 684-4030.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
~ J1-~1' F~11,
Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E.
Acting Assistant County Engineer
CRW:DW
File: TPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review
~CElVED
JUM 4 ql
PlANNING DE-PT.
-
-
H:\Traffic\DIW\Boyn4
.. An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-2429 (407) 684-4000
~ pflnted on recycled paper
.~.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 91-160
TO:
FROM:
J. Scott Hiller, City Manager
~ (i;:k..... -
Christopher cutro, Planning Director
DATE:
June 28, 1991
SUBJECT:
Stanford Park
SUBJECT: As part of the Land Use Amendment that
stanford Park a traffic statement was included.
was forwarded to the county Traffic Engineer and
them. (see attachments).
( ?nly the representatives of the potential buyer of the ACLF)
~bUilding will be involved in the meeting. ~
was filed for
This statement
reviewed by
cC:cp
Attachments
RECEIVED
JUN 28 1991
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
U~BAN DESIGN STUDIO
TEL No.
407 583 0551 Jun 10,91 16:55 P.02
,
June 10, 1991
City of Boynton Beach
~lann1ng Department
100 ~ast 5oynton 5eacn 50Ulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Attn
Mr. Chris Cutro, Planning Director
RE
Stanford Park Planned Unit Development
Dear Chris:
I'd like to express my thanks, as well as my client's, for your
time and consideration in meeting with us last week regarding the
Stanford Park project.. we look forward to the opportunity to
present our proposal for the project to the City Commission on June
18th, and we appreciate your efforts in enabling us to do so.
The following information is offered to memOrialize the several
points of our discussions to date and to summarize the history of
the project:
The Stanford Park PUD was approved in 1983 as a mixed use project
consisting of a nursing home/convalescent center, a 6,000 square
fOOt medical Office building and a 220 unit AdUlt Congregate Living
Facility.
The nursing home has been constructed and is in successful
operation. The medical office building, intended as an ancillary
use to the other two principal uses, has been constructed but is
currently unoccupied.
The Adult Congregate Living facility, consisting of 100 one bedroom
units and 120 two bedroon units, was intended to operate within a
"club fee" arrangement, whereby an elderly single person or couple
would pay a fee "up front" for a unit, and then pay monthly rent
and/or maintenance. The facility was to be licensed as an ACLF by
cr.e State, Offering personal services, on-Site recreational
facilities/ communal dining as well as individual kitchens, and
property management and maintenance.
.
Ull*n onrgn
Utben Plannhf
LMtd P&.nnlng
LlncI..,.,. ArChllecture
l::ammwnlCllltlan ar..lc.
2000 Palm BeICl'l Llk41i Bou~.rcl
s...~l::8OCl Th.Canc:a..rS8
Wwl p"lm Bt:ilCh. Fb'ida
~I'I.W
IlUfWlglJU:ii
STuart. FI.. f01253.W22
NcwgatQuch,CA. 114,C42.10QCl
Ul\..tIhl'i .L,t..)lLJi~ .) I ULllU
I tL rw.
r
r
I
'~.
Chris Cutro
June 10, 1991
Page Two
~.
Construction or the ACL~ facility was nalted in earlY 1990 due to
aefaults under the construct1on loan. The inab11ity Of the
developer to complete the project has resulted in a conveyance of
the property's ownership to a subsidiary of the mortgage holder.
An agent of Inter/Pro/Realty, Inc:. has reoently entered into a
Letter of Intent to purchase the ACLF portion ot the site. Urban
Design StUdio has been asked to represent !nter/~rO/Realty in the
planning and government liaison and representation work necessary
to ac~ieve the completion of construction of the facility, for its
use as a condominium development for the elderly and retired.
The purpose of our presentation to the City Commission on June 18th
will be to bring the Commission up to date on the status of the
project, and to present our proposal for completion.
It is our intention to demonstrate to the Commission that the
operation of the facility as a condominium development reserved for
the elderly (adults 55 years and over) represents a use which is
the equivalent of what has already been reviewed and approved by
the City, and tha~ therefore, a finding enoulO ~e maoe ~nat the
current residential comprehensive plan deSignation for the property
accollUllodates the use we propose. We teel that the evidence we have
discussed with you, and which we will present to the COllUllission,
will indicate that the only difference between what has been
approved and what is now proposed is that there is'no commitment
with the present proposal to provide the personal care required for
licensing by the state as an ACL:r. ..ersonal services, on-s1te
recreation, security and site maintenance will be provided under
this proposal, a~ least equal to that which was approved with the
original development program.
We have concluded from Our research, and feel you will concur, that
the condominiumization of the units is not a relevant factor in the
consideration or the use Of the property. Tnis is because the
City's ordinances make no distinction I:.>etween condominium ownership
and rental occupancy of multi-family residential projects.
Similarly, the State statutes and regulations governing ACLF' S make
no distinction between owner and rental occupancy of State licensed
facilities.
-
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO ,
TEL ~<o.
4ui b6~ U~~l Jun lU,~l Ib:~b
...
Cbris cutro'
June 10, 1991
O'age 'lhree
'-,
we will also ~e prepared to present to the commission a comparison
of impacts to show the equivalency between the ACLF "club fee"
concept approved and the condominium project proposed to justify
our request.
we feel it will be obvious that approval of the proposed change
offers certain clear benefic~ co Che Cicy. certainly the most
important benerit the City will realize from the completion Of
construction of the facility is the ability to tax the improvements
on the land and thereby enhance the City's ad valorem tax base.
This is concrasted wiCh the current sitUation where only the land
value is taxed (since no certificate or occupancy has been issued
for the building) .
Other revenue enhancements which could be reali~ed from completion
of the project include: personal property taxes (assessed value
of personal property Of the Homeowners Association>; licenses,
permits and fees (based on the value of the construction to be
completed) I intergovernmenta.l revenues (e. q. , ciqarette taxes,
state revenue shal:'ing, sales tax rebates, County occupational
11cense revenues and a 30t share or the City'S local option gas tax
revenues which are determined on a resident per capita basis);
franchise fees and utility taxes and impact fees.
We have discussed with you and yOur staff the alternativell to
meeting all of the normal technical requirements for an application
for PUO amendment, which you have s~acea is necessary ~o achieve
the use we propose. As you are aware, we have been unable to
obtain authorization from the other owners of property within the
PUD to submit an application for an amendment to the Stanford Park
PUO ordinance. Given this situation, we will request that the
Commission provide an opportunity for us to amend the PUD, by
waiving some of the technical requirements for an application, or
through some another avenue, SUCh as a Developer' 5 Agreement
executed pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Such an
agreement, successfully utilized in other localities, will allow
both the special circumstance9 of the project and limitin9
conditions of approval to ~e set forth within a locally approved
ordinance.
URBAN DE~lbN ~IUDIU
Ii::L No.
4U( b~~ U~~l Jyn lU,~l lD;~D ~.U~
r
, ..
,
Chris Cutro
Jun. 10, 1991
1'091> Four
,.", ~'
We will be very happy to
Stanrord Park project and
me at your convenience to
meet with you or your staff about the
our proposal. Please teel free to call
discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
~
Anna Cou:rell
cc
Thomas Hunt, Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.
R~ginald Grenier, Inter/pro/Realty, Inc.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMO NO. 91-149
FROM:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
~~
Christopher Cutro, Planning Director
TO:
DATE:
June 13, 1991
SUBJECT:
Stanford Park
I have received the attached letter from the representatives of
Stanford Park regarding mOdifying the PUD from ACLF to elderly
residential housing. Rather than have them prepare expensive
drawings to modify the PUD I suggested they go before the City
Commission to approve the changes on a conceptual basis. If
approved the applicant would then proceed through the review
process which would culminate with a final review by the City
Commission.
I would ask that this item be placed on the City Commission
agenda on June 18, 1991.
CC/cmc
A:STANPARK
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
TEL No.
407 589 0551 Jun 10,91 16:55 P.02
June 10, 1991
City of Boynton Beach
PLAnning DepArtment
100 Eas~ Boyncon 5eacn Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Attn
Mr. Chris Cutro, Planning Director
RE
Stanford Park Planned Unit Pevelopment
Dear Cnris:
I'd like to express my thanks, as well as ~y client's, for your
time and consideration in meeting with us last week regarding the
Stanford Parle project. we look forward to the opportunity to
present oUr proposal for the project to the City commission on June
16th, and we apprecia~e your efforts in enabling us to do so.
The folloWing :nformation is offered to memorialize the several
points of our discussions to date and to summarize the history of
the project:
The Stanford Park PUP was approved in 1983 as a mixed use project
consisting of a ~ursing home/convalescent center, a 6,000 square
rooc medical oftice building and a 220 unit AOult congregate Living
Facility.
The nursing home has been constructed and is in successful
operation. The medical offico building, intended as an anoillary
U5e to the other two principal uses, has been constructed but is
currently unoccupied.
The Adult Congregate Living facility, consisting of 100 one bedroom
units and 120 two bedroom units, was intended to operate within a
"club fee" arranfJement, whereby an elderly single person or coupl.
would pay a foe "up front" for a unit, and then pay monthly rent
and/or maintenance. The facility Was to be licensed as an ACLF by
Che State, orrering personal services, on-Site recreational
facilities, communal dining as well as individual kitchens, and
property management and maintenance.
~
UfbI,n DMlgn
Urian............
l.ond ""'nnlog
~l1G'~"'Chl-.clurtl
Cammunladan Cr.lIl!.
zca:J Pllm BeeCh I..lk8i BoIJ'lVarO'
SU.c800",.~rs.
VV~IP~mI8~ijCh.F~Ui
:rwM-l\.W
.tu/ DHIUJ..ili
S1uan, Fl. '01213.1XI22
N&:",rpad~h. CA "'4.G42.1OQQ
URBRN DESIGN STUDIO
TEL No.
407 689 0551
.~
Chris CutrO
June 10, 1991
Page Two
~-
Construction or the ACL~ tacility was nalted in early 1990 due to
aefaults under the construction loan. The inability of the
developer to complete the project has resulted in a conveyance of
the property's ownership to a subsidiary of the mortgage holder.
An agent of Inter/Pro/Realty, Inc. has recently entered into a
Letter of Intent to purchase the ACLF portion of the site. Urban
Desi~n Studio has been asked to represent Inter/prO/Realty in the
planning and government liaison and representation work necessary
to achieve the completion of construction of the facility, for its
use as a condominium development for the elderly and retired.
The purpose of our presentation to the City Commission on June 18th
will be to bring the Commission up to date on the status of the
project, and to present our proposal tor completion.
It is our intention to demonstrate to the Commission that the
operation of the faCility as a condominium development reserved for
the elderly (adults SS years and over) represents a use which is
the equivalent of what has already been reviewed and approved by
the City, and thae theretore, a :inOin9 ShOUld be maoe that the
current resiClential comprehensive plan designation for the property
accommodates the use we propose. We reel that the evidence we have
discussed with YOU, and which we will present to the Commission,
will indicate that the only difference between what has been
approved and what is now proposed is that there is no commitment
with the present proposal to provide the personal car. required for
licensing by the state as an ACLl'. personal services, on-site
recreation, security and site maintenance will be provided under
this proposal, at least equal to that which was approved with the
original development program.
We have concluded from our researCh, and feel you will concur, that
the condominiumization of the units is not a relevant factor in the
considera1:ion or the use Of tne property. This is because the
City's ordinances make no distinction between condomini1,l.lT\ ownership
and rental occupancy of multi-family residential projects.
Similarly, the State statutes and regulations 9overningACLF'. make
no distinction between owner and rental occupancy of State licensed
facilities.
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
TEL No.
40, 689 0551 Jun 10,91 16:56 P.04
Chris eutro'
JUne 10, 1991
"age Thl;ee
'-,
we will alSO be prepared to present to the Commission a comparison
of impacts to show the equivalency between the ACLF .club fee"
concept approved and the condominium project proposed to justify
our I;equest.
we feel it will be obvious that approval of the proposed change
offer" certain clear benefitl:i to the City. Certainly the most
important benetit the City will realize trom the completion Of
construction Of the facility is the ability to tax the improvements
on the land and thereby enhance the City's ad valorem tax base.
This is contrasted with the current situation where only the land
value is taxed (since no certificate of occupancy has been issued
for the buildins) .
Other revenue enhancements which could be reali~ed frcm completion
of the project include: personal property taxes (assessed value
of personal property of the Homeowners Association); licenses,
permits and fees (based on the value of the construction to be
completed); intergovernmental revenues (e.g., cigarette taxes,
state revenue sharing, sale:s tax rebate31 County occupational
license revenues and a 30~ Share or the City's local option gas tax
revenues which are determined on a resident per capita basis);
franChise fees and utility taxes and impact fees.
w. have discullsed with you ..nd your st...ff thG altGrnatives to
meeting all of the normal technical requirements for an application
for PUD amendment, which you have s~ated is necessary ~o achieve
the use we propose. As you are aware, we have been unable to
obtain authorization from the other owners of property within the
PUD to submit an application for an amendment to the Stanford Park
PUO ordinance. Given this situation, we will request that the
Commission provide an opportunity for us to amend the ?UD, by
waivin~ :some of the technical requirements for an application, or
~hrough some ano~her avenue, sucn as a Developer'S Agreement
executed pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Such an
agreement, successfully utilized in other localities, will allow
both the special circumstances of the project and limitinq
conditions ox approval to be set forth within a locally approved
ordinance.
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
TEL No.
407 689 0551 Jun 10,91 16:56 P.05
~
Chris Cutro
June 10, 1991
P090 Four
\.:' .'
We will be very happy to meet with you or your staff about the
Stanford Park project and Our proposal. Please feel free to call
me at your convenience to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
~
Anna Cottrell
cc
Thomas Hunt, Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.
Reginald Grenier, Inter/pro/Realty, Inc.
I
:
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #91-246
TO:
Christopher Cutro.
Planning Director
FROM:
John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
~
.-;:;;;.-
r7. r:. .
DATE: May 1, 1991
SUBJECT: TRB Review - Stanford Park P.C.D.
In lieu of approval, we offer the following comments on this
project:
* Outstanding punchlist items need to be corrected
* Remainder of Capital Facility fees must be paid and
adjusted to reflect new use
* Backflow preventers must be tested and repaired as
required.
.
..
. ~ i.n...
*~L'Y'L~
MA,,\( ~,)
p~W!l%flbEk~
gb
xc:
Mike Kazunas
File
- .'-
-.-
4
,
"
.
.I. ,
\
~,~.
. 0#4 ~:v.f;0vl
~Ab{
C-r-.f.,..4" Z.onill"
,,0'. ch.,f. /":S ()~;. ;'J~ C Miif f< 6 JO--')
~:V t
fJ9 0irt<l"1~ 5h<1: ~ LA ""'.~
~1r11d~ 1</.(
.
./
.r;... IV' f<ff t, C J..Ji tM...
..w f"'Jvi:. f:F;. /- vlv."" G
'1 - pAI\~ po.
.f ~ _ pJ...{)ILe I.h.
r~~
~. w"{I/-V"~ <j PttkL ~ I--U p./'vre-c/2 '
C (2). C<T>'l~c.+ f; purcJ..~?e. tJlj"l1e-
.:If n.-t r .,1'0-"-.....5/71.1 off,ce.? ~"m-1 mf.-(:"
Cvr-re.'f\..-l blWvlt{ t.t:c <>-pfLn-....".;f I "Y1....f- Sch~w
Cev-iJ..~ ~.t?~~ <<fI.
e 71 #f Je.....'C Co-J rU:- m--..J:.
,.;f -rc /Yl
/J
t..,f"""
~v'
~
( ko(> ~ '; ""
l\€~"W-'" ~~
Ui--"i
I'b
(3).
<<
'7 ,{,i
. \, f
1.1~..,
(5')
fi/Jri) ~ A
Hre&{ ~~r~)6(;
Hoq - ;;;1 tf,1f'i/~ TvP
-d"/ / _ Itr~"'--
-t:t A ~l
{3'" ;t Hli"'J (',Po:?
.is 1/_ A L KC
('(05'f b<:-..fr-'~'^- C6--n.. -1 f2~LmJ <f.Vf>>"-
~w (2);t> ?t...J2(d;..
t. fi. v,,-Il~ jvruc-7 (~4j2)
e. . ~ ('{\Pie- C-f'?r or -tA..,$.
. 6U1M. ?-fe .5 #'
Iii} (J)-f'dffYI "f QWIIU5h..-r ~ ff1"''n./ul.a..~/ZJrr:z:;+e>i'"-
- 11....-f j.u q L~> K5+"'~r ?~( fre fcrli U/AJ~(> ~>.'
I}.lt fl..'5 be f'/I-i. i\.{...",edl-
... ~ '*' k.cr~+~ .f.:.iJt\~\t.?~
S" o-......""....f-1C:5:fi ~~?ff .s~~ ~>
- -.--..--......-.----.----- -- - ---.-
Iri
u Ii *~7f c' PI"", - It"'" J ~ A f cP - ,0,<. 'r
_ eed; f'-{:~ - "IL '"odJ .,f r~'<?(> ""~, r_p(?bP
M. tJ'?[ '11\ "'-r?h&J~ IX p/L. (,:fEu
iJ..-J /'(Ill']'! .A. Jf'6K. $~ r-;rCII.J
_ f" - f,; L V A ~ I i/,C4fI."j (-/;:;i<f-)
if ),5'00 .
~~ "
,.j',,-.>
. ----. ..---.' -----------,._-~~_._-- ---'-- ---
Jtar.f..t2 RT(
/(.11
f~'
c./lr .~(
LU~~~B ~"1!/J. C~
Pvf) ~ p&p ~~
~L~
&<-fl.,a ().Jc ,.(11l~~~t::. - L.ccd-/ ~ ~( c,)'Y)YI')l!.'V'::;"/
- AJ~Y'.s'Y~.e of' O/{cc. lY~. 6-11",y,J~ 6-.S'
cOI7I~;_1 v~.::>.
- ~ ~OI/t.Qm.M; v- (~.,I!, ",elf) i:s qf~~~,... "f"c:
4. S J... ~. ,~(,< rLA....,.f ..fv- <:;;7 f.{fJ -
L d)~;4 r'i'~ ;bJt!'n{-;o./ /a >?.P.. US'C-.
J....u t( -t:~. - -hr$ i- l' ...'(;c. h~...<"."j'
?...fI,hc. "j'\4f'.f.C.....-b."""-:r ('~t:I...e~ 30 dl-rs
3-s ];A.y tJdf;c.e. .j.. ~fe..rKs <>(fi...~
II
^' <<6J i/......:e. - ']'{\ o.y Jl!J
- rn-r 7 _5'.
8r~~iW \)ea.ALt."-e.- - A fr.L i;)t
:r UL ,j'fof..c. ~"..... I< ri,l ;.-.2 .......a t...... ~c....~.() you.c .If}-
~G-v- ~..- "....... I~;M'" - ..-
~
~ A.-,.. {:'b. - ~
If l..,)e..1lJ. \......-. ~ ~ lP7 fV(.cfi]fe
~ rr.e'ff ~eK. (tv\..y 1ft) ~
~-....t1 ~+<!t"i'-~ by e...f). ..( tt.,f-
f.)~~t (. /"I.y 3~).
~ \...""t:i \&.r.9- ~""! I ;( C4{(~ Y"'/"I\":'( t-1~' LJ~{).I.?$~.
5c ~j;' J. 'J
'\
N~
)"P'~ ..;....{f,~
.J.-.,.d
~ r
,,'~....
_,ty,~.. 'I ,
{~ L-~1L -A6'<.~~~\"" '1--""'r~~!".~'__
f.'?':'('f~;~{1 -c:. " .
,. I'~-'~"\lt .... ,
. . (. p. n ~/.,_v- C~
V. c fc Ii^"- ~< f~-( kc.7 ,15; il 1 fl.,/ i-I / [
~ k-cfi- (At:.. I..r(lif:jJ\~(f~dt - L<>c ~( ;";'h:, ( t.~NV>e\CI4
-'. Ai:.~~c; ,fY'I"~<\.Pt/jX..~, PC'.p,~{ "'N'l":bl"t':Ott\ \... "'1.,.../,;-..<:,
<'7 .
I (C'c:.e ~/"/lr
~'(
" !
C)
f,
~1
"
-~..-I..:.
',:.:)',.I..J~~ \.....
. "" .~.::o lI.'''.\
"
_~ ...~l(,
...,. ~ .T'~.'''.~, -~N. .':7"(~ \.;, -
. C-~.,~
..:>.J~t:l."'::\-t".~ ,
j~ "~~~~"\~\4'-"-' ~'. "-...).~~ ~(~';\"',~.." f'~'.\..)~~\I"C"(~-_~:-J::.):....r ~"-~ -
. :.7YY\"-fcf'U!{
~~^ "!~~~,,.~:.q:-~~:"-4~~'\,~ ~....... iL~ 11~ r-e tiv;<,.tJ
. ~ z:,.~ ,,)... \<. .:J..> . ~..::>'\,""';'" ~'> '::.~ <......~ .L\.<::~ H.L-
t J .. f{- d"-.. ..),., C<:'L-Cj;'I1J rC[Ui {i>~ 1 f~;. ~ '7f!.c <>---tiC-'f' .~
/.., !*~ .J~ "(...m~Jfl---f .i.. re~n-I ~~, -~YJ#iif 11#, _k~-
; ; ~e rJCCL,'l'L ~. ,," .. .;.;,.4iif/I..J:: ~Rr --I:It)J~If'j(i(
'~." rteiJ-('o."r~ "Ii<;:~Jt t~.,:JVfJ.4" ~'-~r5fltr-4./.-fit~5Ihirf,. (
._-l:fg.~-ti<L>lf>.r:t:-r 4~. (~rV1~li/V A-(f',Yk. ~1'h~5, <J.e:;f6!'Crrit (\ ,,"h~
~ ea, '04J flj b~ r"'~ ~ . ~~r~ +1 ~ l ~ J -~ ~
h -',.~. - ~, .f ~~H~- f::
. j . ~
"obI "J;.<uy'l\ -~\+~'~~~'~'~"-, .1., :.;;Jt~ ":>J~ ~\ ~ l,c"--+~
."'- ~;::;......,:::ow t:.:lla>C ~~--."'tTc.-t' :[n """.a<< -(0 ~TV'.p ,- (
-i:< A",",~F-~t -nO""." A~' "iIltc...-I;+ (.;~J2 1,;;. :'-I'$,'~ ~ tfg.,.Je )~j1rteo
~1l'" 41--, ~~~IQI if.-ttr" Il<>>-'L fie.. -!;me (c"rL- L"-;-d .k .7'(~)c..(''C
r~Jdic \'.~C4-:/;;6f>~ ,:~z:~/v1" [0-'10"- -1(.,. !-:, 5-1' T'Jo( c Itt~\,))~.
:--- .l . ft;;.h~ i"'i.", Yf<: j .".: .JfJ4~ ~t,h'pi(l.r ---!' T~~!'t'ik"- 'f10?f- is""-p s:CL ,J-;.,(. t11O).....
r~')~(. ,"- I., . t';.,..(. ''':- ..~ c. j{ . ~.('Jl <..~J "-.'M.e" \:1'1"1" t \11,', t i t'c ",ve. t1dJCC' c{ Tt-
It'"?o '~''j.l,<>~~ Ji~r. .tJ~~ .'1~()' ..Q~r:.'.7:' ~-t: !f;~ i ~(;/C ;~..~~ ~ ~f~1C::/I~i-'1 !:((~_c': '~__
~"~c.. ~ ~ II'!' /9f
, ~ yo /C~.flu .${ ~ :U '7. ..3 I K.....Q
",Yl( /' 'J
. .,- ZJ...C.c.... ~Yl j,,-,>). 7>.... Z ;n"'~7 7-/2- '&3
. r ,,0,
/ ""I cD""". II
<ill .-l" f. f<..<:c.. - ,L./.y-, Y-~..->1~""Q;S; I "- c..,..~;C)
/), -- ct' \
, ~ r r~\ lc.' . c......y-n?~n ..:s~~ Vd-/...e- I' /o-nd1 j>"''''' o.c.,...~ -
r 0.,/"
J~ ;.\ /,s/
o "'-l~..
/r~ /: \
)<\
-.., CG.1 rn e...-..
':'-.{'..tl.,
C ~'
J' J
Ii lV:p.!;) --:;\ u:5 '7' 0... sy4 r-""r t7 ;:::...c-~ ~r cO /8':
,~\/ .,\:\' /02 U.,!es KO_off!" /.fI.3 4.~$ x. a.S
~Vc '7 k $' 3(." 50-<(. 7S- ::. -4 33 J .zf'!. 32 . )
~ 0' ,., \'""'.. r r) \0
'\~ '. 7
l:..' r.. .1 "
~IX \ .-::, '/ (:,,\ .
, fL j / ;
) ,'" '
/ /t:."
/ "
~
((df" D.
(Il'{f' _,,41
((p.r;;
Td:.t.y (Fest: cH-,o:.e.)
S-t:.cL.'r.~c:a ?d-J<-I( - O"'*-S~'nc9-.fn.:r ..LMI'.....c.+ F=.:s
'X",...6L ::rM.1"<1.~
"Bl~. ~'l' - qO"f<{
"6og -'{c?,s
4 I~ I 7t.6 porfb-dl
..:f It: 720 (Va-/' f:I,..,.Q
w--+~ /Sc..<..J~"
~(~J- ~"i - i(o't'f
'? <t. . L1d1S
~ 151"/..z B' 8'
(IJo f' ~.o.
<t i I /3:1../.1..0 Noi- fu:icfl
~~""""-+;o'"
~, sc~ '7~
:s&--&.a .Q""d! '7 e)n';Cs b b~
/0::<' .
:::. 0, "j'/.s- "'-f::....n::S
}vo t<:-
?l <>- -t:: '=f P (~..a..
<('-/C.-8~ / R~d/-.I-:",- ~.l-EEc
F;~_(