Loading...
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;~_(