BCC 2010 Cycle Transmittal Ex Summary
.-.......
~
,........
'-"
BCC 2010 CYCLE
TRANSMITTAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
.......
o
o
o
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve the 2010 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments,
including one 2008 Cycle Petition, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for review and objections, recommendations and comments (OR C) response.
(Transmittal Hearing)
OB.ffiCTIVE:
For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2010 cycle of amendments to the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said amendments for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CONSIDERATIONS:
· Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted
Growth Management Plan.
· The (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their
Transmittal hearing for the 2010 cycle petitions on December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011
(CP-201O-1 and CPSP-201O-2), and February 17, 2011 (CPSP-201O-5), and October 19 and
20,2009 (CP-2008-1).
· This Transmittal hearing for the 2010 cycle considers amendments to the following Elements
of the Plan:
o Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and,
o Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series.
Note: Because the support materials are so voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the
Agenda Central system does not contain all of the related documents pertaining to these GMP
amendment petitions. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is
included in the binders provided separately to the BCC specifically for the 2010 cycle of GMP
amendment petitions. The complete binder is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning
Section office at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of CourtslMinutes
and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these amendments. Existing staff resources
and existing (or budgeted) contracted services were used to prepare and process the two County-
initiated petitions, and the existing budget was used to pay for the required special legal
advertisements (for the Wellfields Protection Areas map) as well as the separate CCPC legal ad for
petition CPSP-201O-5 (authorized by BCC on 12/14/10). The cost to process, review and advertise
the private sector petitions is borne by the petitioners via the application fees. Final action is not
being taken at this time as these amendments are not being considered for adoption at this hearing.
If approved for transmittal, these amendments will subsequently be considered for adoption at
hearings to be held later in 2011.
1
As to the staff request for BCC authorization to initiate Land Development Code (LDC) 0,
amendments necessitated by certain portions of petition CPSP-201O-2 - including update of the
wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone maps in the LDC, existing staff resources
will be used to prepare and process those amendments.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office.
These proposed Growth Management Plan amendments are authorized for consideration by local
government, and subject to the procedures established, in Chapter 163, Part IT, Florida Statutes, The
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local
Resolution #97-431, as amended. A majority vote of the Board is necessary for Transmittal to
DCA. [HF AC]
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty-day (60)
review process and ultimately return these amendments to the Planning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2011.
. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
.
No listed plant and/or animal species have been observed or are known to be on the site of petition
CP-2008-1, nor does that site contain jurisdictional wetlands. For the other two site-specific
petitions (CP-201O-1 and CPSP-201O-5), environmental conditions of the sites have not changed
since the prior GMP amendment approvals in 2005 that established the existing respective
subdistricts, and neither of the present petitions propose an increase in overall use intensity or
density. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. rezone and/or
conditional use, site development plan), the sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and
federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable portions of the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element of the GMP, and the Land Development Code.
mSTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:
None of the three proposed site-specific GMP amendment petitions contain lands identified on the
County' s Historical/Archeological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological
probability. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will again
be subject to review for historical/archeological probability.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Most Growth Management Plan amendments are not reviewed by the EAC. However, the EAC did
review, on December 1, 2010, that portion of petition CPSP-201O-2 regarding update of the
.
2
o
Wellfield Protection Areas Map in the Future Land Use Map Series contained in the FLUE. The
EAC forwarded that petition with a recommendation to transmit to DCA (vote: 3/0).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation follows each individual petition listed below.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. Note: Where the
CCPC forwarded a recommendation of approval, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the
CCPC recommendation. In the case of CP-2008-1, where the CCPC recommendation for approval
failed by virtue of a tie vote, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petitioner's proposed
text - as revised subsequent to the CCPC hearing, BCC hearing in 2010 and referendum in 2010.
1. PETITION CP-2008-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to
create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 190,000 square feet of
commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C- 5 zoning
district, with requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of
Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :t40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca,
AICP, Principal Planner]
o Staff Recommendation - October 2009: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2008-1 to the BCC
with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner verbally proposed two changes to
the amendment: 1) reduce building height from two stories to one story; and, 2) reduce the proposed
building area from 225,000 square feet to 210,000 square feet. There was no CCPC
recommendation on revised petition CP-2008-1 by virtue of a tie vote (4/4). The failed motion to
approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, but revised to: 1) keep the list of
allowable uses #1-27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re-Iettering of
paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph
"a." to add a "catchall" prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable
building area from 225,000 sJ. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to
modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more
than one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1." pertaining to the timing of right-of-way donation;
and, 6) delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. The text that reflects the
CCPC's unsuccessful motion is contained in the document titled "CCPC Transmittal
Recommendation for CP-2008-1."
o
Speakers: There were nine speakers. Two speakers were in favor of the petition, noting there is a
need and desire for more commercial and that the petitioner has worked to resolve neighborhood
concerns. One of those two sreakers represented the First and Third Group, a group of neighbors
near the subject site (15t and 3r Streets NW); he presented a specific list of permitted and prohibited
3
uses, with SIC Codes, the Group endorsed. Seven speakers were opposed to the petition, citing
these concerns: project will increase traffic; there are adequate shopping opportunities in or near .
Golden Gate Estates (GGE); negative impacts during project construction; commercial should not
be located in the interior of GGE; project will attract undesirable animals (rats, then snakes that eat
rats); not consistent with GGAMP allowance for commercial and maintenance of rural character;
questions whether there's enough population in GGE to support this amount of commercial; will
disrupt the tranquility, quiet, nature and [nighttime] darkness the speakers moved to GGE to enjoy.
Post-CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted revised proposed
subdistrict text and conceptual map to reduce building area from 225,000 sJ. to 210,000 s.f.;
increase landscape buffers; and, increase building setbacks. Also, the petitioner submitted
additional data and analysis.
BCC Action - January 2010: With the petitioner's concurrence, the BCC continued this petition
indefinitely so as to allow the petitioner to place this proposal as a non-binding referendum (straw
vote) on the November 2010 ballot.
Post-BCClPost-Referendum Action: Subsequent to the November 2010 General Election, the
petitioner submitted a revised petition with updated data and analysis (infrastructure impacts, needs
analysis) to reflect a cap of 190,000 s.f. of commercial development. Staffs detailed review and
evaluation of the revised petition, and the election results, are contained in the document titled "CP-
2008-1 Supplemental Report for the BCC."
STAFF'S CONCLUSION AND RECOM1\1ENDATION:
Based on the data and analysis submitted, the proposed site would be more appropriate for a
neighborhood commercial sized center with the corresponding C-l through C-3 commercial uses of
the Land Development Code, with a limitation of a 20,000 square feet cap for individual users, with
the exception that the grocery use may exceed the cap. Additionally, staff recommends eliminating
the Conceptual Site Plan within the Master Plan as it is unprecedented to incorporate a site plan into
the GMP, and the environmental data provided on the site plan is inadequate to determine
compliance with the Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
.
The discrepancy between the petitioner's request and staff s recommendation was heard by the
Board on January 19, 2010 at which time the Board directed staff to seek the community's desire
through a straw-poll ballot. While staff continues to support a moderately sized commercial center,
the public (via referendum) overwhelmingly supported a 190,000 square feet center.
As noted previously herein, the Florida Senate Report provides that if the commercial ratio of 1.25
is exceeded, other factors, such as suitability of property for change, locational criteria, job creation,
community desires, etc., may be considered. Accordingly, despite staff's finding that the technical
Needs Analysis does not support the petition as proposed within the Comprehensive Plan planning
horizon of 2020, the Board of County Commissioners may consider the following factors in
reaching a decision to approve this petition. The petition does provide for a reduction in vehicle
miles traveled, local job creation and has community support.
.
4
o
o
C'
2. PETITION CP-2010-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE), to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home
furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single .
commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 C:t9.2 acres, zoned
Bradford Square :MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of
100,000 square feet of commercial land uses on Parcel 1 to remain; the subject portion of the
Subdistrct is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in
Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal
Planner]
The Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict was established in 2005 and
comprises two non-contiguous parcels that generally allow commercial uses found in the C-l
through C-3 zoning districts. Each parcel has an overall building square feet cap, and each parcel
includes a maximum size for any individual commercial use of 20,000 square feet. This petition,
which applies to Parcel 1 only, seeks to increase the individual use cap to 50,000 square feet for
certain specified uses.
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petItIOn CP-201O-1 to the BCC with a
recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP-201O-1, as submitted by the
petitioner and modified at the hearing to add a list of prohibited uses, for transmittal to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, and to require, by adoption hearings, the recordation of deed
restrictions listing the same prohibited uses (vote: 9/0).
Speakers: There was one speaker, representing surrounding neighborhoods; he did not oppose the
petition and generally was in support.
3. PETITION CPSP-2010-2, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUElFLUM), to: modify the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1;
modify applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict; update the Wellhead
Protection Map; update the PLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make PLUM
boundary corrections in rural areas; and, add clarity, correct date errors, and make other non-
substantive text revisions. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager]
On September 14, 2010, the BCC authorized County Manager or designee to initiate this petition
which proposes various amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map
and Map series. Most of the amendments seek only to add clarity, correct errors and omissions,
provide updates to map features, and provide harmony and internal consistency. However,
exceptions include: 1) changes to Policy 5.1 to allow redistribution of use density and intensity; 2)
modification of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict pertaining to its applicability; 3)
changes to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) to delete a
development standard, add a use, and add clarity regarding applicability of FLUE Policies; and, 4)
update the Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map,
based upon most recent hydrologic modeling, as required by Objective 1 of the Natural
5
Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element and subsequent policies, and Objective 3.3 of the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element and subsequent policies.
o
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP-201O-2 to the BCC with a
recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
(Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, staff is requesting Board authorization to initiate, immediately,
an amendment to the LDC to update the Wellfields risk management zone maps to correlate with
the update to the Wellhead Protection Map so that the LDC amendment may be considered
concurrent with the Adoption hearing for this cycle of GMP amendment petitions.)
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP-201O-2 for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 9/0), per County Manager or designee
recommendation except subject to modifications to FLUE Policy 5.1 and the Office and Infill
Commercial Subdistrict - both for claritylbrevity/simplicity, and revision to the Wellfields
Protection Map to add Marco Island Utilities' Marco Lakes (in northeast quadrant of US-41
East/Collier Blvd. intersection).
Speakers: None.
4. PETITION CPSP-2010-5, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to modify the Davis Boulevard/County
Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict by changing it from mixed use to residential and limiting
density to a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre - or possibly repealing the subdistrict in its
entirety; the subdistrict is located at the southeast corner of Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and County .
Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, containing of :t22.83 acres.
[Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
On December 14, 2010, the BCC held a public hearing to consider rezone petition PUDZ-2004-AR-
6829 for the Davis Reserve Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) at the subject site.
During that hearing, the applicant withdraw that rezone petition; the BCC directed County Manager
or designee to initiate a GMP amendment to the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use
Subdistrict to remove the traditional neighborhood development requirement, the commercial
component, and the affordable housing requirement - with the applicant stating "no objection" to this
direction; and, the applicant committed to request a PUD rezone that eliminates the retail and limits the
maximum density to five dwelling units per acre (DU/A), and to pay costs for that rezone. From the
BCC direction, staff developed two alternatives:
Alternative 1: Modify the Subdistrict to eliminate the commercial component, affordable housing
requirement, and all design and development standards, and limit density to a maximum of 5 DU/A;
and,
Alternative 2: Eliminate the entire Subdistrict and re-designate the site as Urban Residential
Subdistrict (the site's designation prior to 2005 when the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road
Mixed-Use Subdistrict was established).
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP-201O-5 to the BCC with a
recommendation to approve Alternative 2 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
.
6
o
o
o
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP-201O-5, per County Manager or
designee recommendation, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote:
9/0).
Speakers: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendations for the 2010 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, including one
2008 cycle petition, are as reflected above following each petition. Additionally, County Manager
or designee is requesting Board authorization to initiate, immediately, an amendment to the LDC to
update the Wellfields risk management zone maps to correlate with the update to the Wellhead
Protection Map in the FLUE (part of petition CPSP-2010-2) so that the LDC amendment may be
considered concurrent with the Adoption hearing for this cycle of GMP amendment petitions.
CCPC RECOMl\1ENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on October 19 and 20,
2009 (CP-2008-1), and December 16, 2010 and January 20, 2011 (CP-2010-1 and CPSP-201O-2),
and February 17, 2011 (CPSP-201O-5, 2010). The CCPC forwarded the 2010 cycle of Growth
Management Plan amendments, including one 2008 cycle petition, to the Board of County
Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition.
Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Land
Development Services Department, Growth Management DivisionIPlanning and
Regulation
Attachments: 1) CP-2008-1 Supplemental Report for the BCC; 2) CP-2008-1 Resolution with
Exhibit "A" Text; 3) CP-201O-1 Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text; 4) CPSP-201O-2 Resolution
with Exhibit "A" Text; 5) CPSP-201O-5 Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text
Executive Summary Transmittal 2010 Cycle GMPAs & CP-OB-1 as edited per Judy-Nick
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2009-2010 Combined Cycles petitions\2010 Cycle
Petitions\BCC Transmittal dw/3-3-11
7
C •,.
,
. , .
1 0 : CA ',. M-1 ' ' •
';,:'
.. ,
a ill 1 -. ° ._ 1)7.F.__ ' 4.78.1‹.-•• 07 it ,- -.' ---' ' - v---,--'''''----s-N. - ' • '
ineatatitIENN i_- ----,.(0(D , COLLIER BLVD\N.
m..,(T; 0--z i E > > \ f-
a. f.....„t m> I i_ z s, ,
m
0 ' \ \\.• -0 -0•
/• t 'No 7.Ca M
0 Ca ///iti'' co „\\,: 3
3...= o
o o -13 >--„, -0 0 ,,,, i c,'-0 ...\ , - z
3_0 3 „9, fi,-, „,.(.0 = .......
•(-) 0 , -t c•-) I 11 (D E * z A 73 . ' 13 0 F Cl. :
to u) 0
0 73 -..t: (D_ -7,>--7---'1,- "< Ja .• 05. .
,
7'• - 7 '' SU CI OW = 0 •
... e+ r)
rt. - --i . =
II\ ..p> \' 0 aii (0 ; , 71 )>=.' "0 Z
--I
us CD .. ...1 , 0 (1). ri• - DC)Ma) 'CI).CD
a:-• "•••••i 0 • CD = <, \. c 0 o_ :, co i ,...,, 0
3
„.9.:73
.1
g'' n:0•
-4'CI-
0 =. g i 0.7 m
0 0.• •E \ ' 0
w .."- ,.,,,_ A,..E\-.. \.. :
e.t. 111.. 0 > :. , ...„ 7.az i ■, --... -
0
-- _____,c:i 0 -I-,....---.-7-.-• ,..- .u) i-1/4.,- I 3 o w,-, tv..... ,... 0..) „:„,.(1,,,F),
-o "u 5. m: . . - 1, co,,t) • ,.., (-) •.., .., IQ 4...) •••••• ... I i. .II ■, .
I ■•••• 1:1 2 -0 > i - 0. • .... r Jr. i'D 1_ CD (1) .1 i.:„!..,i.'i.e.■
= -1:1 I'v;.'' ‘'
a:
ri 2 3' 0 1
i 1: : . :i 4.t..
... . . F-
.rr, XI
: 0 1;4 ,F.F'.
, (1) (0 "V ! ',m • •.11 1• .1). CD 0 .! 3 0 -a F.F. . ,_ o
,...
;-F . -4 . .._ ____ .x 1 _ -I = • :,1...X.,.. .,4, o 1.3
$.) 41 0 g., i • _I to ,. (.1 a , .0,... n
-. 1 •-• ' - E L; Cl, - -.4 ' ' .• = * 0 .!.-Pih'.*1-! ),;' ,.3 .•....,9,
: a) a.) 0 ________
., er3 i a) 1 , ea _ ..0 ..t wig: ,:,:+t :,.f 3..zi M
-1 - 0 0 C ,, jo - ..... ,
... I k.',rfr , Di CO?,X-2,X
• . ' S
cn ,-1.• 03 , ----4 r"*"."-1 • ; -n W L-). - h.,) ....,,,,,,_,
ir.
a) ?
Z
•
, 10 •9 "." . :
0 --I C
.. a- su
- 73 0 : ..,e,it Ell -;=- es.„
11 cn
: . . • - -V -. .11. fa. CD a, C) 4-- 1 o c 4.'1'1 ••••• 0/*■
ei
-..1 c i ,. .. . 1
e) LT jE)
0
1-----' I■9 CL , 0 ,. 11 aro
•••." - ,;• ..tt,-, ''.i.o_ 0 41),
. CP Fir ,
, 3 r ..... „::)a .c.w....
o) : ,, ,,
.,
-,. '•FrP,,..,) g :, 14....,,.,,,,),.),,,,, „,,,,,,,.9.,,0
r+ 3 ::o 1 ....... • :..• , .....4
0 -, ,
. (D is) );-.).-- 00 cr) r"i4N.- .--;) ,:;) -.7-4.•;-.- ...
: ....9 o. •
- 3 .. :,..„?.., ,o;0.4.,,:
.,...‘,,4,,,,,,,;.::,.,, •..i..:!,,,,i..
- ,i.
III cl
.... 0.
, WILSON BLVD .."
..'` a F1(
Coa -5C illpo. I ',,../i,'
',..`:, '',''■'.)1.4i'.I 1 t.• *.k.1.k.-112 ■
, C)
. . WILSON BLVD (nra n) ..:; .-
-,
, c co
- • 0
1 . -:I
/ 1 G-)
Zn F. \... ii.- . ,
a • -
. 1 JR • E
C 1 .- 1 _. 0 ,. ----
-,. . (7. ...
.. .. ,_.:, .
0 L____ , .. ..---j ,,,.(D. sT . a 0 '‘ir:.\ \,,..7:' .-e.
-,. ' . ... .
x• .: . 73 .
cr a
i
, zm
, .
0
-
......
... _ .......,........__
, 1. . - • :=;..,
. 0 0
- - >
. • ; z
•. ... Ei: : m . , 0 \ 73 ' .s. -
0 . . . . , w
: .. .: 0 . r<. i C ,-
L. ..
,
..1 0 , 0 . \ _i\lir z rn\
• 0 , ;, \ 73, .1 0 , • . 0.
: * ,
z 03.„N t• 0 :
-:-. , a) .73, m , 1
1,. ...
(7 03 .
; ,
1 , ,
q 0
Z." 13 > -13 , I co
O CI „,,- (D ' r- c
. .I - 0 0) 13 >-L. 71 z f i 0
. _ •. . 13 CD = ra. . co 0 j 0 •-) (5 5, (D
r<-
ii., ..
1:5 CD "• ta. R- i rn
,D c,„ =. , 0 0) (n. -. i
EVERGLADES BLVD. ii cy) ,.1 -, cr su .
L-,,,---:,th--------------..;0 ar-,--•---- . > "Ili
______._ • CU 0 1,1s1,
0 (71 g !
c.:.., < s
i l'‘) •-4
0.. -". = .9.:._ 0,..•-•i .....
0 • Ch C) ' 0 m
m ; O. -0 .. ....4 c
° ° 0
<a) 0 > I I= ,
0.,. Ci) m ,
t: ' 2 0 *
M
1:1°.. 7/ "N V)
0 MI ..1 -.A
Z to 0 3 70 ' ;r- -0 . > 47 ck7 r z ' --I
0 - --: Ir.___ . _ -.1 rn ,..,
. a)
(iE) a. '
I 0 2A) : 7) . .. ... 4,,,
= 0 ■
Y). 00 , i 0 --11 ....•
' CO
- -i co i co 0 ' r- ' 'quit
(11
,
,r4r ha > '.
-9, 0 co 0, co ,
. -c:) ---- a 0 1
,
=-. o 1 DESOTO BLVD Co 113- r°, ' C) C3 m "T1 .0•1...,
o 5-. :
- - --- m , _. _. __ __.• 0 -',I '
.i-.- -:
i.I '
C.)
" C
=- .1.• - 1.. . cp 0. o '
0•
• m i
F< . cri .74. m
i 0 '
O. Q 0 X ,
ri., 11 , ° ' d
----
.......4
i --I .
rn
F....11 0
yr;c.fr',„:
7) ,
: ..sul■ CD .
0 ' 7:::1
F.,•6
I • r"
pd r 1 ,
2 - (i) 0
4 1., :
Ch i m
> Co ..
.... .
4,11
> i 0
.
, 0
''''..,• /
• ,,,,*;..,)';:•r;,;.)-11 °'). '' •
: - r_.......
1
, ....••"-
"#. F)* ii• )ei0r4*1: L\-j c, ...\. \ i c
k.".II k•)r.l.tilk.,);"1 'y.y .,
.i1 '."I' \_ \ 7
1 '.i.)).''')4.fpi,' ) i‘ , -1 03
t•Y))t•) t•rk)k•;'),."• ' '- '0C-i
0 .
'')1 .1.1-'•'°7 ')•°i4D.) ''''1 I.
il /
,,*.,)It:',,,,I.),, IF I, .),.1.'fr,,■!,. .„ .„. - - z> .
'
-,
.1,-▪) A .'}.,,A 1 ca .;g0.1 IX 4 , ; •••• • <
4..t)i4;),,■.)103v, ..) ,j1 ; 1 ; ; :::: 1 i iI r''In 111
,^:/r•;.•t•,1V,,..i,• t .""';'. "-" ; I ',; ; ::::: K---'1,,' , c
z
""•4' );.o.-1.*,) ',..,1, ., [1.1). ;_,„; •______ •••- I. i ..\- - .1:' In II 111
* WO M
ot r yr ■,...0,1•■ 0 gy 4} 1, -))
< n <73
1 0
?F
4; i ri%k K k.; r ;...t . 0 ;0 ;U ;0 73 G) w x rb-C1 1
l• ;" sr,1 • )•:.:. r-, -n 1-- o o) o..) o -. --
.3••.i•r,r,z;0 t ty 0 V...-'''t; '5' ;71 ;1 --- CD Ei `T)' 'T). ..,513 L-1-.-). c).. i 70> 1
't•'iv',I r•ri Er) i k. ,,,)).), 0,,, . .7..
'. 1 :r . 1 •-.Th (D C C. C > Cb '."- rz:
•:i _
; 0 X 90 C13 an ■
> )..' 1 '1 !'''q 0 0 0
• 1p.11,1N ci.) 1 I I
■., -c■ 1 ...,.. , .., 0) x z
3' 1 0 CD co I ,
t ,Ii i 111 Z a) 1.7),.1 = ..., (..) ,
(D
,-0 0.31,1" . .1)..1
n <0.. 00-, m ks 3 7>
,
1.'i; . ''•- • ;• •,• 1
,„.,,,.„2..,.R CA/)4'4 I i.ty...F,■)i C/) -0 • r_r-. (D u)
CD
,,,..),\ ,',,_--i, ,.I., ...)•tvox':. '66 E „--,' -. m = 1
;.,!',,,,_r,=-.-1,),...• .".j..,A.,i I r"
i
La con
0 0 CD sz.
cn
.--f•).1-0-"' r;. •IA
t„r..; 9 ;Y •-•.- i.r)
"*.•-I "o z; ' .)4.3 '
3 i-,, 9.., :z)
t ) /..*;k1 a) a, (-.) it I co
-......--
:trl
j • •1,F. EL-
al
..i. a CO
-I r-0.i) t 11).'0.4. Ei. CO 1 1
• ,.),I r.1
-0 -- 1
1,7-? • z,,;,,,, J,)•,, . 1 '
4 q; ',H,;4,ii.v I i.d../ tp ■-....- r-
, i r
■'../45)%/t14*.P it" -,-re$'‘I''). 0
r i *f so i'• oil -•/%;,.., ci") I
1 40)1-4r)i 4 ".1:•ii o.)c '
;.))),;•/r,;.."Ikift ..),+& , . _ .,. , . , „... ., , .
--11',.•,,V' ■. .
,-.■..* , 4' i'-1.'.1.1°. i
_
"r'V r,";qe..1'Id,"}•'il•#%,,10`;.0:qii}"Itif";'to"'' )#''F'1V,'"t'li i.
I./1y4111.44 i'ltykt.))\4,d04.)1FitJt./V,./,)!') ),F t'l)'..,14- 1..,:ii.VM
Y YV.) )Vf-#.;'•)1Y-').'1 ' "ij'-it..1 '')■••'. '. r:''
11); P,te.t#1.).0.., 1 if $ II,. P,te I % N
• ,,-),:frt;)1)1.4',)k/,"),,t.)ett!..)fler,.,,y,.-,,,,,k,..,,,, ,,1 ik)fr,k),!,kt.,1 i ,.
)▪ i' ,,,-*- q:" 'il•°:i1•it^..,.ivk..) ,ii)•41)),I.I6 , -..)'1i .,;„.•.,..._4)I,y ,
!op ii,,/6 ft jet ri,' I%If
/k) ),I)k)k)').1.)1')Ii1 Yt ,t.,1-144• ;0 $.',11k lf•iVii)
I. %1) 1,. !.. r V) F)F't 1,Ft y Ft I 1 ),Ft .1 ;,F
. ,',, .1 ,A•,),.. ). ),A.• • .1• .1 . ..)). ), j
-.-------1---",-;:-.--, --;----,-,..?--../.., "F)4);,#,P) le!,'",':,'.V!,,,,e..0.,,
i
,),,i77:--ia-;--.---1-2" .•P 1,4;/4_ SR 29 ;.
___