Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 10-07-04 I I I I I I -I _I JI I I I I I I I I I I BRENWICK THE VILLAGE OF WESTCLA Y DOCKET NUMBERS: 04060035 OA and 04060036 Z INFORMATION PACKET FOR THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE OCTOBER 7, 2004 12821 E. New Market St. Suite' 200 · Carmel, Indiana 46032 · 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax brenwick@brenwick.com http://www.brenwick.com I I - I I I I I I I -- I I I I I I I I- 'I Table of Contents 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFICA TIONS 2 'RESPONSE TO REMONSTRATORS' OBJECTIONS 3 FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 4 COMMERCIAL SPACE ALLOCATION AND AUTHORIZA TION SUMMARIES 5 PROPOSED MODIFIED SITE PLAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO VILLAGE OF WESTCLA Y ZONING PROPOSALS 1. Senior Housing . Move the three-story structure to the north side of Glebe Street. As so located, it will be 1,200 feet north of Laurel Lakes. . Move the one and one-half story attached villas to the north side of the principal senior housing structure. As so located, the villas will be 1,600. feet north of Laurel Lakes. . The senior housing area will be entirely internal to Village of West Clay and will be surrounded by retail structures to the north, town homes to the south and west and village homes to the east. . Single~family lots identical to those shown on the currently approved plan for the area west of Towne Road will be across 126th Street from Laurel Lakes' to a depth of 800 feet. .' The building height on the west side will not change. It is currently limited to 45 feet ~nd will remain at 45 feet. 2. Peripheral Retail Area . Move the Peripheral Retail Area to the southwest comer of 131 st and Towne Road so that it is entirely within the existing boundaries of the Village of WestClay. . Commercial uses west of Towne Road will be buffered on the west by town homes, ball field, amenities center and landscaping. . Commercial space west of Towne Road will not exceed 100,000 square feet. . Commercial space in the Village of WestClay will not exceed 274,800 square feet, which is the amount presently authorized. No new commercial square footage 'is being requested. What is being requested is the relocation of 100,000 square feet of the existing authorized commercial square footage within the existing project boundaries. . 3. Northwest Comer of 131st and Towne Road . Limit development of the 30-acre parcel at the northwest comer of 131 st and Towne Road to residential uses. ' . The area immediately adjacent to the Lakes of Hayden Run will be developed . as platted single-family lots upon which detached village homes will be constructed. . The balance of the. site adjacent to 131 stStreet and Towne Road will be developed with town homes. . . Access .will be afforded for future development of the adjacent 10 acre site to the north. . Brenwick. will execute a covenant running with the land that the site may be us~d only for residential purposes. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. Density . Density exclusive of senior housing and Village Center lofts will be limited to 2.2 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the 2.3 uni~s per acre initially requested. . Density inclusive of senior housing and Village Center lofts will be limited to 2.5 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the 2.6 units per acre initially requested. These changes would (i) eliminate the northwest comer of 131st Street and Towne Road as a potential commercial site; (ii) keep the amount of permitted commercial square footage inwestem Clay Township at current levels, and within the existing approved planned unit development; (iii) keep Gommercial uses south of l~lst Street; (iv) buffer the existing Laurel Lakes and Lakes of Hayden Run developments with single-family residences; (v) contain the senior housing and Peripheral Retail Areas within residential areas of The Village of WestClay, and (vi) lower the aggregate density initially requested, all while allowing Brenwickto provide, within the existing Village, a senior housing community and retail uses that would serve all of western Clay Township, not just th~ Village. . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO REMONSTRATORS' OBJECTIONS Objection: The integrity and continuity of the planning process is jeopardized by Brenwick's continuous revision of its developmentplan. Response: The planning process is not static. The original plan for the Village of WestClay was presented in 1998 and approved in January of 1999. The likelihood that revisions in response to changing circu,mstances would be justified during the course of a 10-year development was contemplated in Section 4 of the WestClay Village Planned Development District Ordinance which specifically provides for amendments to the Ordinance, modification of the development plan and revision of applicable development standards. In the course ,of the five years since adoption of the Ordinance, Brenwick has proposed changes on three occasions, including its current proposal. By way of comparison, . the ordinance governing development of the City Center has been amended four times in.. four years, while the ordinance governing development of the OM/Old Meridian District has been amen~ed four times in three years. In August of this year, the City Council adopted more than 70 pages of amendments to the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Objection: The up-scale country home/subdivision landscape of West Carmel will no longer be viable if the Brenwick proposal is approved. Response: If "up-scale" refers to price point, the objection is more applicable to projects .west of Towne Road than it is to the Village of WestClay where the average home price is in excess of $500,000. The concept of "country home landscape" is elusive, but it is difficult to conceive that developments currently underway north and west of the Neal residence fall within its scope. Western Clay Township is, for all intents and purposes, largely built out, and the predominant development pattern west of Towne Road is production housing starting at $190,000, and a median price point significantly less than that in the Village of WestClay Objection: Brenwick proposes to build three-story structures west of Towne Road. Response: T~ere is currently no limit on the number of stories of structures that may be constructed west of Towne Road. The only limitation is one of height, which is limited to 45 feet. Brenwick does not seek to change this.restriction. In fact, it is anticipated that no structure west of Towne' Road, including the principal senior housing structure, will exceed 40 feet. Three~story single-family structures are not uncommon. In fact, a prominent example is located directly east of Laurel Lakes on Towne Road. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Objection: Brenvvick proposes to increase the aggregate square footage of commercial space in western Clay Township. Response: Brenwick's modified proposal contempla~es no increase in the aggregate square footage of commercial space. It is currently ~uthorized to construct 274,800 square feet of commercial space in the Village of West Clay. If its modified development plan is approved, Brenwick will be authorized to construct exactly the same' number of square feet of commercial space. Objection: Brenwick wants to push basically "ugly" commercial structures into "our" community. Response: Brenwick and the more than 600 current residents 'of the Village of WestClay believe that they, too, are part of the community. The modified development plan proposed by Brenwick. contemplates that commercial uses west of Towne Road will be surrounded on the south, east and north by residential structures occupied by residents of WestClay and buffered on the west by landscaping, common areas and town homes. While Brenwick denies that it is in the business of constructing "ugly" structures, to the extent that the proposed commercial buildings fail to meet the aesthetic standards of a few of its neighbors, the, visual and economiC' brunt of this purported affront will be' borne , solely by the residents of WestClay in whose midst these structures are located. Objection: The development proposed by Brenwick west of Towne Road will adversely affect the Neal residence. Response: Mrs. Neal has agreed to sell her property to a developer. Brenwick has had discussions with the prospective purchaser about his development intentions and has revised its land plan so that the streets constructed by Brenwick on the west side may be extended into the Ne~l property. It is unlikely that a sophisticated buyer, fully aware of Brenwick's proposal for the development of its land west of Towne Road, would agree to purchase the Neal property at a price more than three times greater than what Brenwick paid for the adjoining land if he believed that Brenwick's development was designed to reduce property values in the area. Objection: The introduction of senior housing and commercial structures west of Towne Road will adversely affect property values. Response: If this objection were true, the loudest remonstrators in the room would be the more than 600 current residents of WestClay who will be most directly affected by the alleged diminution in value. Moreover, to assert such an argument and expect it to be taken seriously'requires one to believe that Brenwick has survived as a land development company for 28 years by acting contrary to basic market precepts. Less than 50% of the contemplated single-family residential lots to be developed in WestClay have been 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I developed. The aggregate sales value of these yet-to-be-developed lots exceeds the market value of the proposed commercial area by a factor of 14 to 1. It is irrational to assume that Brenwick would propose a plan that diminished the v~lue of its own property and it is equally irrational to argue that the Brenwick proposal would diminish the value of adjacent property not owned by Brenwick but would not diminish the value of the Brenwick property in whose midst the allegedly objectionable land use is located. Objection: The Plan Commission has historically refused to approve commercial development adjacent to residential communities. Response: This is demonstrably untrue as evidenced by the experience of two Brenwick communities. When Brenwick commenced development of Mohawk Crossing at the northeast corner of 126th and Grey Road in 1979, the intersection was undeveloped. By' the time it completed development, the Plan Commission had approved a retail shopping center on the southwest comer. Subsequently, Brenwick developed Waterstone immediately to the east of this shopping center on Grey Road. No objections to the presence of the adjacent shopping center were expressed by purchasers of lots in Waterstone, which was one of Brenwick's most successful projects and remains to this day one of the most popul~t communities in Carmel. More recently, the Plan Commission approved the development of a Super Target Store with, associated retail and office facilities on Michigan Road. This commercial development backs up to, and intrudes on, Ashbrooke; a residential community developed by Brenwick. Indeed, all commercial development on the east side of Michigan Road approved in. recent years by the Plan Commission is immediately adjacent to pre-existing residential communities. Objection: Senior housing is an inappropriate land use in a residential community. Response: The hostility to providing up-scale housing opportunities t<;> seniors within the same community in which they raised their children is simply inexplicable. The average age of a resident of a senior housing facility is 75 years. These people do not drive often or far, do not contribute to over-crowding of the schools and are not rowdy neighbors. They have every right to expect to live in as fine a neighborhood as they can afford and to have available the same amenities that are available to their children. It is true that nurses and other care providers must be employed to provide the services and care required by some aging seniors, and to gain access to the facility they will have to use the public roads. In the case of the facility proposed by St. Andrews, this means that at 7:00 a.m. in the morning and at 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon up to 25 care givers will make use of Towne Road. It is difficult to conceive how this movement of persons could in any way have a~ adverse impact on the community. The physical facility to be c<?nstructed by St. Andrews will not have an "institutional" look, but will be a residential facility designed in the.style of townhome residential structures in the Village and on a comparable scale. The associated independent-living villas will also be designed in a style similar to single family residential structures in the Village. All senior housing facilities will be interior to 3 I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the Village. For the neighbors of WestClay who object to senior housing, the facility will be out of sight and, thus, the old folks in residence can be out of mind. Objection: Towne Road was intended to be an impregnable barrier against development other than large lot, single-family residences. Response: Since Brenwick commenced development on the west side of Carmel in 1981, every road ,has been alleged to be an impregnable barrier to whatever sort of development was proposed. When ,Brenwickproposed Hamilton Crossing, U.S. 31 was the alleged barrier. When it proposed Springmill Streams, Spring Mill Road was the barrier. When it proposed Cl':lridge Farm, Clay Center Road was the barrier. Wh-en it proposed the Village of West Clay, Hoover Road was the barrier. Now it is Towne Road. No public road in this -country was designed to constitute a Maginot Line. The notion that "bad" development is to be confined east of Towne Road and that "good" development is to prosper west of Towne Road is absurd unless there is common agreement on what is "good" and "bad" development and on objective standards by which to make such a determination. And this is the point: it is the character of the development, not its situs, that is at issue. The qualitative merits of a project are determined by its style, scale, detail, market responsiveness and sensitivity to adjoining. land uses. These factors must be weighed on their own merits, not dismissed as a consequence of geography. Bren,wick believes that its proposal to develop the land it owns west of Towne Road in a manner compatible wIth its development east of Towne Road is logical, sensitive, responsive to market demands and compatible with existing land uses. The decision by the City of Carmel to construct a garage and maintenance facility at 13lst and Shelborne Road and the decision by the Plan Commission to approve a dense town home development north of that facility suggests that there is nothing sacred about Towne Road, but that each development proposed for land lying west of Towne Road should be evaluated on its own merits. Objection': The separation of automobile-intensive commercial uses from other commercial uses is inconsistent with TND design principles. Response: The Village of WestClay has never been presented as a Walt Disne'y set- piece. It has been designed to be a viable neighborhood in which multiple housing options are. intermixed with commercial and recreational uses on a human scale taking into,account the every-day needs of its residents and the reality of modem dependence on the automobile. The designers of WestClay were not utopians determined to impose a 19th century life style on 21 st century families. Their ,intention was to tame the automobile, not to ban it; to give preference to the pedestrian rather than the automobile. The shopping requirements of all residents in western Clay Township are identical. The difference is that the residents of WestClay prefer not to drive four miles to get their basic necessities whereas others in the township, as a matter of preference or principle, insist on driving to 126th, and U.S. 31 or 106th and Michigan Road while at the same time complaining about the increase in traffic on the roads that lead to these retail centers. The 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TND solution - employed at Celebration in Orlando, Florida, and Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Maryland, the two most widely acclaimed TND developments east of the Mississippi -is to sep~rate the Village Center retail with its emphasis on pedestrian- friendly shopping from higher volume, automobile-intellsive retail uses where drive-thrus are industry standard. The Brenwick proposal is fully consistent with this TND design concept and does not constiJute a break with either its own design principles or with the design principles. generally applicable to TND developments. Objection: The Plan Commission has consistently refused Brenwick's request to authorize gasoline sales in the Village of W estClay. Response: A gasoline service station was authorized in the original ordinance adopted in 1999 and the elevation of the proposed gasoline station was included in the original development plan approved by the Plan Commission. ~fenwick is not asking for any change in the existing ordinance as it applies to gasoline sales. All it is asking for is to relocate the approved gasoline station from the interior of the Village east of Towne Road to the interior of the Village west of Towne Road. In neither location will the station be visible from properties outside the Village. Persons objecting to the presence of an Art Deco gas station in the Village will continue to be free to drive four miles to get their gasoline without being offended by the, visual intrusion of a more readily accessible source of gasoline. Objection: The presence of a gasoline station in WestClay will pose a threat to the public health and safety in that (a) the underground storage tank may leak and contaminate the ground water and (b) a delivery truck may explode causing damage to person or property. Response: As previously noted, the issue is not the presence of a gasoline station, but , whether it is located within the Village of WestClay east or west of Towne Road. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Indiana Department of Environment Management, have design and installation standards for underground storage tanks ("USTs"), to protect the environment, including groundwater. There has been no publicly disclosed example of the failure of a UST constructed and installed in conformity with EP NIDEM standards. In addition, there have been no reported incidents within the memory of modem man of a gasoline delivery truck in the greater Indianapolis area exploding in the course of makjng its rounds. As the Committee was previously informed, there are many underground gas transmission lines that run through western Clay Township, through and inclose proximity to existing neighborhoods. While there is a risk. of explosion associated with these lines, regulated safety precautions, like' those now in place for gasoline stations" minimize that risk to the maximum extent possible. Gasoline stations are often located within residential areas. I!l Indianapolis, for instance, gasoline stations serve the Meridian Kessler, Butler Tarkington and Broad Ripple neighborhoods without any of adverse consequences feared by the remonstrators. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Objection: If commercial uses are authorized west of Towne Road, it will be cited as a precedent to permit commercial uses along the east side of Towne Road. Response: There will be no non-residential development along the east side of Towne Road. Within weeks, Brenwick will have completed development adjacent to the east right-of-way of Towne Road and will file a plat establishing single-family residentiaf'lots in that area. These newly developed lots will overlook the commercial development proposed by Brenwick, for west of Towne Road, further evidencing Brenwick's conviction that adjacent commercial development does not adversely affect the value of residential properties. Objection: The Village. of WestClay stirs strong emotions in area residents and needs a high degree of oversight. 'Response: This is a polite way of saying that those who opposed the Village in 1999 continue to oppose the Village today and wish to. hobble its developer in order to thwart the success of the project. Brenwick has not p~oposed any loosing of the oversight presently required by the Ordinance. The only change proposed by Brenwick is the modification of the first sentence of Section 8.15 of the Ordinance to read as follows (revisions italicized): "Unless the Department determines that such structure is depicted on the Development Plan in substantially the form and style t~ be constructed, Commission approval of the architectural design of the structure in accordance with the Commission procedures for ADLS Amendment review shall be necessary..." These proposed changes are intended to strengthen the DOCS review process by establis4ing a more precise standard of review and to expedite the review process by specifying that it shall proceed in the form utilized for ADLS amendments. Brenwick has adopted and the Plan Commission has approved detailed architectural design standards for the project. These standards specify certain well-known, objectively ascertainable historic architectural styles. Moreover, the development plan includes detailed plans and elevations of the improvements to be constructed in the Village. Appropriate DOCS oversight is not dependent upon "institutional memory," but on a professional knowledge of historic architectural styles and the ability to determine whether what is proposed is consistent with the essential elements of those styles, the written standards set forth in the building guidelines and the drawings contained in the development plan. Every commercial .and civic building constructed in the .Village to date has been submitted to DOCS to confirm that it conforms to the development requirements of the Ordinance and Brenwick proposes no change in this procedure. More substantively, Brenwick believes that the architecture of the Village of WestClay as developed to date compares favorably with any other project in Carmel and is in all respects consistent with applicable design standards and requirements. Objection: The Village of WestClay is already too dense and no further increase in density ought to be authorized. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response: The Village of West Clay encompasses 686.7 acres and, if the revised development plan is approved, will be expanded to 716.8 acres. The current density cap is 2.0 units per acre, or 1374 dwelljng units as presently composed (1434 dwelling units if expanded as proposed). Of the 1374 currently authorized dwelling units, 1108 are either developed or will be developed as single-family residential lots. The balance of the authorized dwelling units - 266 living units - are either apartments or townhouses, which are clustered south and east of the intersection of 131 st and Towne Road. The density of the conventional single-family residential lots is 1.61 units per acre, or 0.16 units per acre greater than the average density of developments west of Towne Road of 1.45 units per acre. This finite difference is imperceptible .to even .the most sophisticated eye. The difference in density between the Village of WestClay and other developments is almost entirely attributable to the presence of 186 apartments and 80 townhouses. Under its revised development plan, the authorized residential density in an enlarged Village of WestClay would be increased to 2.2 units per acre (exclusive of senior housing and Village Center lofts). This requested increase is entirely attributable to the proposed addition of townhouses west of Towne R~ad. Townhouse development in Carmel is a recent phenomenon that has filled a desperate need to provide lower cost, owner- occupied housing, primarily for younger families and singles. It was to meet this perceived need that townhouses were designated as a critical design component of the City Center project and are a separately designated component of the development plan for the OM/Old Meridian District. If Carmel wants to keep its young people and if it wants to attract more young professionals to its local work force, then it is imperative that it make available attractive, affordable housing. Brenwick believes that town homes are a wise design solution to this problem and it requests an increase of 10% in its existing density cap in order to accommodate this need. Objection: The $2,463,923.00 to be spent by Brenwick for off~site road improvements designated by the City constitutes a "slush fund" that exerts undue influence on city officials and is effectively a bribe. Response: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Some remonstrators assert that the development of the Village of WestClay increases traffic and adversely affects the capacity of roads throughout the township and argue that Brenwick should pay to remedy the alleged degradation in capacity notwithstanding that there is no empirical evidence that Brenwick has caused or aggravated the problem. Others argue that Brenwick's willingness to improve those roads that it agrees are adversely affected by its development is evidence of a conspiracy to unduly influence public policy by establishing a political slush fund. In the course of 28 years, Brenwick has constructed or improved more roads in westemClay Township than the Hamilton County Highway Department, including the construction, at its sole cost, of the intersection at 126th and U. S. 31 that made access to the west side convenient. Brenwick does not believe that the cost of improvements to public roads reasonably and directly required as a result of its development activities should be borne by the taxpayers. Neither Hamilton County nor 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the City of Carmel imposes a road impact fee, so that any developer contribution to mitigating adverse impacts on traffic in the area of its development necessarily must be voluntary. If there is any economic incentive associated with voluntary road improvement contributions, it is to offer as little as possible, not to fund a .slush fund for politicians. The advantage to the public of Brenwick' s voluntary contribution for road improvements cart be empirically demonstrated by comparing the ease, comfort and safety of driving along 131 st Street between Towne and Clay Center Roads (which Brenwick improved at its cost) compared to the stretch of 131 st Street from Clay Center to Spring Mill Road, which Hamilton County chose to leave unimproved. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 1. Should Brenwick be permitted to relocate 100,000 square feet of its currently authorized commercial space west of Towne Road and south of 131 st Street? 2. Should Brenwick be permitted to. construct a 168-unit senior housing assisted living facility and 48 senior housing villas west of Towne Road and north of Glebe Street? 3. . Should the 30.1 acre parcel at the northwest comer of 131st and Towne Road be incorporated into the Village of WestClay as an exclusively residential component? 4. Should the authorized residential density of the Village of WestClay (exclusive of senior housing and Village Center.lofts) be increased to 2.2 dwelling units per acre? 5. Should the authorized residential density of the Village of WestClay (inclusive of senior housing and Village Center lofts) be increased to 2.5 dwelling units per acre? - - - - -' - - - - - - - - _I - - -, - _I ALLOCATED COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY Buildinq Square Feet Square Feet Number of General Office Retail Aoartments Brenwick Building 18,163 9,082 0 State Farm 1 ,600 0 . 1 Miller Dentistry 2,980 0 2 Helen Wells 2,048 0 1 Broccoli Bill 0 3,583 0 Sterkz 0 7,000 7 - - 24,791 9.665 11 Total Commercial 44.456 square feet I I I I I I I I I I I r- I I I I I I I I () o ~ ~ m JJ () )> r (f) -0 )> () m )> c -f I o JJ N )> -f o Z PJ o -, (D x OJ co Q) ~. )> o -, CD U> "--" ::J Q U> r\) o o C -0 (1) -, -.L. (.U -...J ~ -0 CD 3 ;:+. .-+ CD 0.. o ~ CD )> ..< ~. Sl) IT CD I\)......-.L. UJcoo O......UJ UJ UJ (0 ~o(O ~(cU1 N CD 0.. . ~I'\)-.L. ..~...~ ..(0 ~ -....I'OJ U1 (C OJ OJ......CJ1 C =:!'". -0 CD 3 ;::+.. - .-+ (1) 0... 1\)1'\)-'- -...JON ~(j)W CO ---L. Q) 000) 000 )>0:0 (Q ~ (1) (Q -..-+ . 0 PJ CD~ 0-- 0-0 :3 0 :3 CD CD (j) -, (j) o -. -.0 0> :J UJPJ w I\.) UJI\)---L. -.L.~~ UJ---L.-'- CDOO) ~Of\) ~c.oCJ1 s:u () -, CD >< -...,J ...... 0) CO ):> () -, CD (j) "--" ~I\)-'- ~..~..CD ~~O) U1(oo) 0) -t.,.CJ1 :J a (j) N (Jl o C -0 (1) -, (.UI\)...... U1(J)m co CO -'- ~COI\) o 0 co 000 ~ (0 f\) -0 CD 3 ;:::+: .-+ CD 0.. o ~ CD )>OJJ (Q~CD (Q -..-+ . () 0> CD -. 0-- o "1J :3 (3 :3 CD CD U> -, U> o -. -. 0 0> ::J -0> -, o < CD 0.. I\) UJ o w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 0) -a PJ ::J o ::r ro ::J :3 CD :J .-+ I\) ~ ~ CD o o c CD U> .-+ (1) 0.. o CD ::J (J) ;:+' o o :3 :3 CD -, Q. PJ * )> (Q (Q )> -, CD ro o o o o o (J) ..,., :J -0 CD ~. -0 ::r CD -, PJ JJ CD ro (.oJ J\) ~ F\)-'-(Q 8~O cncn(j) -n-n"ll uuu CD CD CD ~ ~ -, -o-o'"1J CD CD CD 333 ;::::;: - . :::~.. ro:::$" Q.~a.. 000 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ S. -. :5" (Q~(Q -+- ::r OJ ::J :3 o -, CD * Z o -+- -.- - - - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- ------- ------- ------- ------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11I.!lJ.:>3J.1H:>II.V II.OIII.3J.Nl ~NINNV'ld :;mn.L:>:!IJ.IH:>1I.V J.;:)3J.IH;:)HV 3'13S0Ji\1 NHOr s JI):;!irI!7llY '3,3~oH HH O~ l' O.!Jt:. b 001 ",\,1 .1('1;)1';':;('(\ J~'ti1il\ :3 :3 N~tt ~5/ M . .