| Date |
Text |
| 2020-02-11 08:20:26 | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) IS THERE ARE NAME FOR THE PROPOSED PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT (PD)? |
| | |
| | 2.) A DETAILED MARKET STUDY DEMONSTRATING THE ECONOMIC |
| | FEASIBILITY OF A HOTEL IN THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT |
| | PROPERTY IS REQUIRED. THE STUDY SHALL BE PREPARED |
| | UTILIZING COMMONLY ACCEPTED ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES. [NOTE: |
| | A MARKET STUDY WAS PRESENTED; HOWEVER, THE DEFINED |
| | SUBMARKET IS FOCUSED ON THE CONVENTION CENTER AND CITY |
| | PLACE HOTEL DEVELOPMENTS (I.E DMP). A SITE-SPECIFIC |
| | MARKET STUDY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT A |
| | HOTEL IS NEEDED IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT |
| | PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | 3.) PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE |
| | PROPOSED USE (HOTELS AND MOTELS - PXR) IN SEC. |
| | 94-273(D)(33)B. OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS (ZLDRS). WAIVERS MUST BE REQUESTED IF THE |
| | PROJECT CANNOT MEET THE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 4.) PLEASE PROVIDE THE REQUEST LETTER(S) SENT TO EACH |
| | OF THE UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS. AS DISCUSSED, THE |
| | LETTERS ARE NEEDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE RESPONSE LETTERS |
| | OBTAINED FROM THE PROVIDERS TO ENSURE THAT THE |
| | PROPOSAL, AS PRESENTED TO STAFF, HAD BEEN REVIEWED. |
| | |
| | 5.) INFORMATION (I.E. HOTEL ROOM NUMBERS) PROVIDED IN |
| | THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT AND REDUCED PARKING |
| | STATEMENT DOCUMENTS SEEM TO BE INCONSISTENT AND SHALL |
| | BE CORRECTED FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 6.) THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN AMENDED |
| | TPS LETTER TO REFLECT THE CORRECT NUMBERS FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY WITH THE REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT |
| | DOCUMENT. |
| | |
| | 7.) A DRAFT UNITY OF CONTROL DOCUMENT WAS SUBMITTED |
| | WITH THE APPLICATION. THIS DOCUMENT WILL REQUIRE REVIEW |
| | FROM THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 8.) A REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED. [NOTE: AN |
| | APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION (REFERENCE: PB CASE |
| | NO. 1846A) WAS SUBMITTED; HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO PLAT |
| | DOCUMENT TO REVIEW.] |
| | |
| | 9.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATEMENT: A) WHAT IS THE CONVENTION CENTER AND AIRPORT |
| | DISTRICTS? (I.E. WHERE DID THIS REFERENCE COME FROM?); |
| | B)JUSTIFICATION DOES NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO A SITE |
| | SPECIFIC MARKET STUDY, WHICH SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEED |
| | FOR A HOTEL IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. |
| | HOW MANY EXISTING HOTELS ARE THERE IN THE AREA?; C) |
| | STATEMENT MENTIONS RESTAURANTS IN THE PROJECT. THERE IS |
| | AN EXISTING RESTAURANT IN THE EXISTING HOTEL. IS THERE |
| | A PROPOSAL FOR MORE?; E) PROPERTY HISTORY MAKES A |
| | REFERENCE TO AN EXHIBIT A ON PAGE 2; HOWEVER, THIS |
| | EXHIBIT CANNOT BE FOUND; F) SURROUNDING USES TABLE IS |
| | INACCURATE; G) THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT CONFORM TO |
| | THE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE CITY CODE (OTHERWISE, |
| | THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO REQUEST ANY WAIVERS!); H) |
| | MUST IDENTIFY ALL WAIVERS IN THE PROPOSED PD, INCLUDING |
| | ANY JUSTIFICATION, BENEFITS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (IF |
| | ANY) TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS; I) |
| | JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PARKING WAIVER REQUEST IS |
| | INSUFFICIENT. (SEE STAFF'S COMMENTS BELOW) |
| | |
| | |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CRITERIA) COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE PLANS SHOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE DIVIDED |
| | INTO SEPARATE PARCELS/TRACTS BY PROPERTY LINE. IF THE |
| | APPLICANT INTENDS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY, ALL |
| | EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES WITHIN EACH SUBDIVIDED |
| | PARCEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS, BUILDING SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING |
| | REQUIREMENTS, ETC., AS STAND-ALONE PARCELS AND AS A |
| | PARCEL AS A WHOLE. IF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE |
| | ZLDRS CANNOT BE MET, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO |
| | SEEK WAIVERS FROM THOSE REQUIREMENTS. ALL WAIVERS MUST |
| | BE IDENTIFIED AND REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION. BASED |
| | ON STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE CURRENT PLANS/APPLICATION, |
| | ADDITIONAL WAIVERS WILL NEED TO BE REQUESTED. |
| | |
| | 2.) ALL WAIVERS REQUESTED MUST CLEARLY STATE THE |
| | BENEFITS TO THE PD AND TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. |
| | MITIGATION MEASURES (IF NECESSARY) MUST ALSO BE |
| | INCLUDED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND ILLUSTRATED |
| | IN THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 3.) COMMENTS ON THE REQUESTED PARKING WAIVER: A) FAILS |
| | TO MEET THE MINIMUM THREE STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR A |
| | PARKING WAIVER. THEREFORE, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE |
| | PARKING WAIVER AT THIS TIME; B) AS NOTED IN THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT (AND CITY RECORDS), 22 EXISTING |
| | PARKING SPACES ARE CURRENTLY RESERVED FOR PARK N' FLY |
| | CUSTOMERS PURSUANT TO AN EXISTING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. |
| | IT IS DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE PARKING WAIVER |
| | WHEN THE RESERVED PARKING IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN |
| | UNRELATED USE (I.E. OFF-SITE LEASE) AND HAS EXACERBATED |
| | THE INABILITY OF THE PROJECT TO MEET THE MINIMUM |
| | PARKING REQUIREMENTS (I.E. BY ELIMINATING 22 PARKING |
| | SPACES THAT COULD COUNT TOWARDS REQUIRED PARKING). |
| | |
| | 4.) THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS, ARCHITECTURAL |
| | STYLE/ELEMENTS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) AND SITE DESIGN |
| | LACKS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREET AND CONNECTIVITY WITH |
| | ADJACENT/NEARBY USES, DESIRED ELEMENTS OF A PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. MORE EFFORT IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS |
| | DESIGN DEFICIENCY. |
| | |
| | 5.) SINCE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING TO A |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT IS EXPECTED THAT AS PART OF THE |
| | APPLICATION FOR A PD THAT ALL PARCELS (PARCELS A AND B |
| | AND AS A PD AS A WHOLE) ARE IMPROVED/UPGRADED TO MEET |
| | AND/OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS. |
| | THE SUBMITTAL SUGGESTS THAT ONLY IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE |
| | MADE TO PARCEL B (NEW HOTEL SITE), WHICH IS NOT |
| | ACCEPTABLE. |
| | |
| | |
| | MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS (SHEET MP-1): |
| | |
| | [NOTE: THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS A GUIDING |
| | DOCUMENT FOR THE OVERALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. STAFF CAN |
| | PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AS A |
| | REFERENCE TO ASSIST THE APPLICANT WITH SATISFYING THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF ZLDR S.94-207(B)(9)] |
| | |
| | 1.) THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED AS A |
| | SEPARATE DOCUMENT FROM THE SITE PLAN TO AVOID ANY |
| | CONFUSION WITH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS OF THE SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 2.) A TITLE/NAME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROPOSED |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 3.) LOCATION MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED WITHIN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. |
| | |
| | 4.) SHOW THE PROPOSED USE OF ALL LAND WITHIN THE |
| | PROJECT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF ALL AREAS |
| | PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED OR RESERVED FOR COMMUNITY OR |
| | PUBLIC USE. |
| | |
| | 5.) SHOW THE LOCATION AND SIZE AS APPROPRIATE OF ALL |
| | EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE, WATER, SEWER, AND OTHER |
| | UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS. |
| | |
| | 6.) SHOW THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED MASS TRANSIT |
| | FACILITIES (IF ANY). |
| | |
| | 7.) PROVIDE INFORMATION ON AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS, OR |
| | COVENANTS WHICH GOVERN THE USE, MAINTENANCE AND |
| | CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ANY |
| | OF ITS COMMON AREAS OR FACILITIES. |
| | |
| | 8.) EXISTING USES, FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING |
| | INFORMATION OF THE ADJACENT PARCELS SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | IN THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 9.) SITE DATA CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE |
| | FOLLOWING: 1) OVERALL PD PARCEL; 2) PARCEL A; AND 3) |
| | PARCEL B. THE CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE |
| | THAT THE PARCELS (AS A WHOLE AND INDIVIDUALLY) CAN MEET |
| | THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | 10.) GENERAL PARCEL DIMENSIONS AND PARCEL SIZE |
| | INFORMATION (CONSISTENT WITH THE SURVEY) SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED IN THE MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT. |
| | |
| | 11.) IN THE MASTER PLAN SITE DATA TABULAR: A) CHECK |
| | PARCEL SIZE INFORMATION. NUMBERS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH |
| | THE SURVEY AND DO NOT ADD UP; B) THE PROPOSED ZONING OF |
| | THE SUBJECT SITE IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT (OCPD); C) CHECK CALCULATIONS FOR THE |
| | COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR OCPDD. |
| | |
| | 12.) PARKING CALCULATIONS ARE INACCURATE. PLEASE REVIEW |
| | AND CORRECT FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 13.) SHOW A PORTION OF THE SITE ACCESS/LAYOUT OF THE |
| | PARCEL IMMEDIATELY EAST (EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY |
| | SITE) TO ILLUSTRATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARCELS, |
| | AS BOTH PARCELS SHARE THE SAME ROAD FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PARCEL IS |
| | "OFFICE COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (OCPD)" NOT |
| | COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD). |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE REVIEW SITE DATA CALCULATIONS FOR BOTH |
| | PARCELS A AND B (I.E. PARCEL SIZE, SETBACKS, PARKING |
| | CALCULATIONS, LOT COVERAGE, PERVIOUS/IMPERVIOUS |
| | SURFACE, ETC.). THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME MISSING |
| | INFORMATION AND/OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE NUMBERS |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 3.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING/STRUCTURAL SETBACKS |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLANS FOR PARCELS A AND B. |
| | DIMENSIONS ARE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS. ADDITIONALLY, THE |
| | INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A SINGLE PLAN SHEET |
| | FOR THE PARCELS (I.E. NOT SEPARATE/SPLIT SHEETS AS |
| | PRESENTED). |
| | |
| | 4.) CLEARLY SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED 6 FT. |
| | HIGH CMU SCREEN WALL IN THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5.) THE MONUMENT SIGN DETAIL SHALL BE CLEARLY |
| | REFERENCED IN THE PLAN (AS WITH THE OTHER DETAILS ON |
| | SHEETS SPD-1 AND SPD-2). |
| | |
| | 6.) THE TRELLIS STRUCTURE DETAIL IS INCORRECTLY |
| | REFERENCED IN THE PLAN. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 7.) CLEARLY SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE 4 FT. HIGH |
| | DECORATIVE POOL FENCE IN THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8.) THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY INFORMATION ON TRASH |
| | HANDLING AND REMOVAL ON PARCEL B (I.E. TRASH COMPACTORS |
| | OR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES NO FOUND IN THE PLAN). PLEASE |
| | ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 9.) FENCES/WALLS WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK |
| | SHALL NOT EXCEED 4 FT. IN HEIGHT. [ZLDR S.94-302(C)] |
| | |
| | 10.) THE LOCATION OF ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (I.E. |
| | GENERATORS, A/C COMPRESSOR UNITS, ETC.) SHALL BE |
| | IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS. ALL GROUND FLOOR EQUIPMENT |
| | SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH A WALL/FENCE AND/OR |
| | LANDSCAPING, AND ANY ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SHALL BE |
| | SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH A PARAPET/WALL. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-305(B)(4) AND S.94-315] |
| | |
| | 11.) DETECTED LIGHT POLE FIXTURES SEEM TO BE IN |
| | CONFLICT WITH THE 2 FT. VEHICULAR CURB OVERHANG. PLEASE |
| | RELOCATE ANY CONFLICTING LIGHT POLES. |
| | |
| | 12.) LIGHT POLE FIXTURES SHALL BE SETBACK AT LEAST 15 |
| | FT. FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE(S). PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | DIMENSIONS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 13.) COMPACT PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE |
| | SITE PLAN. PER THE ZLDRS, ONLY 30% OF THE OVERALL TOTAL |
| | PARKING REQUIREMENT MAY BE COMPACT. PLEASE ILLUSTRATE |
| | AND PROVIDE CALCULATIONS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. |
| | [ZLDR S.94-485(N)(1)] |
| | |
| | 14.) A DETAIL FOR THE LAYOUT OF OFF-STREET PARKING |
| | FACILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN FIGURE XV-2. THE DETAIL |
| | PROVIDED IN SHEET SPD-1 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | PARKING PROVIDED (I.E. DETAIL FOR |
| | STANDARD/COMPACT/DISABLED STALLS; ALL PARKING SPACES |
| | SEEM TO HAVE 2 FT. CURB OVERHANG, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE DETAIL, ETC.). [ZLDR S.94-485(N)(2)] |
| | |
| | 15.) LOADING ZONES REQUIRED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL. |
| | PROVIDE CALCULATIONS AND IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | LOADING ZONE FOR EACH PROPOSED PARCEL IN THE PLAN IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ZLDR S.94-485(P). |
| | |
| | 16.) BICYCLE PARKING IS REQUIRED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS |
| | AND SHOW THE LOCATION OF BICYCLE RACKS FOR EACH |
| | PROPOSED PARCEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF |
| | ZLDR S.94-485(Q). |
| | |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) LANDSCAPING SHALL BE UPGRADED ON ALL PARCELS |
| | AFFECTED BY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (NOT |
| | JUST PARCEL B). |
| | |
| | 2.) ALL OTHER COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | BY THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE PLANNER. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) LABEL THE DIRECTION OF THE ELEVATIONS (I.E. NORTH, |
| | SOUTH, EAST AND WEST). |
| | |
| | 2.) A NOTE STATING THAT ANY WALL SIGNAGE ON THE |
| | PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH ARTICLE XIII, SIGN |
| | REGULATIONS, OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | SIGNAGE COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN |
| | SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 FT. IN HEIGHT AT GRADE. PROVIDE |
| | DIMENSIONS IN THE MONUMENT SIGN DETAIL (SHEET SPD-1) TO |
| | DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. IT IS UNCLEAR IF THE NOTATION |
| | TO THE SIGN HEIGHT IS MEASURED AT GRADE. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-408(A)(2)] |
| | |
| | 2.) THE MAXIMUM SUM TOTAL AREA OF ALL LOW FREESTANDING |
| | SIGNS ON FRONT STREET: ONE (1) SQ. FT. FOR EACH ONE (1) |
| | LINEAR FOOT OF FRONT STREET FRONTAGE OF THE LOT WHICH |
| | IT IS LOCATED. THERE ARE NO PARCEL DIMENSIONS PROVIDED |
| | IN THE PLANS TO CALCULATE AND VERIFY THE SIGN AREA'S |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZLDRS. [ZLDR S.94-408(A)(2)] |
| | |
| | 3.) SHOW DISTANCE OF THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN ON |
| | PARCEL B TO THE PROPERTY LINES. LOCATION OF THE |
| | MONUMENT SIGN SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SIGN SETBACK |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF ZLDR S.94-408(A)(2)E. |
| | |
| | 4.) THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS SHOW A TOTAL OF FOUR |
| | (4) WALL SIGNS ON THE PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDING. PER ZLDR |
| | S.94-408(A)(1), THE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE (3) |
| | WALL SIGNS. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | |
| | PHOTOMETRIC PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) ANY SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION LOCATED WITHIN THE |
| | PROPOSED PD SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE FOOTCANDLE AT OR |
| | BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ILLUSTRATE |
| | FOOTCANDLE SPILLOVER TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-207(D)(8)] |
| | |
| | 2.) ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED TO REDUCE |
| | GLARE AND SHALL BE ARRANGED TO REFLECT LIGHT OR GLARE |
| | AWAY FROM PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES. [ZLDR S.94-309(A)] |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * ANY CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF |
| | FIFTEEN (15) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 8.5 |
| | INCHES X 11 INCHES AND ONE (1) SET IN 11 INCHES X 17 |
| | INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS. |
| | |
| | * PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED |
| | COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE |
| | APPLICANT WILL BE ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20 PERCENT ($600.00) OF THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPLICATION FEE. |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| |
Print |
