Loading...
PZC Minutes 021485RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1985 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 14, 1985 at 6:45 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Mike Blair, Pat Cuny, Cheryl Dingwell, Larry Kumpost, Jerry Pavis, Mark Donaldson, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Dan Fogland, Building and Zoning Administrator - Norm Wood, Director of Public Works - Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Work Session Fogland stated that the draft for the Sign Code was the same basic format that had been submitted last spring and that some of it had been edited. He stated he is looking for Commission feedback and asked that the Commission review it and give their comments. Holida Inn - Informal Discussion Q atman, arc nett for No—Fd—ay Inn stated the site is north of I-70 adjacent to Buck Creek Road. Tatman presented drawings and renderings of the project for Commission review. Tatman stated that the Holiday Inn will be a franchise operation with 150 units total. The developer is looking at access from Swift Gulch and Nottingham Road. The parking for the project will be in the front of the building which faces south and some at the rear of the buildina. Tatman described the drawings to the Commission in relation to the site. He stated the building would be approximately 4 stories and the view would be to the south to the Beaver Creek ski area. Blair clarified that the Commission was looking at a 4 story hotel with 150 rooms on a 4 acre site with commercial space included, and that it may interface with a separate or adjacent health club. Davis stated he was not in favor of the parking lot on the Nottingham Road side and did not feel that amount of asphalt was attractive. He also asked what the style of architecture was called and how it relates to the rest of Avon. Tatman stated it is a contemporary style. It would be made of pre -cast concrete or stucco. Cuny felt that all she saw on the plans was parking area. She would prefer to see underground parking or parking to the rear of the building to make it more attractive. Kumpost stated that although covered parking would be preferable, it is also a matter of economics. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 2 of 11 Holida Inn - Informal Discussion, Con't. Davis mentione that most WTMingsor projects of that magnitude have some covered parking and massive parking lots are not desireable in the community. If it is not justifiable economically, maybe it is not justifiably economical to put a hotel there. He felt that the main feature of the building was massive outdoor parking in the front of the building. Tatman stated they had not studied the feasibility of underground parking. This Holiday Inn will not get $120 - $200 per night for a room. The developer would like to respond to concerns of the parking lot, but is not sure they could justify underground parking. Donaldson stated that the greenspace appears to be very close to the required percentage of open space. He felt that it appeared that snow storage area would be a problem for 3/4 of the lot. He also felt that if there were some form of structured parking for a smaller number of cars, they might find some relief around the greenspace and snow storage areas. He also agreed with other comments made regarding the amount of asphalt on the site with little area left for greenspace. Dingwell commented on the design of the building and stated it appeared to be very boxy and felt the architect should keep the surrounding properties in mind instead of this building having its own style of architecture rather than blending in with the community. As an example, Pizza Hut went to great lengths to use more wood and rock materials than they normally would to make it a more attractive building. She also stated that the Holiday Inn in Vail is totally unique to its design than any other Holiday Inn, and that it does fit in with the alpine community. Tatman stated they would prefer to avoid the use of wood because it deteriorates so rapidly. Davis felt the form of the building, rather than materials, was more of a concern. Blair asked Staff if the project generally appears to fit on the property. Wood stated that they were looking at drainage problems through the site and it is a difficult site to get entrances to work with the traffic. Lamont commented on the parking lots and sterility of the architecture. He stated in Staff meetings, they had suggested that applicant leave areas for expansion of the hotel because it is a valuable bed -base site. The recreation facility will also be a key community facility as well as for the hotel. Blair summarized some comments made by the Commission and stated that the Commission is concerned with the appearance of the building, particularly its shape and the materials, along with the parking lot. Drainage, access and traffic flow are also important to the site. Blair thanked applicant for the presentation. Regular Agenda Items - 7:40 PM Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 1/24/85 Regular Meeting Donaldson motioned to approve the minutes of the January 24, 1985 regular meeting as submitted. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 3 of 11 Lot 63, Block 2, BM 0 BC - Pere rine Villa e - Plat Review Woo state that the Pre iminary P at for Peregrine had been referred to Commission by Town Council for review and comment prior to a public hearing and requested Council action at their February 26, 1985 meeting. In reviewing the submittal, the Plat is incomplete to the extent that the review cannot be completed due to a few key issues from earlier approvals, such as the Special Review Use for time share and a variance request to allow compact spaces in the covered parking structure. There are some items we do have enough information on to pet some comments from the Commission. One of those is the open space requirement. We can show what is being proposed as open space, but whether paved walkways or mall areas with landscape features and fountains can be counted as open space or not needs to be determined. Numbers have been submitted for consideration. Wood stated that a recommendation to Town Council include that they table any action on the Preliminary and Final Plat approval until completed drawings are submitted for review and the parking problems are resolved. Wood explained and reviewed site plan with Commission members. Wood stated the pervious areas total 11.7;' of the total lot area. If open environmental areas are included that have overhangs and awninels, that amounts to 8.5r., or a total open space area of just slightly over 20t; which is the minimum allowable open space. Applicant is asking if this is an acceptable method of determining open space. Kumpost stated that open space had always been submitted and interpreted before this project as landscaped areas. He commented that there are ways the landscape area could be decorative or incorporate ornamental rock. But in the case of a mall, planter areas could be considered as landscape. He felt that open space meant landscaped area, but he did have a problem with solid walkways being counted as open space. Donaldson stated that generally landscape or greenspace has always meant landscaped area. fie felt that landscape areas that are pervious and under roof overhangs is still greenspace, but felt that concrete walkways that are passageways and are under roof canopies is really not greenspace, but building circulation space. Lamont stated that at Staff discussion, to just count concrete sidewalks with no special treatment, was not a suitable answer. If a planned urban mall area were presented, it raises a different issue. The regulation was intended to provide for green urban spaces that will work. Davis felt that if initial review of the project had included more attention to the open space, this problem would not exist. He stated that maybe 20", open space in the mall area is more than is necessary, and that maybe concessions could be made since the building is already there. The Commission knew that this building would encompass the entire lot, and did not understand the surprise that they do not have the necessary open space. Donaldson agreed with Davis and felt if there were an area of Town where the Commission could relax or reduce the greenspace requirement, it would be the mall properties. He also agreed that changing the ratio of 20"' or allowing a percentage of pervious materials of decorative architectural landscape features would be a step in the right direction. He did feel that if this were approved based on this application, that Commission would be setting a precedent, and would rather see an approval or disapproval based on proper ,judgement rather than havinq Commission react to a problem and having the Development Plan react to a problem of a particular project. Plannirg & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 4 of 11 Lot 63, Block 2, BM @ BC - Peregrine Villa e - Plat Review, Con't. Nil1 Pierce spo e rom t e audience and e t t ere were 2 questions: 1) definition states useable open space, but does not say pervious or impervious; and 2) the quality of the surface finishes, whether pervious or impervious: is a design reviev� issue and not a definitional issue. Lengthy discussion followed regarding definition of open space and plans submitted. Landauer suggested that application be tabled until a legal interpretation of open space was done and a full plan of what the landscaping is i.ctually going to look like. Rick Larson, representative of applicant, PPL Development stated that the plan submitted had nct changed from 1 year previous. Wood suggested that Commission make recommendation to Council that they table the action on the Preliminary and Final Plat approval until completed drawings are submitted for review and parking and open space problems are resolved, and in direction for Staff and applicant, that an opinion is obtained from Town Attorney regarding the open space requirement, and forward that opinion on to the applicant so they know which way to proceed; whether to proceed with requesting approval with meeting the 20 requirement as they have, or if the Town Attorney recommends or feels it is not in compliance and would require a variance. Discussion followed. Cuny motioned to recommend to Town Council to table t:ie action on the Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Peregrine Village, Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek until completed drawings are submitted for review, parking problems are resolved and open space resolved, and that the open space issue be addressed by the Town Attorney and the minutes of the Special Meeting of November, 1983 be researched and delivered to the Commission and the Town Council. Landauer seconded. Larson stated he did not understand why the parking was brought up. They have addressed the parking and had an agreement that they agreed to, as well as the town and Commission from 1 month ago. Blair clarified that Staff report pointed out there was a question about whether some of ;he spaces will fit or if they will have useable access and another point, would the size of those spaces affect the open space. Wood further stated that one of the conditions in the earlier approval was that there was no approval of the number of parking spaces. Motion passed unanimously. Lodqe at Avon Subdivision, (Formerly Lots 57-60, Block 2, B11 @ BC - Preliminary wooa stated that this preliminary plat review was referred to Commission for comment prior to the official public hearing and requested Council action. This would be one of the first plat reviews under the Fractionp.lization Ordinance and a breakdown had been done on the Staff report as to now the Fractionalization works, and with a total of 89 individual units, it uses up a total of 27.33 Development Rights. The site has 70 Development Rights assigned to it, and the total area of the residential units is 36,500 SF. Maximum allowable area is 49,194 SF, and the project does comply with the Fractionalization section of the Code. r Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 5 of 11 Lodge at Avon Subdivision, (Formerly Lots 57-60, Block 2, BM @ BC - Preliminary Plat Review, Con't. Wood stated that the plat is complete, but there are some minor technical questions, but not serious enough to cause any problems, and can be corrected before Council action. A problem that does come to the forefront has to do with the condition that was attached to the design approval, which required a lease with the Colorado Highway Department since the access to part of the parking is on the highway right-of-way along Avon Road. The lease agreement that was received from the applicant and the Highway Department has a cancellation clause in it, whereby the agreement could be cancelled by either party with a 90 day notice. It is a 5 year agreement subject to renewal in 2 five year periods. In reviewing this with the Town Attorney, he had a number of problems with the lease as it is written and feels the project should have accessibility even if those spaces were lost. Staff recommendation states that recommendation be made to Town Council to disapprove Preliminary Plat until revised to include all required parking on-site with permanent access. Bill Pierce, representative of Lodge at Avon Associates stated that the Highway Department lease came about for convenient parking adjacent to the commercial space and entry. They want to use as little of the building footprint site as possible. Pierce stated that lease will become a general common element of the Condominium Association, and it is a renewable lease only because the Highway Department would like to raise the price on that lease every 5 years. He believed that there was only a slim chance that the Highway Department would cancel lease. "Pierce presented plans to show the effect of cancellation of the..lease, if that should happen, with regard to the site and Phase I. He explained that if they lost the lease, their north -south driveway would have to be put on Lodge at Avon property. They would lose 15 parking spaces, but 15 spaces could be picked up elsewhere on the site. Blair asked if for some reason the Highway Department would cancel their lease, is there a provision or adequate area on the site to accommodate the lost parking. Wood stated that they need all the parking spaces that are shown on the site. He explained that it appeared there is adequate space on the site, the only problem the Attorney has is th t should the spaces be lost, is there any assurance that those will be put on-site. Discussion followed. Wood suggested that applicant submit Preliminary Plat with the parking spaces that potentially could be lost, add it on to the site, then if those are not constructed, come back and apply for a Special Review Use, large lot parking reduction, and what is actually constructed on-site could be reduced by whatever number. Donaldson motioned to recommend to Town Council that the Prelminary Plat for the Lodge at Avon Subdivision (Formerly Lots 5i-60, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek) not be approved until the plat is revised to include the parking spaces with the permanent access adjacent to Avon Road, and that the correction of the technical errors be provided with the Town Engineer's approval prior to submittal to the Town Council. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning February 14, 1985 Page 6 of 11 Meeting Minutes Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC - Wen Prnnosed Resubdivision of Tract 004 is - Design Review on Proposed Tract Q South, . Block 2, BM @ BC Fogland stated that applicant had suomitted a design review or the propose❑ Wendy's restaurant of 104 seats with a drive-thru window. It is located on the proposed Tract Q South. The building will be a standard Wendy's restaurant design using brown brick for veneer, partial mansards and a greenhouse on the north of the building. The site will have major impact due to its high visibility and location. Staff has reviewed the development plan from several different perspectives related to site development: 1) effect of proposed underpass on south Avon Road access; 2) effect of new road north of this development; and 3) planning on having the site functioning on its own, not knowing what development may occur adjacent to the site. He explained that the current site plan would require a variance on the frontyard setback of 25 feet off of Avon Road. Staff feels with a different site design, a variance may be avoided. Staff recommends that applicant explore different layouts and design, which would address the considerations as outlined. Blair asked what level of review was being presented. Fogland stated applicant applied for a full design review. Peter Witter, architect and representative of Wend Colorado, Ltd. stated that the concerns addressed had been modified on the site, namely that trash can be picked up on its own site as well as loading spaces and possibly circulation could take place through this site. In addition, some plans that are older, and some new ones have been presented to review possible alternative uses on that site or how the building will fit on the site. If the building were horizontal to face east and west, it does allow for circulation around and have taken 5 spaces out of Cunningham's site, and have reduced the parking to 21 spaces. Pedestrian areas are cramped and it provides for no drainage for surface water run-off. Witter explained and reviewed site plans with Commission. Witter stated that a final option would be to put the face of the building on the south side, or the greenhouse side, which provides for more pedestrian areas on the south and can provide circulation on the site. The stacking problem remains the same; there is no drainage on the site, and it would require a variance for the setback. We would also require a free-standing sign because the building would face to the south with this design, and the main entrance would still be from the north access point. Having gone through these, we still feel the original plan is the best solution, with the previous plan described as the second best solution. In each case, there are some things we cannot solve on this limited site. Currently, the site is totally paved, no drainage, no landscaping, no snow storage, no run-off retention, and the access circulation is all shared by this site. If we are directed to provide our internal circulation totally on the site, surface water run-off retention, snow storage, landscaping and the like, it is impossible and something has to give. DingwelI asked if the drive-thru could be eliminated. Witter stated they would not go in there. It would not go on that site without a drive-thru. He explained that there is no pedestrian activity in the town and most of the business and service provided is by the drive-thru, or 3N of the business. ,A*4 ,^ Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 7 of 11 Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC - Wendy's - Design Review on Proposed Tract Q South, Pro osed Resubdivision of Tract ,Block 2, BM @ BC, Con't. avis ase if applicant had considere Bing close to the interstate access. Witter felt Tract Q was better for both the drive-thru and parking. Davis clarified that this would be considered more of a local establishment rather than interstate traffic. Witte.- felt that the site plan met most of the town's criteria, although they are 500 feet short of snow storage, but snow could be removed if necessary. Plan provides for surface water run-off retention for the whole site and the landscaping shown is about 15% with interlocking pavers, which could be 'landscaped and is impervious. Davis asked if access problem through Lot 20 had been resolved. It was his understanding that it is a private road with no access. Wood explained easement on site plan to Commission. Larry Goad, representative of the owner of Lot 20 stated that access off of Avcn Road is the only access for Lot 20. A common easement iF down the lot line between Lot 20 and Tract Q. The only legal access Tract Q has is on the north side down the easement and on the south side, in common with Lot 21 and Lot 65. Access has not been resolved. Witter felt plan submitted was best solution and would need some trade-offs with the variance to utilize the site. Blair commented on different points of design which dealt with: 1) closeness of building to right-of-way, which is inside the 25 foot setback; 2) location of trash loading; 3) location of drive-thru on Avon Road side; and 4) general design of building as it relates to other buildings in town. Donaldson asked applicant how he would respond to comments made by Commission at last: meeting. Witter stated they would apply for a variance on the setback and trash and loading, have been addressed. As far as design, we want to keep the look that Wendy's has established as shown on the submitted photos. Lamont commented with regard to Development Plan and stated that the issue of the type of use in the area has not been resolved. Question is, do we want these kinds of uses at the main intersection of town, or do we want them downtown. Auto accessibility has been outlined in the goals and is the size of the site going to shoehorn a use that is too confining. The goals stated, regarding design, that there should be a minimum or maximum size and design standard which raises the issue of the relationship of surrounding buildings. There are no 1 story buildings other than City Market or Empire Savings located in this Zone District. Because of the drive-thru and entrance problems, especially the unresolved access, there will be difficulties in changes that may occur for the southern access. Lamont commented that a setback variance would influence the greenbelt which is in a public sector. He suggested that be looked at and should that be given up in a high traffic corridor. In regard to design standards, do we want a unique Wendy's on this site so it looks different, or do we want a Wendy's on that site, or should it be part of a larger building. The goals do say we want to attract entertainment and restaurant uses into the neighborhood, but the. also suggest that mass transit is a priority. The access for interior circu'ation becomes a critical issue. Will this inhibit circulation. Qft Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 8 of 11 Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC - Wendy's - Design Review on Proposed Tract Q South, Proposed Resubdivision of Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC, Con't. Lamont also commented on view orientation and view corridors and the prime view corridor out of the building, which is an asset, is to the south. This site is very tight and would pose difficulties in major landscaping. T;;fly have met some goals in terms of pedestrian access and pedestrian open space. He felt the issue was of having that use on that site, if the site is too small, whether building should change or review proposed use for the site. Davis mentioned concerns of having Wendy's on that site. Lamont felt issue was of Wendy's being incorporated into a larger building already there or should policy be set that encourages these uses to be in a similar area with high interstate visibility, along with ingress and egress to the community. Lamont felt building would be shoehorned onto the site and was a use, in the long run, that would be out of step with District I and trends in development in that neighborhood. Cuny agreed that drive-thru window facing Avon Road would be detrimental. Davis asked if Subdivision of Tract Q was finalized. Wood stated Preliminary Plat had been approved subject to condition being met for Final Plat. Donaldson asked what stipulations of Final Plat were. Wood stated one of the major conditions was assurance that the parking lot improvements etc., be completed for the existing building because once it is subdivided, the present development doesn't meet the parking requirements, so there needs to be a Subdividers Agreement so additional parking spaces would be provided. Davis commented that since informal discussion of last meeting, several community members commented that they were not in favor of this location for a fast food operation. He suggested that perhaps the I-70 corridor would be best suited for use along with the accessibility there. Larry Goad, representative of owner of Lot 20 asked if there was one standard size and shape, or are there different sizes to accommodate the site. Witter stated there are several sizes available. Goad asked if there were a smaller size available. Witter felt size was not the problem, but the circulation and configuration of the site and did not believe the size of the building was a constraining factor. Goad felt that too much building was being forced on a specific size and shape lot. He felt a smaller restaurant was something to consider and might alleviate potential problems with adjacent lot owners regarding access. Witter made the observation that there are some existing problems in that area and felt that those sites did not meet any of the current codes, which are inherited problems. He felt that at the last meeting, the pros to introducing this use to the site were greater than the negative standpoints. He also stated that they did look at locations across the interstate, but did not feel it was an attractive location because visibility is low and signage has been discouraged from the highway. Witter did not feel interstate traffic was a major portion of their business, but that the location, population and traffic to Beaver Creek was the major portion of business. He felt there were conflicts and confusion in comments made and with the goals. He asked if Avon was a service area to Beaver Creek, a suburb, an office park, or is it the Town Center. The goals address all of them and they are conflicting. Leaving the site as a parking lot really serves no one other than the surrounding buildings. He felt that the Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1935 Page 9 of 11 Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC - Wendy's - Design Review on Proposed Tract Q South, Proposed Resubdivision of Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC, Con't. access issue was also conflicting and that they were being asked to design the site for 3 different accesses on one small lot. Donaldson responded and stated that at preliminary hearing, there were a couple of Commission members absent, and there has been feedback since that time and some of this has swayed middle-of-the-road opinions, but this is what the review process is all about. The conflicting statement of goals may be ideas that have not materialized, but because of the conflicting goals, it also causes conflict in establishing definite Master Plan goals, without thinking out the whole town's process. The size of the site has focused everyone's attention on the type of project it is. It appears that a lot of this controversy will have to be resolved with definite Master Plan direction. Staff comments and concerns from the last meeting, and revised submittals seem to weiah against you. Donaldson did not see where trade-offs on snow storage or setbacks were a fair exchanoe. He stated that maybe this is a bad resubdivision after hearing Lamont's comments given the size and shape of the lot and adjoining problems of access, drainage and massive pre-existing non -conforming uses. Putting in another non -conforming use may not make the situation better. Davis felt the design of the building was not similar to others in the area. Cuny did not feel the site could function on its own. If the south access disappears because of an underpass or overpass, and Lot 20 for some reason would not cooperate or reach an access agreement, then the only access is from Beaver Creek Boulevard and proceeding through the easement. Witter commented that if property owners can't share access or easement, you've got the worst of all worlds. Davis agreed, but buildings already there do function and any new building would have the same problem. Blair clarified points of discussion: 1) is use suitable for site; 2) will design work on the site; and 3) need comments on design of the building. Lengthy discussion followed. Blair questioned if the use was appropriate for the site. Cuny agreed with Davis and felt fast food franchises should not be in the center of town. Donaldson had no disagreement with the use of the project or the nature of the building or structure if subdivision is approved. He felt something of this size and nature would eventually be there. Landauer felt he had a conflict of interest and refrained from comment. Dingwell did not feel use was appropriate in downtown area. She had no problem with design of the building, and felt that drive-thru was major problem with traffic flow and felt site was too small for anticipated development. Kumpost felt if use was allowed by current zoning, he would qo along with that. Blair felt that general concensus was that 25 foot setback should be observed because of proximity to the lot line and drive-thru window might be placed on opposite side of the building. Davis questioned if any building on this site would work and be functional. O Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 10 of 11 Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC - Wendy's - Design Review on Proposed Tract Q South, Pro osed Resubdivision of Tract Q, Block 2, BM @ BC, Con't. umpost i not ee green ouse a to eon the south side justec�itis glassed in. It does not mandate ::hat it be used for solar collection. Blair suggested to applicant that they may want to continue or withdraw application so they might have time to revise plan so it better fits the site or make the building smaller. Witter stated they could flip design if that meets approval, but to change the size of the building did not help anything and other designs do not work. Donaldson motioned to disapprove the application of Wendy's restaurant, as sub- mitted, on Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek on the proposed Tract Q South, proposed Resubdivision of Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek because of site constrictions and site planning problems, site circulation, access, and the congestion of the circulation of the area, along with the set- backs. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Bill Pierce spoke from the audience and felt that there was no problem with the lot being subdivided. The problem, as he saw it, was that the architect has a standard design and refuses to change that and is trying to ramrod it through. The building doles not fit and the architect does not want to work to make it fit. He did not feel effort was made to address a building that would fit there. Commission rdcessed at 10:40 PM to review and comment on Lamont's model of the proposed Avon area. Commission Reconvened at 11:20 PM Blair made comment t atmo�Tas reviewed and Commission generally liked what was presented. Other Business og a� andmentioned joint meeting of the Council and Commission for February 26, 1985 at 2:00 PM regarding the Development Plan. Davis mentioned non -conforming business sign (Jiffi Photo) on the Benchmark Shopping Center building. Blair mentioned letter of resignation from Kumpost because he is moving to Telluride. He thanked Larry for his time with the Commission and wished him luck in his move. Discussion followed on the Cunningham Subdivision. Commission members agreed that Staff recomme,id to Council that they hold off on final approval on the Plat and determine whether specific restrictions car, be placed on Tract Q due to the fact that current application has pointed out problems with the current Zoning, because of the size of the lot. There being no further business to discuss, Davis motioned to adjourn the meeting. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 PM Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 14, 1985 Page 11 of 11 Respectfully Submitted, �larqa et M. Lach Recording Secretary Commission Approval M. Blair P. Cuny J. Davis T. Landa M. Donal C. Dingw C. Gersbach Date - S