The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 031594a N PLANNING AAD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF RLPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion PROJECT TYPE Nottingham Station P.U.D. ZONING: PUD The continuation of this Public Hearing is scheduled for March 15th. In response to the Special Meeting on March 7th, I will prepare as revised Staff Report which will discuss the major issues identified at the previous meetings. In addition, I will develop a revised Staff recommendation and suggested conditions of approval which are consistent with the major issues. The revised Staff Report will be delivered to you on Monday, March 14th. is a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion PROJECT TYPE: Nottingham Station P.U.D. ZONING: PUD This is a continuation of the Public Hearing for the proposed PUD for Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision. This property is currently zoned PUD; therefore, the request is for approval of a PUD Development Plan and PUD Standards. PROPOSED PUD REVISIONS The applicant has submitted a revised PUD Development Plan which responds to several of the issues raised by P&Z during the past two meetings (see issues, below). Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision has been further discribed as three building lots, one open space tract and the Hurd Lane ROW. The revised development proposal includes a reduced overall density to a maximum of 150 total units: • Lot 3 (revised) 2.617 acres 84 condo units 26.8/ac • Lot 4 (revised) 4.688 actics 66 T.H. units 11.8/ac • Lot 5 (revised) Excepted Parcel from Application • Hurd Lane ROW 1.750 acres Tract C 3.418 acres Open Space Dedication Minimum landscape area is proposed at 35% of the 9.05 acre development portion of the site. Maximum building coverage is proposed at 25% of the 9.05 acre total. Building 6 has been relocated to the north of its previous location to preserve approximately 80% of the native tree cover at the east end of the site. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion In response to the scheduled Public Hearing on March 1, 1994 and the Special Meeting on March 7th, I have prepared the following summary of the key issues. IDENTIFIED ISSUES Overall Densitv Is the overall density proposed appropriate for the site? What are the impacts caused by the proposed density on traffic and the environment ? Comment: The overall proposed density is approximately 17 units per acre. (This is mid -way between the RMD zone district density of 15/ac and the RHD zone district density of 20/ac.) In addition, the highest proposed density on the site would occur along the RR ROW and in close pedestrian proximity to the Town Core. The placemen. )f this density on the site is described as. Lot 3 (revised) Lot 4 (revised) Lot 5 (revised) Eaele River Corridor 2.617 acres 84 condo units 4.688 acres 66 T.H. units Excepted Parcel from Application Is the proposed 30' mean high water setback requirement adequate to preserve the existing significant trees and the riparian corridor ? Comment: The Town Plans and Regulations require a 30' setback from the mean annual high water mark. In addition, Building 6 has been relocated away from the trees and river environment on the east end of the site. Hurd Lane Connection Should Hurd Subdivision? am rw PT.AN?v,;NG AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion Comment: The Transportation Plan identifies a full public connection of Hurd Lane in this location. Traffic Impacts Are proposed traffic impacts at the Avon Road/Hurd Lane intersection within the range anticipated in the Town's Transportation Plan ? Comment: The Transportation Plan assigned 200 units and 14,000 sq ft of commercial space to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision. This application is consistent with these traffic assignments and consistent with the future impacts and improvements identified in the Transportation Plan. Views/Visibility Does the proposed project impact the views of the Eagle River corridor when viewed from Highway 6/24 ? Comment: Townhome units along the Eagle River will alter the character of the river corridor. The proposal does meet the river corridor guidelines set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Landscapine Does the proposed landscape plan meet the 20% minimum standard ? Comment: The plan proposes 35% landscaping. STAFF RECCOMMENDATION Findings: 1. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set forth in the Towtt of Avon Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion 2. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to land use and proximity to the town core, 3. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the environment, 4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to access to the Eagle River corridor and open space dedication along the Eagle River corridor, 5. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to sensitivity to the natural riparian environment along the Eagle River corridor, 6. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the construction of Hurd Lane as access serving the north bank of the River, 7. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the Riverfront District (Subarea 10) related to visibility from Highway 6/24, public access to the River, buildings capitalizing on the River, setback from the * : to preserve its natural character, limit building heights to three or four stories, and, where possible, locate buildings and parking to preserve and promote the health of existing quality trees, 8. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan traffic generation forecast for this property, 9. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives related to providing a continuous two-lane connection along the Hurd Lane corridor, 10.The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives related to pedestrian and transit improvements, 1f� /iit� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15. 1994 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion 11. The PUD is consistent with the Recreation Plan goals and objectives related to location of off-street bike/pedestrian paths. Staff reccommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the PUD Development Plan and Development Standards for Lot 3, Nottingham Station with the following conditions: 1. The PUD Guidelines and Standards described in this report (including allowed uses, density, site access, and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for the parcel. 2. The Hurd Lane connection be completed to public road standards through to Eaglebend Drive, by the applicant, prior to construction of Phase 1. 3. No site disturbance (including grading or structures) be allowed within the 30' mean high water setback. 4. A protective and erosion control fence be installed along the 30' setback from the mean annual high water/] 00 year flood mark prior to and during all phases of construction. 5. A hard surface pedestrian trail/pathway, consistent with the Town's Recreation Plan, be shown on the PUD Plan along the Eagle River. This trail shall also connect to Hurd Lane west of Building 1. The developer shall construct this pathway during Phase 1. 6. That the final PUD Development Plan show existing Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision as two development tracts (Lots 3 and 4), one lot exempted from PUD proposal (Lot 5) and one (1) open space tract and that each tract show the size, intended use and maximum allowable density. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15. 1994 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted AjN Steve Amsbaugh Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, ;Nottingham Station Subdivision Nottingham Station P.U.D. Completion PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( 4 Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date_ Sue Railton, Secretary SEE ATTACHED PAGES Lot 3, Nottingham ` 'ion Subdivision, Planned Unit Develor -nt, Public Hearin The Commission approved the Planned Unit Development Plan for Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set forth in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 2. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to land use and proximity to the town core. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehznsive Plan goals and objectives related to the environment. 4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to access to the Eagle River corridor and open space dedication along the Eagle River corridor. 5. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to sensitivity to the natural riparian environment along the Eagle River corridor. 6. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the construction of Hurd Lane as access serving the north bank of the River. 7. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the River&ont District (Subarea 10) related to visibility from Highway 6/24, public access to the River, buildings capitalizing on the River, setback from the River to preserve its natural character, limit building heights to three or four stories, and, where possible, locate buildings and parking to preserve and promote the health of existing quality trees. 8. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan traffic generation forecast for this property 9. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives related to providing a continuous two-lane connection along the Hurd Lane corridor. 10. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives related to pedestrian and transit improvements. 11. The PUD is consistent with the Recreation Plan goals and objectives related to location of off-street bike/pedestrian paths. CONDITIONS: The PUD Guidelines and Standards described in the report (including allowed uses, density, site access, and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for the parcel 2. The Hurd Lane connection be completed to public road standards through to Eaglebend Drive, by the applicant, prior to construction of Phase t. No site disturbance (including grading or structures) be allowed within the 30' mean high water setback. Lot 3. Nottingham Station subdivision, Planned Unit Development Public Hearing (cont? 4. A protective and erosion control fence be installed along the 30' setback from the mean annual high water/ 100 year flood mark prior to and during all phases of construction. A soft surface pedestrian traiUpathway, consistent with the Town's Recreation Plan, be shown on the PUD Plan along the Eagle River. This trail shall also connect to Hurd Lane west of Building 1. The developer shall construct this pathway during Phase I. 6. The front yard setback along Hurd Lane be in compliance with the Town's normal standards of 25 feet. 7. The distance between buildings be a minimum of 20 feet consistent with Town standards. 8. The setback from the river preserve and respect the riparian character and vegetation. (� PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Guida Duplex Variance - Side and Front Yard Setback PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING PUD- Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a Variance to Side and Front Yard Setback Requirements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the front yard and side yard setbacks on Lot 63, Block I, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Mike Guida has submitted an application requesting a variance from the 10' side yard setback and 25' front yard setback to construct two retaining walls, one being concrete and one being boulders. Mr. Guida received Final Design Review approval on March 1, 1994, for his duplex with the condition that the retaining wall be removed from the setback or a variance applied for and approval granted. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting relief from the 10 foot side yard setback for an 8' high boulder retaining wall on the southwestern portion of the lot, and relief from the 25' front yard and 10 side yard setbacks for the placement of a 6 1/2' concrete retaining wall on the southeastern portion of the lot. The boulder retaining wall will encroach 7' feet into the side yard setback and the concrete wall will encroach 22' feet into the front yard setback and 6' into the side yard setback. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Lot 63, Block I of Wildridge Subdivision is 1 acre in size and slopes to the west at approximately 24-40%. The lot has 35' of frontage on Fox Lane and fans out as it goes to west. STAFF COMMENTS: The adjacent property owner to the southeast of the site has expressed concerns over the concrete retaining wall construction Due to the close proximity of the wall to the side property line, the adjacent owner is concerned, that during excavation and construction of the concrete retaining wall, the applicant will inadvertently encroach onto their property. Since the adjacent owner has expressed this concern, Staff will be requiring the applicant to delineate the property line so that excavation and encroachments will not occur on the adjacent property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Guida Duplex Variance - Side and Front Yard Setback Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section 17.36.40. Approval Criteria A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment. The property to the southeast contains a retaining wall in the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed retaining wall will be six feet away from the existing retaining wall on the adjacent property. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Comment The degree of relief being requested is due to the narrowness of the site where it accesses Fox Lane. This request will be compatible with the adjacent property and their retaining structures C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Comment. The effect of the retaining wall will have no negative impacts on light, air, population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety The utility companies have indicated their approval for the encroachment into the easement D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment, Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance A. That the granting of the variance will not consr,.ute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. +04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Guida Duplex Variance - Side and Front Yard Setback C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for approval of the front yard and side yard setback variance request based on the findings and conditions below. Staff feels that the request meets the required criteria necessary for approval. FINDINGS: I That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. CONDITIONS: I. The applicant identify and mark the southeast property line prior to and during construction of the concrete and boulder retaining walls, so as to eliminate any encroachment onto the adjacent property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Guida Duplex Variance - Side and Front Yard Setback RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review G. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, i Mary Holdin Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (/) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual. No Action ( Date 3 /S Sue Railton, Secretary SEE ATTACHED PAGE Lot 6+. Block I. Wildrid e Subdivision. Sidevard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing The Commission granted approval to the requested variance, citing the following findings and condition: FINDINGS: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C That the variance is warranted for the following reason: ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. CONDITION: The applicant identify and mark the southeast property line prior top and during construction of the concrete and boulder retaining walls, so as to eliminate any encroachment onto the adjacent property. lAT OD _ i t ia.. 4j)/ CI \ • r GENEr�E,_ .asn_ fa1tL•' ~ L \ \ • f Slya N�OI. Wfklr a.1.vC 11M.A 1.4�.'b YYw N•Nf4 10.1 A 'JY W,..l l/�� p iMa, ♦��va4 [aNM1. N^0 a1r 1iGJ.Z W � LMIDSGAPE NOTE. 1 V •��p1o�w � L • a.r Wa 4 1 � 'i'i •7J� n..1 Y y..11J Waia+u) i WL 61TE PLAt-1 d d -e1 fir{` . �jY w1c... .vrJM�rc uuvis4a+••. • 1v� so,J � .wa�s,lwa s. e• % sis ucwrxa ,rt.-. .: ,y � � oar. w.a•.awT c.rw�at toss Cwa y. i -� Ewsl1JEc 1VAJG 1 -DA_ -DLlpL—E x -OT 403 7Eu �T6NE CA }� Cl 303/949-9324 R O. Dox 4923 Vail Colorado 81658 Commercial/Residential z, a31g4 !Afi93S Y�4eti�/, t Cgaralvrrj�� oe eo • a a e "CorJc. 1�Tj ' W,4c� Y aA. P"- - D Ov �YaiN E C A p �, n EO IJ I 4 0 Q A 4 s A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF March 15, 1994 Lot 38, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Klein Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: An application for Final Design Review of a duplex has been submitted by Michael Sanner on behalf of Jim Klein. The duplex will be located on lot 38, which is approximately .46 of an acre and has a slope of approximately 7%. The proposed duplex will have three levels and stand approximately 36' in height. The duplex will consist of the following materials: Roof asphalt shingles(Tampco 320)rustic redwood Siding cedar channel lap Oly. Beachwood Other stucco Devoe -Egret Fascia 1x6 over 1x10 cedar Oly. Navajo Red Soffits fir plywood Egret Window Trim stucco Egret Door wood panel Beachwood Trim 2x6 wood Egret Hand/ Deck Rail cedar caps Navajo Red cedar rails Beachwood Flues/Flashings metal Egret Chimney stucco Egret Garage Door steel Egret The landscape plan consists of 17 aspens at 2" caliper, 6 cottonwood at 2" caliper, and 50- 60 shrubs at 5 gallons, A drip irrigation system is proposed for trees and a sprinkler system for the lawn and planter beds, Reseeding with native grasses and straw cover is proposed for revegetation. In addition to the above, the applicant is proposing to extend the existing split rail fence. It will match the existing fence in material, color, height, and design. The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the February I, 1994 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission commented on the following: 1. Treatment of the vents; 2. North elevation being improved by introduction of a second material; 3. Broad overhang is ingredient to the character of the house; and 4. Caps on top of stucco chimney. !o p PLANNING AiND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF icEPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 38, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Klein Duplex Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: The front of the building is oriented to the south, which looks directly into the adjacent property's building. The adjacent property owner would like to work with the applicant on placement of landscaping, (of a coniferous type) to improve privacy. The grading and drainage plan submitted for the site needs clarification regarding the following areas. The east portion of the site adjacent to Longspur Road; The south portion of the site, adjacent to Lot 39; and The area in front of the residence, where drainage is shown toward the residence. The proposed wall at the northeast corner of the property may be allowed in the setback if it is a boulder blanket and not a structure. If the wall is a structure, it must be removed from the front yard and side yard setbacks, or a variance applied for and approval granted Revegetation is proposed with native grasses and straw cover, but no native bushes, such as sagebrush. Revegetation should include native bushes. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal is in conformance with Town codes. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are compatible with the site and slopes a w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ►.EPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 38, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision WE Klein Duplex Final Design Review a The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvement will be most prominent for the adjacent property to the south due to the proposed building orientation. Therefore, privacy screening in this location may be appropriate The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment. The proposal meets the objective of this guideline. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adapted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment: The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following conditions. 1. The applicant provide coniferous landscape screening in an appropriate location between Lot 38 and Lot 39 1 The grading and drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. If the wall on the northeast corner of the site is a structure, it must be removed from the front and side yard setbacks or a variance applied 4. Revegetation include native bushes, in addition to the native grasses, 5. All flues, flashing, and vents have a finished surface to match the color theme of the residence. 6. The building may not exceed 35' in height Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner a 10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 38, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Klein Duplex Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) O Date /S !� 3 Sue Railton, Secretary _4� SEE ATTACHED PAGE Lot 38, Block 1, W idee Subdivision Duplex, Final Desi¢r -view The Cortunission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 1. The landscaping plan and colors be brought back for Commission approval. 2. Coniferous landscape screening is provided in appropriate location between Lots 38 and 39. 3. The grading and drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The wall in the northeast comer is addressed. 5. The revegetation include native bushes. 6. All flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface, 7. The building height not exceed 35 feet. lis iai a3 3 r. 4 --� / j 7,._�•Y ice.:.' Ilf. 4 < r , \, � El ri ti r 4 ° y , ill VA \�'tl�a.e �.'#l'�/F!i� \ �ti ,l 1 •: { F..I��Y''r'^�°°°2 -rp' • Y •' SFr �' � T'- % (t, W VM Feil• `� . r. � ;' �I, .. � , . rJj i ♦`t ♦ l I� Y• . ? ?. a yr _ . l .. v ��.'1R t yl�h _ �... y I , . . 1 � r..r�� • w ':.�`5 a<2 ; irll. .�,. S�. 1 .� r.. I It .{k.,'4./; ki .i ]•MN;�}.R�'Y'�IS�R' �iM��'• .. ,+ ��4 �,L't. y. _+i ',{ A 1 �..r: no [• [• I 4 P . i a+ 2i o IN �► fwli PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Valley View Townhomes Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Five Plex ZONING: PUD, Five Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Sally Brainard, on behalf of the applicant Peter Kyle, has submitted plans for Final Design Review approval of a five plex on Lot 3, Block 5, which is .93 acres. The lot slopes east to west at approximately 271/o. The five plex is proposed to be three levels and approximately 35 feet in height. Following are the proposed materials: Roof. asphalt shingles; resawn shake Siding: horizontal lap wood siding Devoe S.T. 27 Other: stucco; limestone Fascia: R. S. cedar country red, Windows: vinyl clad white Doors: vinyl white; Hand/Deck Rails: wood country red Flues/Flashings: painted metal; match building Chimneys: stucco The landscape plan calls for four Spruce at 6 feet in height, 38 Aspen, 2-3" caliper, 16 spirea at 5 gallons, and 16 current at 5 gallons. The area is proposed to be revegetated with native grasses and wildflowers A formal irrigation system has not been proposed This application was reviewed as a conceptual at the December 21, 1993, Planning and Zoning meeting. At that meeting, the Commission commented on the following: 1. Building height limitation; 2. Variations in the elevations; 3. Use of window styles and placement; 4. Vary roof forms; 5. Garage spaces; 6. Trash removal, 7. Introduction of a second material to break up mass, and 8. Landscaping plan, particularly on the south and west elevations 0% AA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Valley View Townhomes Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: A culvert is being required at the driveway entrance due to this area being a main drainage way The proposed driveway entrance fans out where it ties into Wildwood Road. The entrance must be a 90 degree turn off of Wildwood Road. Fireplaces are being shown, but the type of fireplace has not been indicated. The applicants may only have gas or certified solid fuel burning devices. The type of fireplaces to be installed needs to be clarified prior to issuance of a building permit The proposed retaining walls are over 4' and must be structurally designed by an Engineer Revegetation is proposed to be with native grasses and wildflower mix, but not native bushes. Staff is requiring revegetation with native bushes, in addition to the grasses and wildflowers Irrigation is proposed to be done by hand watering by the on site manager A grading plan, on a certified topography of the site, showing true limits of site disturbance has been submitted Prior to construction, an erosion control/construction fence needs to be installed on the site which delineates the construction and non - construction zone Drainage for the site needs further clarification prior to the issuance of a building permit The building height is below 35' DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the final design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment This proposal is in conformance with Town codes The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment The type and quality of proposed building materials and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines. r"A OWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot Block 5, wildridge Subdivision 34DVallea y View Townhomes Final Design Review h The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. =W Comment: The building and site design proposed will have no impacts on adjacent sites. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment: The design and layout of the proposed improvements are sensitive to the topography of the site by not building on the steeper portions and orienting the building on the flatter portions of the site. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The topography of the site is such that the proposed improvements will be visible from Metcalf Road, but due to the design and use of materials, will not have a negative visual impact The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment: The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Commission approve this application for with the following conditions: I. The drainage plan, including the culvert at the driveway, be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Retaining walls over 4' in height be designed by an Engineer. 3. A construction and erosion control fence be installed delineating construction and non - construction zones prior to building 4. Revegetation consist of bushes and grasses native to the site. 5. Meters be placed on the building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15. 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Valley View Townhomes Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted 111>1 4�tO.� Mary Hoiden Town Planner PIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Valley View Townhomes Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ✓� Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) p Date 3 �S/ Sue Railton, Secretary /,�ee SEE ATTACHED PAGE Lot 3 Block 5, Wildridoe Subdivision, Fiveplex. Final Design Review The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: I . That the red be removed from the fascia line. 2. An automatic sprinkler system be installed, or a drip system. 3. The signage and additional landscaping be brought back. 4. The drainage plan, including the culvert at the driveway, be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Retaining walls over 4' in height be designed by an engineer. 6. A construction and erosion control fence be installed delineating construction and non -construction zones prior to building. 7. Revegetation consist of bushes and grasses native to the site. 8. Meters be placed on the building. 9. A roofing material sample be brought back for approval. OOtlOOOM011 MOAtl � t - =__ . Z LL O ' 1 ' I 1' 1 ' 1 I•' �I 1 1 ' 1 � 1 10 InI YI 1 1 r 11 11 I' I 19mK 11 11 111111 a 111 It \ r O I P \ ° 1 1 ` 1 11111 , ' ' I ' ' 1 1 1. 1 '111 1 1 I ILL1.1 - r a / ° I , ' •I , /ro 1 111 1 It 11, 4 . j. 1 I 1 \ 1 1 , 1 I , (((111•ICQrtQ �1'1YY'. """ 1 1 1 / 1 I , 1. 1 ' 1 1 ' 1•'0C ' r ' ' r^ • {�� 1� ° • ' 1 1 ' I I 1 d 11 1� \/1' ' hyy� ' � • �Q R 1 , , 1 1 1 ` 4 1 I • a 1 I 1 1 1 , � 1• 1 O - 1I ocivaU'luo NUTA QOOMa'► 14 S@ILuoLjuA.o,l, N I SIO am n ir11 vr- Z 2 N ,04 Oft 0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KF.PORT March 15, 1994 Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Library Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE Library ZONING: GPEH COMPLIES WITH ZONING" YES INTRODUCTION: Pam Hopkins has submitted an application for conceptual design review for the Avon Public Library on Tract G The library will be located west of the Seasons at Avon building, east of the Fire Station and south of the proposed Recreation Center. The library will consist of the following materials. Roof standing seam metal no color indicated Siding R. S. board and batten " Other R S plywood & batten " Dolgo Crabapple back grouted rainbow mix 2 1/2" cal. Fascia standing seam metal " Soffits Ix6 T&G " Window Trim 3x R S. cedar " Door metal clad wood " Door Trim 3x R. S. cedar " Flues/Flashings not indicated " Chimneys back grouted rainbow mix " Other Peeler poles " Colors will be provided at the meeting. The landscape plan includes: Colorado Spruce 3 8' high Austrian Pine 8 8' high Mountain Alder 3 multi -stemmed B&B Dolgo Crabapple 10 2 1/2" cal. Aspen 11 2" cal. Alpine Current 8 5 gal. Native River Birch 5 4' multi -stemmed Colorado Dogwood 11 5 gal. Peking Cotoneaster 5 " Tammy Juniper 5 " Dwarf Mugo Pine 3 " Potentilla'K, Dykes' 14 " Potentilla'Sutter's Gold' 4 " PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Library Conceptual Design Review Nanking Cherry 8 " Dwarf Arctic Willow 8 " Ground covers will consist of native materials, flowering perennials and sod. The building entry and two outside patios will have special paving. An irrigation system is being proposed. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff hats reviewed the proposal and following are the comments: Site Plan: 1. The roof overhang on the east portion of the building extends over the sidewalk, causing a potential snow shedding problem; 2. Trash removal must be handled through the use of cans, not a dumpster; 3. Handicapped spaces need to be labeled on the site plan; 4. An accurate drainage plan is required for FDR submittal that ties in with the surrounding area; 5. Sidewalk on the west should not tie into the Fire Station parking area., 6. The chiller and transformer must be screened; 7. The drop off area must be labeled on the site plan; and 8. The irrigation system must tie into the Town's park system. Building Desj&n The building is located approximately 17-20' from Benchmark Road and the roof overhang on the east portion of the building extends over the public sidewalk. Typically, the Town requires a setback from a public sidewalk to allow for snow shedding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Library Conceptual Design Review Respectfully Submitted 1� Steve Amsbaugh Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓Y" Date _Sue Railton, Secretary �jf�� SEE ATTACHED PAGE Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Library, Conceptual Design Review Since this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken. During the Technical Advisory Committee meeting (Staff level), the following issues were brought up. 1. The roof overhang on the east portion of the building overhangs the sidewalk in two locations. That will cause a maintenance problem that they don't usually accept, heavy snow shedding down directly on to the sidewalk. 2. Trash removal should probably be handled individually and not with a central dumpster. The Fire Station currently has individual trash can removal and they are quite satisfied with it. The Committee just couldn't find a very good trash dumpster location. 3. Handicapped spaces need to be labeled on the site plan. 4 An accurate drainage plan is required and they are working on that. The initial drainage plan looked like there were a couple holes that water needs to escape from. 5. Sidewalk on the west side not tied to the Fire Station. It bends around and goes in there. 6. The chiller and transformer shown between the Fire Station and the Library should be screened with landscaping. 7. Drop off area be labeled on site plan. 8. Their proposed irrigation system should tie into the Town's central park irrigation system so it could all be metered together. The Town will maintain the landscaping on this site. The applicant responded favorably to all of these issues. Further discussion followed on the window fenestrations, lack of colors, and the roofing material. In general, the Commission was please with the proposed building. rN I �2 =r 0 • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision MacNeil Single Family Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Final Design Review -Modifications ZONING: PUD -Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mr. Larry MacNeil has submitted an application for modifications to his FDR approved site plan. The changes include: 1. Relocation of the residence to the southern portion of the lot (originally on the north portion of lot); 2. Access to the residence through Lot 88, which is west of site, (originally access off Wildridge Rd.), 3. Building height reduced by 3', 4. Building mass reduced, and 5. Addition of four deciduous trees to existing landscape plan (condition of approval for original FDR). Materials, colors and architectural style are remaining the same. APPROVAL HISTORY The MacNeil residence received Final Design Review approval, with conditions, at the July 6, 1993 Planning and Zoning meeting. At that meeting, the Commission commented on: the building height, adding deciduous trees to the south elevation, and moving the house 10' south on the site. The Commission approved the appli-ation with two conditions: (1). Four deciduous trees be added, and (2). The house be moved 10' south STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed access is through Lot 88 in an access easement. The applicant has provided Staff with a site plan upon which the legal description of the easement is called out, but has provided no documentation of the dedication. We are requesting that the applicant provide us with the necessary documentation showing the legal dedication of the access easement by the owners of Lot 88 prior to the issuance of a building permit. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridgc Subdivision MacNeil Single Family Final Design Review -Modifications The landscape plan remains the same with the exception of four additions! green ash trees at 2" caliper. Three have been added to the south elevation and one was added to the west elevation. Upon Staff review, we have the following comments: 1. A grading plan, on a certified topography of the site, showing true limits of site disturbance including utility line locations, needs to be provided, prior to the issuance of a building permit, 2. The grading plan should address the 1.1 slope on the east portion of the site since I : I slopes do not meet Town of Avon standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the following conditions: 1, Legal documentation is given to the Town of Avon showing the dedication of the access easement on Lot 88, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 2 On the site plan submitted for the issuance of a building permit the following must be shown: a. true limits of site disturbance, b. grading plan addressing the 1:1 slope. 3. The flues, flashings and vents must have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 4. Utility meters be placed on the house. 5. Any retaining walls over 4' in height be disigned by a registered engineer. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4. Commission Action � 111 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF t%EPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision MacNeil Single Family Final Design Review -Modifications Respectfully submitted, '-V1&1 Vf&1 ItWwm- Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (, ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) pp Date .3 /� Sue Railton, Secretary_Gv¢/ This application was pulled by the applicant, prior to the meeting, but after the agenda was set and posted. 1 f se yA j�" tom -i.. *�'✓(i.� 1-✓ t ( j if it' I Pill - 14-�3 R6I'1 LAANOSCAPE PLAN MAc NEIL Rc� �c� _ 7T o 8�, B1.K ,� - 1771 IUI 11 1Knmumxu Don•+ wA rid`` I till E —� i Vis. �•lC],tlG'I,f1 � r 1-1--IN"IL. KL-7609JYA.a --- - "� - mc -i r Eire- rI - F%V)w � X o wA rid`` I till E —� i Vis. �•lC],tlG'I,f1 � r 1-1--IN"IL. KL-7609JYA.a --- - "� - mc -i r Eire- rI - F%V)w Oft 04k PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Seasons at Avon Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Building, ZONING: TC - Town Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mark Donaldson, on behalf of the Seasons at Avon, has submitted an application for modifications, as follows: 1. Addition of four skylights in place of the roof monitor in the lobby, 2. Addition of a water cooling tower and enclosure on the east side of the building. STAFF COMMENTS: The four proposed skylights will be 48" x 48" and match the other skylights in material and coloring (see attached plan view). The cooling tower will be contained in a 15' x 24' enclosure which will be finished with stucco. It will stand 12' high and be located on the east side of the building, on the property line. The enclosure needs to be located out of the side yard setback, which is7 5 feet, or a variance applied for and approval given for the encroachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the following conditions. 1 That all modifications match the approved color theme and design styles 2. The cooling water tower and enclosure be located out of the 7 5 foot side yard setback or a variance given for the encroachment PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Seasons at Avon Final Design Review -Modifications RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Steve Amsbaugh Director of Community Development W 0• PLANNING Ais ZONING COMMISSION STAFFkEPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 0:1 Seasons at Avon Final Design Review -Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (1 ) Approved with recommended conditionsas (✓� Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 3 �S Sue Railton, Secretary '6�2 Atl � The Commission granted approval with the following conditions: 1. All modifications match the color scheme for that floor and that elevation. 2. The cooling water tower and enclosure be located out to the seven and a half foot sideyard setback, or have the applicant seek a variance for that encrcachment �o 0 vIMN mIN .I vvnN Ruu 9 � , 1 — �� vvwucf tw[ nuct I n[r vtt•bnves I I, ,` ghr�lAt L s..t rLW lIIW� I vlRtN rr....YY� `l\ # V} [[AI11t ' \ I � LIN lin iia ,'^ y_`�-w1 �[�'•.._ �±` .A •-__ f.;�Y��\.� ': �. c ��P �a • n+iipw•� iescr �/ '1� :zQ w t ' r. .. - .�ww M y• y. h - w4�• I hAY �C :zQ Qi N �� w t ' r. .. - .�ww M y• y. I hAY �C Qi N �� g•• c. r 1.. r 4; .�•�C1. I ,lam 1— ly .1. r 1 Q1 r ;�% r-• r= V Y - @o f ^p ':.. �...': 41111 ��. �,'ti Al.. :r •. , . :a�� c. r 1.. r 4; .�•�C1. I ,lam 1— ly .1. r 1 Q1 r ;�% r-• V Y - c. r 1.. r 4; .�•�C1. I ,lam PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kjEPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks./Hube,s Duplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING.' YES INTRODUCTION: John Railton has submitted an application for conceptual design review of a duplex on Lot 42, Block 2. The lot, 1.5 acres in size, slopes from north too south at approximately 41% and the duplex will be located on the north portion of the lot. The duplex will contain three levels and stand approximately 35 feet in height. The duplex will consist of the following materials Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Trim Door Hand/ Deck Rail Flues/Flashings The landscape plan includes. composite heritage shingles no color indicated cedar board and batten " rough sawn cedar " moss sock stone at base rough sawn cedar " rough sawn cedar ply " rough sawn cedar " metal clad wood " (selected front and garage doors) redwood metal to match roof Colorado Spruce/Ponderosa Pine 3 6-8' high Russian Olive 21 2" cal. Aspen 18 2" cal. Alpine Current 6 2 gal Serviceberry 6 2 gal Potentilla 6 2 gal. Yellow Flowering Current 6 2 gal Rabbit Bush 6 2 gal STAFF COMMENTS: The west unit garage and various retaining walls are in the front yard setback. The applicant must request a variance from the front yard setback to have the garage and retaining walls remain in the setback or remove the improvements from the setback. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kr:PORT March 15, 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks/Hubers Duplex Conceptual Design Review Due to the steep nature of the site, Staff is requiring sections through the site in three locations for FDR submittal. The three Iccations are as follows I A sectior through the west side of the proposed residence, including the retaining walls and patio, looking east; 2. A section thuiugh the middle of the site and residence at the east unit enterway, looking east; and 3. A section through the east portion of the site, including the retaining walls and driveway, looking west. Each section should include Wildridge Road on the north to just beyond site disturbance to the south. Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments Site Plan: 1. An accurate drainage plan needs to be prepared for FDR that addresses the drainage swales on the north side of the structure; 2. Detail needs to be provided on all proposed retainin, walls; 3. Utility connections need to be shown on the site pla-i for FDR; 4. The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 5. An accurate grading plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance needs to be submitted for FDR; & A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence needs to be placed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones, 7 Snow storage needs to be addressed, and 8. Landscaping may not be placed in areas of snow storage. Design. I. Colors need to be indicated on the elevations, samples provided and a colored rendering submitted for FDR, and 2. The finished grades on the building elevations need to match the finished grades shown on site plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation � !WI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks/Hubers Duplex Conceptual Design Review Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modifi, d conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( Conceptual, No Action (✓j Date/ Sue Railton, Secretary 4L'0- As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time• The Commission commented on the difficulty of building on this site, the materials proposed, and the need for a variance. In general the Commission liked the proposed project. a / d j. i �, " �.,.. �� _. Ip ', �..Y�'. ' 1.. � y x-i-idno 5a38nH S> NVO I Z 0 LU J W I- Q ui iib PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Olson Residence Remodel Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE Single Family ZONING PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Larry and Judy Olson have submitted an application for modifications to their existing residence on Wildridge Road West. Following are the proposed changes I. Relocation of the chimney chase, 2. Elimination of shutters around the windows, and 3. Window style changes and relocation STAFF COMMENTS: The new chimney chase will be finished with stucco and match the existing stucco in color. The windows will be uniform in style and size The proposed changes are consistent with existing designs found in Wildridge Subdivision STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rccommends the Commission approve the proposed modifications as submitted RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner Oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 15, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Olson Residence Remodel Final Design Review -Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn � ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary �*� The Commission granted final design approval to the requested modifications with the following conditions: 1. That a full arched window, of two quarter round windows be installed over the two south facing double doors. -2. Tiet—any defir t approva t— would be researched and confirmed and that the applicant would addre. thnrp clPficienries prior to the iccuanra of a hui1iin9 permit. 1 h _ b 12 — �~ _=.=rte'--�---�• _. r -1.r[ M EXTERIOR E L EVA71 0 5... >�tpp� ..r_''C�91LRia1JGr1 �`sP�ilt-T SFFI�JGt-ff' ". . Rocha cue` x co, eipw%j_ Git=D W/14ACS .. cxw- tiD5 r sna'(= o14 A1TL. Laa,i ba/ er ." t y r Jt.T 8., to 1 ��' it ]� i_. A♦ , ,�, ., '�• • � a / �. _ - . ; 1 to .?{ii��.p_ � �r��fi - .:..'+4\ • I�.. r r � � !7 r< �� . . W T. a i.riq ., a1 /% ♦ i 1 , ,.•e�4 � yr �..,��vf t r,[y fl•rgr r ry f 4� nyM�iiS h�l•f t0�Y' Sl•AiRr ' t k' , t h �� ....a �' rS {r"f �•'� 1' a r ; / ti�ty4� ' s... "�«.. °7 is `•7�'�i� `r� •a 1!M1 ..«7P'�(�.�}�yK��9'y' �� I�1�xt�--.�\'�� *=.�� .,'' , « � d" �7.�4'.B"'p .,Y ��-�I';•t ° ••��r}- i !''.'.i".a/ gM�u�+i'G %�rRi erl4w�'. i_k§•.SI►�: to, . ), . . � 4w n •■ SATjq, Wl .- l WSJ- y� 4.� 11I.. y�am�y.. t Mfl Y' + +� � �; a��'� ._,`. Vis! � � !ii, �1S;r tli11 I11FF111 ._ X11<<'�• 1� I f' � I I I- I 1 1 I I 3901F1d 711'4 09 0 I d` Q s L6 v0VZ n_Q ~ V '0 33�W3t �w�i�v Cu v 'bS 107 i-- IS a il�� N W ''' 1 \ �c 11181 II!llii OR i t — i 1 \ �c 11181 II!llii OR