Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-0308 PEC
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 8, 2010 1:OOpm TOWN OVAIL'� TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Boymer Residence, 1817 Meadow Ridge Road 60 minutes 1. A request for a work session on a proposed Development Plan, pursuant to section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, to allow for the redevelopment of a five (5) acre portion of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments, with up to 352 new deed - restricted employee housing units, located at 1280 North Frontage Road/ Lots C1 -05, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090038) Applicant: Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Committee Planner: George Ruther ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 20 minutes 2. A request for final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for a re- subdivision of the Timber Ridge site, located 1280 North Frontage Road /Lots C1 -05, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100005) Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 20 minutes 3. A request for final review of a variance from Section 12 -6F -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback, located at 1817 Meadow Ridge Road, Unit 6 /Lot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100003) Applicant: Robert Boymer Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 4. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal Page 1 Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 5. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right -of -way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road West right -of -way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 7. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 8. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of the Glen Lyon Commercial Site, Development Area D, (Glen Lyon Office Building) from the District for incorporation into the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell Page 2 ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: minutes 9. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of public buildings and grounds (West Vail fire station), located at 2399 North Frontage Road /Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090019) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 10. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12 Zoning Regulations and Title 14 Development Standards Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, implement sustainable building and planning thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to April 6, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will standards, and setting forth details in regard VOTE: 5 minutes 11. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of a new special development district, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (Vail Rowhouses) /Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090037) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to May 10, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 12. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to April 6, 2010 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 13. Approval of February 22, 2010 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 14. Information Update 15. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Page 3 Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published March 5, 2010, in the Vail Daily. Page 4 TOWN OF VAIL l�7 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 -2452 www. vailgov. com March 2, 2010 Mr. Rick Pylman Pylman & Associates, Inc. 137 Main Street, C107W Edwards, Colorado 81632 Re: Timber Ridge Redevelopment Final Comments Dear Rick, Thank you for submitting the revised plan sets for the review of the Timber Ridge redevelopment project proposed by Vail Timber Ridge, LLC. The purpose of my letter is to provide you with a list of the written comments generated by the Town Staff upon completing our review of the development review application for the redevelopment of Timber Ridge. Once you have had an opportunity to review the list of comments please contact me so that we may set up a mutually convenient time to meet and discussion the information contained within the letter. Please address the following comments: Community Development Department Topographic Survey containing the following information: a. Wet stamp and signature of a licensed surveyor b. Date of survey C. North arrow and graphic bar scale d. Scale of 1"=10' or 1"=20') e. Legal description and physical address f. Lot size and buildable area (buildable area excludes red hazard avalanche, slopes greater than 40 %, and floodplain) g. Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS landmark or sewer invert. This information must be clearly stated on the survey h. Property boundaries to the nearest hundredth (.01) of a foot accuracy. Distances and bearings and a basis of bearing must be shown. Show existing pins or monuments found and their relationship to the established corner. . � RECYCLED PAPER i. Show right of way and property lines; including bearings, distances and curve information. j. Indicate all easements identified on the subdivision plat and recorded against the property as indicated in the title report. List any easement restrictions. k. Spot Elevations at the edge of asphalt, along the street frontage of the property at twenty -five foot intervals (25), and a minimum of one spot elevations on either side of the lot. I. Topographic conditions at two foot contour intervals m. Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of 4" or more, as measured from a point one foot above grade. n. Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (large boulders, intermittent streams, etc.). o. All existing improvements (including foundation walls, roof overhangs, building overhangs, etc.). p. Environmental Hazards (ie. rockfall, debris flow, avalanche, wetlands, floodplain, soils) q. Watercourse setbacks, if applicable (show centerline and edge of stream or creek in addition to the required stream or creak setback) r. Show all utility meter locations, including any pedestals on site or in the right -of -way adjacent to the site. Exact location of existing utility sources and proposed service lines from their source to the structure. Utilities to include: Cable TV Sewer Gas Telephone Water Electric s. Size and type of drainage culverts, swales, etc. t. Adjacent roadways labeled and edge of asphalt for both sides of the roadway shown for a minimum of 250' in either direction from property. 2. Architectural Site Plan a. Please provide proposed roof ridge elevations. Indicate existing and proposed grades underneath all roof lines. This information will be used to calculate building height b. Please provide a PE stamped Erosion Control Plan 3. Landscape Plan a. Please provide a detailed legend, listing the type and size (caliper for deciduous trees, height for coniferous trees and gallon size for shrubs) of all the proposed plant materials. A variation in tree heights and sizes is recommended. The tree heights and sizes should be proportionate to the scale, bulk and mass of the proposed buildings. b. Some species of plant materials (Honey locust) shown may conflict with Vail's climate /environment. See recommended plant list for more information. c. Please note temporary and permanent landscape irrigation systems d. Show all existing and proposed retaining walls with top of wall and bottom of wall elevations. e. Minimum size of coniferous trees is 6 feet in height- please note height of proposed coniferous trees. Variation in height is recommended. f. The trees proposed on north side of parking structure appear to be planted in 2 feet of topsoil above structural foam. Please revise the plan set accordingly. g. Please provide more detail on the plant material proposed on the top deck of the parking structure. Please include information on how the trees are planted ie, planter boxes, depth of soil, etc.) 4. Lighting Plan a. Please indicate the type, location and number of all exterior lighting fixtures.' b. Please provide cut sheets for cylinder (wall sconces) and coach lights c. Please provide more detail from the manufacturer's spec sheets regarding whether the proposed exterior lights are fully cut off fixtures. 2 d. Please demonstrate compliance with the town's adopted outdoor lighting regulations 5. Color and Material Board a. Please submit an exterior color and materials sample board for review and approval by the Town of Vail Design Review Board 6. Model a. Please provide a three dimensional computer generated model which includes a sun /shade analysis b. Please depict all deciduous and coniferous trees after ten years of growth 7. Please provide a fully executed utility providers approval and verification form 8. Hazard Study; a. A rockfall mitigation improvements plan will be required based on the study and Town Code Fire Department 1. Please provide dimensions of the turning radius of the proposed bus lanes and fire apparatus. 2. Please identify the "gate or bollards" at the entrance /exit to the proposed 20 foot wide fire lane. 3. Please clearly delineate the common path of egress to the public way on the proposed site plan. 4. Please provide a Life Safety Report and the Code Analysis. Public Works Department The comments written in bold text are additions added to the previous list prior to the applicant. 1. The Town of Vail General Notes shall be updated to reflect the most current notes. There are a few missing from this set shown on the Title Sheet. Complete, other than filling out the Survey benchmark data. 2. Please provide a stamped survey of the site within the Building Permit set. Additional spot elevations will be needed in the office surrounding area and buildings J and K in the areas that may be affected. See community Development Department comments above. 3. Show the newly installed sidewalk at the west end of the project as existing, not proposed, this shall be included in the existing survey conditions. 4. Transit Area; a. Show all bus turning movements confirming four buses can effectively operate independently and six buses can be stacked end to end. Exiting turning movements are shown. However, please show entering movements as well to confirm four of the bus stalls work completely independently. b. Show bus entry turning movements. Can the main entrance curb return be reduced in size? c. Show shelters for both WB and EB directions d. The bike path shall be separate from the transit walk to minimize conflicts. e. Show grading /walls, as necessary, on the west end of the transit loop and up to the "new parking" area west of the clubhouse. f. Show a connection along the north side of the transit loop (w/ stairs as needed) to a crosswalk across the drive entrance to just south of the club entrance. 5. West entrance area /parking; a. Please show crosswalks at drive entrance b. Extend a walk north from the fire lane /bike path along the east N -S curb line of the entrance. This walk shall lead to the crosswalk /parking /stairwell to club entrance level. c. Where does the inlet at the SE corner of the clubhouse connect to/ Complete. d. There should be a stair access to the parking at the entrance to the club. Complete. e. The minimum clearance between the wall and the club columns should be at least 5', and even that is tight for this public space. Complete. f. The drive lane should be shifted south after the curve as it enters the east existing housing to eliminate the loss of parking on the north side. g. The "new parking" area should be maximized at this time. Looks like we may be able to add 2 -3 more spaces. Complete. h. The 8 spaces and trash area seems to be a very expensive excavation with 18' -36' walls. Can the spaces be relocated elsewhere and the trash moved well forward as well to save the cost of all the retaining and leave this area alone? Complete. i. The Town will need to understand how this redeveloped access point will /may effect development potential of the western portion of the site. j. The relocated ADA parking space is in a poor location. It conflicts with the Transit Area and is too close to the Frontage Rd. intersection. No Parking shall occur within the Transit Area and Transit intersections. 6. Fire Lane /Bike Path Areas; a. The fire lane /bike path connection to the entrance drive should feel pedestrianized. Do not provide curb returns. Provide a mountable curb /ADA compliant ramp. And discuss with fire if this can be necked down to 10' -12' for a very short section to prevent cars from entering upon the bike path. b. Both access points on the E and W ends are to be exit only for emergency vehicles and that emergency vehicles access the lane by the main garage access point. Please show fire truck turning movements. c. The lane on the west half could be sloped to toward the road easily and sheet flow across the grass slope down to the Frontage Rd curb. The east side could also be raised more quickly from the west entrance at a ^4% slope to help eliminate grade difference between the lane and the buildings. Complete. d. The very west end should have an ADA connection to the Fire Lane /Ped Path to provide access to the Lane and across to the Transit area. Complete, though still need ADA cross walk to both EB and WB Transit Area. e. The east half of the lane could also sheet flow to the south and into the proposed storm sewer between the S. Frontage Rd and the Lane. Complete. f. The east half could also be brought up quicker to match building FF elevations rather than have stairs. Complete. g. The east connection to the Frontage Road cannot occur as drawn, this will be easily considered as an access point. The connection should be made with the existing bike path and with a mountable curb /ADA compliant ramp. Keeping it 10' 12' for a short section will also be helpful. The entrance has been improved, but now it crosses the Savoy Villas property and can it be narrowed and a mountable curb /ADA compliant ramp be added. h. The Frontage Rd. curb shall be wrapped around into the Savoy Villas entrance to the new fire lane /bike path connection. This has been modified, but still needs mountable curb. Does the Savoy Villas driveway need to be widened? i. Fire staging areas have been added. Do these widened areas have to be paved or just flat? And if they need to be hard surface can this be a different material /texture from the bike lane. j. A widened area has also been shown for trash. Can trash share the fire /bike lane. This area is getting very wide. How can we control private vehicles from driving 4 7. Engineered analysis on the existing condition of the gabion walls to remain will be required, details on how to connect to existing gabion walls and how to build walls beneath the existing gabion walls will be required, as well as construction shoring plans showing no impact to the adjacent properties. 8. Frontage Road; a. A CDOT access permit approval shall be required. b. Full CDOT frontage Rd design plans will be required as a part of this project c. A full width overlay will be required as a part of this project for the limits of the Frontage Rd improvements. d. Tapers and decel lengths shall match traffic study recommendations. 190' left turn lane with 10:1 taper and 20:1 lane shift tapers. e. Can any widening be done to the south, maybe part or all of the south shoulder? 9. Accommodations for a bus stop on LRL should be made where the grade meets the road with fill against the parking structure. This could alleviate congestion at the Transit area and function for the eastern half of the project. 10. Drainage; a. Provide a Drainage Report b. The Town does not require detention for developed sites, unless there is a significant increase in water run -off and existing storm sewer cannot handle the anticipated flow, in which case the existing system should be upsized or detention can be considered. c. We do require all surface and structured parking drainage to run thru Water Quality (which is shown) d. Identify which storm sewers take public water run -off and provide adequate easements thru the site. A preliminary easement plan has been provided. e. Does the 18" pipe on the NE corner of the parking structure flow over a 10 +' retaining wall? This will need to be piped. Complete. f. In the same area as above an existing storm sewer crosses Lions Ridge Loop, where is that water proposed to go. g. Provide storm sewer profiles. 11. Utilities; a. Utility sign offs will be required on the title sheet. b. The option to minimize the utility easement to 30' is shown, is this going to be considered? The current plan does not seem to need that additional room. This idea was brought up to help the building move forward (south) 10' to help the retaining wall grading issue in the back and /or for additional landscaping in the back. Complete. Not requesting a change to existing easement. c. The idea of `meandering' the fire lane /ped path is great, however locating significant landscaping (trees) will not be allowed over utilities. If it is determined to `meander' the lane, show how the utilities will be protected. d. The depth of the existing water line is needed. e. All necessary additional easements for utilities will be required. A preliminary easement plan has been provided f. How will existing utility services be maintained thru construction? g. Show the existing sewer /water services to the buildings to remain. Will any utility services be required to be relocated? 12. Please provide a Landscape plan. Sight distance and Utility conflicts will be a key issue. And any landscape in CDOT ROW will require a CDOT landscape permit. Provide a more detailed plan and show sight distance and avoidance of utility conflicts. 13. Please provide a lighting plan. How will the project, transit area, Frontage Rd, fire lane /bike path be lit ?. A preliminary lighting plan layout has been provided show lighting type, fixtures, power source, dimension spacing. The Frontage Road lighting should match the pending Frontage Rd. Lighting Master Plan. 14. Building; h. The Environmental Impact Report indicates that the population of this new development will be -552 -570 individuals housed in 352 units as compared to -424 in 106 individuals housed in 106 units today. The existing calculation is based on 106 2 bedroom units with 4 persons per unit. What is the developed population based on? The current 352 unit count contains 544 bedrooms, at 2 persons per bedroom, the resulting population would be 1088 individuals. Please clarify the proposed population and please clarify whether there are 102 vs 106 units being removed. i. The circulation for the storage /trash /mail room seems to be inadequate. At a minimum short term parking spaces need to be assigned in this area. The Traffic study indicates approximately 30 vehicles will be entering and 50 vehicles will be exiting during a peak hour. Some percentage of those trips will want to stop in this area, and need accommodations to do so. Moving the access west may help with circulation. This may be done by swapping unit location. j. The trash circulation and locations seem inadequate for this large of a development. Having only one point to dump trash and only accessible from inside the parking structure is inadequate. Having a trash chute on both sides of the parking structure (E &W) and accessible from inside the building along with one on the very far west and east side of the building seems more accessible. The Trash plan has been modified but does not address the above comment. Please provide written narrative of trash plan. k. The trash chute should also be coupled with a recycle area /chute. I. How will the Bike storage areas be secure /controlled /accessed? How many bikes will it hold? 76 bikes are being proposed, with no storage on the 4 and 5 floor. That is approximately 1 bike per 7 bedrooms, is this reasonable? Why no storage on 4 t " and 5 floors? m. Is the storage area secured by a gate /door? A door is shown. n. An emergency /service access from the top deck would be very functional for service and an emergency /secondary access to this large of a structure. o. Show typical dimensions for parking spaces /drive lanes etc... These will have to meet Town code. All exposed surface spaces are 9x19 and garaged /covered are 9x18. Cross -over aisles are supposed to be 30'. p. Show elevations for parking garage. Complete. q. There are walks shown at the entrance at the parking garage, are these raised or at grade. Complete. r. Please show drainage for the parking structure. Where will it tie into the sanitary sewer(this will require ERWSD approval) s. Show Snow storage calculations. Complete. Where will the top deck snow storage go? t. Where do the roof drains daylight or connect to the storm sewer? u. Generic grading is provided in the courtyards. Provide specific design, hardscape, ped paths, landscape etc... v. Does the dumpster meet Town bear proof enclosure requirements? Complete. w. Some of the units on the ground floor are only accessible from the outside and not the garage without going up one floor to then back down. Should there be an interior corridor to access these units and also the elevator tower? x. The upper levels do not match with the garage floor plate so there is ramping and stairs to each level. 6 y. Multiple garage levels show stairwell exits that go no where, what is the intent? Complete. z. The 4 and 5 floor garage level plans show a different entrance into the buildings on the east side? Why the difference? Tthe 5 floor does not show an access door for the east side of the garage to the building. Elevations that are now shown provide the answer. aa. The plans reference Garage Plans by others. When will they be provided? 15. Easements shall be provided for drainage, the fire /bike path, access to the west existing property, transit area and rockfall mitigation fence 16. The Developer shall be responsible for plowing the fire lane. 17. Traffic Study; bb. The Traffic study will need to be updated, once the final program in the development is determined. cc. Note on the Traffic generation summary that the 171 units is based on occupancy not capacity. dd. The traffic engineer should comment on the circulation issue as stated above regarding the mailroom /storage /trash area. 18. Transit projections; ee. A more specific Town bus impact analysis should be made. As indicated in the Traffic study the Town's bus headways will probably not change as much as suggested, although shadow buses will increase and this will impact number of buses, operations, maintenance of buses. This will also provide a bigger incentive to construct Simba Run underpass and the need for a line haul route at faster headways at peak times. ff. The project removes 106 units roughly equivalent to a maximum of 424 people. The new development provides 352 units roughly equivalent to 1088 people(This assumes 2 per bedroom). The increase of people on this site is —260 %. The existing peak ped. counts using transit (based on counts on 12/30/09) was 112, which was based on —86% occupancy rate. So at full occupancy this could have been 130 people. An increase of 260% would then result in a transit ped need of 338 at full occupancy, 2 per bedroom. If the LRL bus stop was installed and 10% of the transit use went there, then the Frontage Rd. Transit Area would need to carry 305 people in an hour. The existing bus at peak times currently arrives 2 /3rds full with a total capacity of about 50. A shadow bus typically follows this bus once it arrives at Timber Ridge to allow for an additional capacity of 50. Additional analysis will be required to understand the true impact to the Town bus system, regarding operations, maintenance, new buses, new positions, etc... gg. This additional need would have to be covered by the Red and Green routes today, but could be supplemented by a new Line Haul route in the future if the Simba Run underpass were built. hh. In addition, there is currently a safety hazard with pedestrians crossing the interstate at this location in order to short cut travel to the Cascade employment center /lift access. This is likely to increase due to almost 3x the pedestrian population as there is now. A Simba Run underpass would help alleviate this concern, although probably not eliminate the problem. To eliminate the problem adequate pedestrian barriers would need to be installed to divert all people away from crossing the interstate. 19. The development will require a public art component. Again, once you have had an opportunity to review the list of comments please contact me so that we may set up a mutually convenient time to meet and discussion the information contained within the letter. You can reach me most easily by telephone at (970) 376 -2675 or by e -mail at gruther(o 7 Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Director of Community Development Town of Vail xc: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Mike McGee, Fire Marshall Greg Hall, Director of Public Works and Transportation MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 8, 2010 SUBJECT: A request for final review of a variance from Section 12 -6F -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback, located at 1817 Meadow Ridge Road, Unit 6 /1-ot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100003) Applicant: Robert Boymer Planner: Rachel Friede I. SUMMARY The applicant, Robert Boymer, represented by Steven James Riden, is requesting a final review of a setback variance to allow for an addition into the side setback of Unit 6 of Capstone Condominiums. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval with a condition of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A); the applicant's request (Attachment B); and proposed architectural plans (Attachment C) are attached for reference. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Robert Boymer, is requesting a variance from the required side setback of twenty feet. The application includes an addition on all three levels of the house. Portions of the proposed addition on the lower and main floor levels require a side setback variance. On the lower level, a carport is being proposed that would encroach 7.5 feet into the setback, with a total of 109 square feet encroaching into the setback. An addition to the bedroom is also being proposed that encroach 6.5 feet into the setback, with 18 square feet of GRFA being added into the setback. The bedroom already encroaches 4.5 feet into the setback. On the main level, the dining room, kitchen, living room and an adjacent deck are proposed to be expanded. The existing dining room already encroaches 4.5 feet into the side setback. The expansion would add 19 square feet of dining room space into the setback, which would encroach 6.25 feet into the setback. The addition to the dining /living room would add 34 square feet into the setback, encroaching approximately 4 feet into the setback. The deck addition is permitted to encroach up to five feet into the setback, but as proposed, would encroach 8.25 feet into the setback. The proposed deck area within the setback is 40 square feet. The proposed additions to the upper level would not require a setback variance, but existing conditions include a bedroom that encroaches 6.75 feet into the side setback. The addition to the dining room on the main level infills the space below the cantilevered bedroom on the upper level. III. BACKGROUND The Capstone Condominiums were granted a Certificate of Occupancy on December 1, 1978, under Eagle County jurisdiction for six (6) dwelling units and were zoned Residential Multiple Family. On January 29, 1986, the Capstone Condominiums was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986. At that time the property was rezoned to Two - Family Primary /Secondary (P /S) District, which made the property legally non- conforming. On June 8, 1987, Staff recommended denial of a density variance for Unit 2 to enclose a deck which added 79 square feet of GRFA to a project which was already over on number of units and GRFA for the lot. Staff cited that it would be a grant of special privilege as no hardship was present. By a vote of 3 -1 -0 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the density variance request for Unit 2. On July 7, 1987, the Town Council heard an appeal (called up by Council Member) on the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a density approval for Unit 2 of the Capstone Condominiums. A motion was made to uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission approval and by a vote of 2 -2 -0 the motion failed and resulted in the overturning of the Planning and Environmental Commission approval. There have been several applications for new windows, retaining walls, and roof replacements since the 1987 applications. On June 19, 2007, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2007, which rezoned this property to the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) District. This rezoning occurred in order to make the property more compliant with development standards, including density. The application was also submitted in anticipation of the desire to perform several small residential additions to the existing units and possible new pitched roof. When the property was rezoned from P/S to LDMF, the side setback was increased from 15 feet to 20 feet, which increased the legally nonconforming encroachments into the side setback. When the rezoning occurred, it was noted that certain proposals by either end unit within the Capstone Condominium development may require a setback variance as the existing structure would not comply with the 20 -foot setback on the side. On January 22, 2010, Staff approved two applications for additions to Units 3 and 4 in the Capstone Condominiums. These requests did not require variances. IV APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12 -6F: Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) District 12 -6F -1: PURPOSE: The low density multiple- family district is intended to provide sites for single - family, two - family and multiple- family dwellings at a density not exceeding nine (9) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The low density multiple- family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with low density occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6F -6: SETBACKS: In the LDMF district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). Chapter 12 -17: Variances (in part) 12 -17 -1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. V. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Zone District: Low Density Multiple Family Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Lot Size: 52,577 sq. ft./1.21 acres Buildable Area: 38,570 sq. ft./0.885 acres Standard Allowed /Required Existin g Proposed Lot Area (min) 10,000 sq ft 52,577 sq ft No Change Setbacks (min) Two - Family Front (South) 20 feet 183 feet No Change Side (West) 20 feet 14 feet 12 feet Side (East) 20 feet 92 feet No Change Rear (North) 20 feet 13.5 feet No Change Density Control max 7 D.U.s 6 D.U.s No change GRFA (max) 44% buildable/ 14,046 sq ft 14,383 sq ft 16,970 sq. ft. Site Coverage (max) 35% of site/ 4,418 sq ft 4,741 sq ft 18,401 sq ft Landscaping (min) 40% of site/ 28,686 sq ft 28,314 sq ft 21,030 sq ft Building Height (max) 38 ft 30 ft No Change W SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Zoning High Density Multiple - Family Primary /Secondary Primary /Secondary Primary /Secondary VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition to the Boymer Residence will not impact the neighbors to the west because those structures are built closer to the street and away from the steep hillside above. Should those structures redevelop, it would be highly unlikely that they would build closer to the eastern rear setback due to steep slopes. Because the proposed addition is located on the western end of the Capstone Condominiums structure, it will have little to no impact to the neighbors within the same structure. The addition will not be visible from the backyards of any neighbors within the structure, and will only be minimally viewable from the front of the building. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal will not negatively impact the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity compared to existing conditions. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. 4 Land Use North: Multiple - Family South: Multiple - Family East: Single - Family West: Two - Family Zoning High Density Multiple - Family Primary /Secondary Primary /Secondary Primary /Secondary VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition to the Boymer Residence will not impact the neighbors to the west because those structures are built closer to the street and away from the steep hillside above. Should those structures redevelop, it would be highly unlikely that they would build closer to the eastern rear setback due to steep slopes. Because the proposed addition is located on the western end of the Capstone Condominiums structure, it will have little to no impact to the neighbors within the same structure. The addition will not be visible from the backyards of any neighbors within the structure, and will only be minimally viewable from the front of the building. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal will not negatively impact the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity compared to existing conditions. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. 4 Pursuant to Section 12 -17 -1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, the purpose for granting a variance is as follows: "A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, - or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. " In this case, the setback variance would allow the Boymer Residence to expand in a similar manner to the expansion of other units within the complex. VIII The existing structure was built under Eagle County jurisdiction and later annexed into the Town of Vail with a more restrictive zoning placed on the property. Because of the location of the existing structure and parking lot, it would be difficult for the applicant to expand their residence to utilize allowable GRFA without a setback variance. Therefore, due to the unique physical hardships and the existing structure; Staff believes the proposed relief from the setback regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The applicant's request would not have any impact on the light and air of neighboring properties. The addition would not facilitate the need for expanded services, such as transportation and traffic facilities. As further described in criteria #1 above, Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, or utilities in comparison to existing conditions of the site. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with a condition of a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6F -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback, located at 1817 Meadow Ridge Road, Unit 6 /1-ot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Applicants' request for a variance from Section 12 -6F -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback, located at 1817 Meadow Ridge Road, Unit 6 1Lot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request with a condition, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following condition: "This approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: Based upon a review of Section Vll of the Staff's March 8, 2010 memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Low Density Multiple Family District; and 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Low Density Multiple Family District. c. 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 Low Density Multiple Family District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Architectural Plans 6 Attachment A R ' • u LL a S AW m J Tj 4a 0 FA'� P� LL 17, r . : . �- '., N _ y s ��! nYgV9 Attachment B Variance Application Environmental General Information: Variances may be granted in order to prevent or to lessen such Un- necessary physical hardships as would result from the strict interpretation and /or enforcement of the zoning regulations inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or con- ditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. The Vail Town Code can be found on the Town's website at www.vailgov.com The proposed project may also require other permits or applications and/or review by the Design Re- view Board and/or Town Council. Fee: $500 Description of the Re T o . cu f p r • t► W E f, • Physical Address: 1 211 ME ADOW N P& F-C , dM C VA il_, C o . Parcel Number: 21 0 3 " 1 23 -0 1 _006 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970- 328 -8640 for parcel n o.) Property Owner: L�kff &6 Mailing Address: ?. V •td cx� U kl. i 0 �s &525 160( Phone C M) 390 92 For Office Use Only: Cash_ CC. Visa / MC Last 4 CC # Adth # Check* heck # Fee Paid: Meeting Date: Planner: Zoning: Location of the Proposal Receiv Fro _ f " P K kO Project . Land Use: 1 Lot: Block: Subdivisio u C/ PA_ r ,1'[_rQ+_ 01- Jan -10 , Mailing A ddress . • r an ola7 E-Mail: V405N 1 Z Fax: V0 32 Orl 117 5teven ,James Ri A.I.A. Arckitect r.0 P0 - 50x 5Z58 V.J' CCU 8 1 658 -� 2 5: 9 1 -0-;u 5-0+58 970 - 28 -0717 fax �tev - PriJen 1.r-ow 1/25 } o Town o Vai Flanni and E_ Commission Vail, CO 5 1 657 JAN 25 2010 TOWN OF VAIL i Re. Capstone Townhouses, unit 6 Dear Commissioners, r)ok boymeris see king a variance from tkc strict and literal interpretation of tkc setback regulation for th installation o an addition to the northwest and southwest elevations of Unit 6 of the Capstone Townkou.ses. T65 addition is compatible to existing building forms and detail. Tk existing buil is within an existing setback that was altered previously from Frimar j/ jecondary to Medium Density Multi Family (MDMM. Th e original set6 a&woulcl Have allow this addition and not require a variance forconstruction. T11 ere is a portion of t1 is p roposal that is currently existing and non -- conforming as a result of the more recent designation to MDM r. Th is proposal does include additional GKrA. As this is an existing non - conforming structure, those requirements create a kardskip for the a and are not a granting of special privilege. The applicant feels that this is also not a granting of a special privilege as others within the immediate area throughout the Town o Vail From structures wilt prior to current zoning have similar circumstances. All units with tl-ie complex are allowed expansion. An expansion of this unit will not be possible while maintaining com p atiki l itg a withoutgranting relief. The relationship o this request conforms to the existing structure and use and is needed relief -fro m the strict and literal interpretation of the setback ordinance to maintain uniformitq to the imme diate surrounding units. This proposal also is com p ati 6le with th objective of the Vail Village Master flan encouraging the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Tbis proposal does not have an effect upon the l ight, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities, and public s a fety. Thank You for your consi deration i n th is matter before you. N r � Steven James Kiclen A.Q.A. Architect F.C. 1 L= i J ^ AL t V 7 T7 LM - � 1 i • � 11� Y a l ' 1 ! 1 I `.,�+ r��-• ,� "1'•. � / /7 ■ Y t, t •� A Ah t V 7 T7 LM - � 1 a . 0 0 PA :96 rldmprA A Mal � � r I P -my 0 V I " PPS M 5 l a j l \,` 77- /OXII oi/xa. do �/,s_./ �o/xiw o x3etiiw OaV'dO"100 `" 1VA d0 NMO.L 9 "I30i1Vd `QVOM 3JQRI A10QV3W LNf k < <t/ S3SCIOHNA101 3NOISdVO `9 11Nf1 - V 3QiTI S�3WFf N�3A 3iS - IaQOWIN dTlw og L O LW 1 � Y m \ I e a t o 0 o = - - -- o o l iy to v V / �m �a6 o o V �v Ln I. OLOg - - - -� a N o W- aQ wm Ln 6/ W co zV Aoi � v o Vo. o 8 m 4 v ` c9 o v o o g ,- A �h- �CO Q Q o v W e� v Q 0 / 0 200`` v d 4 Do Iz- Q w. O oz �o� o h a a A l l - V I �' I � i m z z a 0 0 I � � i I�l �� 3m , 5 '12 i o / N U W I !n N J Z I X)tff 5 0� 1z F- J �W N oW o � Q p og o z2uz vie; w u OQV'dOIOO "IIVA AO NMO.L 9 "IHJ2IVd 'QVOH J9aIH MOQVaW LTSi SaSCIOHNMO.L 3NO.LSdVJ '9 .LINII m 9 °a aoo d„ O \ LC� �i \X G w Z m may / ���IIIO L1 ) / 0 �o a �II3�< w5 I O � AH i i b - 8 1 / ;r BTU OQV'dOIOO `IIVA JO NMO.L 9 laDHVd `QVOU aDaIH "O(IVAW LTST soo -azE �o�b� S3SROHNMO.L HNO.LSdVJ '9 .LINK Naai y ea ei� ° Nanacs "IH(IOWH2I 2IAVU0S 6A ., =,F.:.F :....,.. © 3� \� ) // \ v w \ \ \ r 3 r w - h � h \ L JJ /L) / � w oo aa� Boa Z IPA / / I / z / E OQVHOIO `"IIVA 30 NMO.L 9 "IADdVd 'QV02I JO(IId MOQVAW LIST 9�a -aoo to�d�� SRSfIOHNMO.L 3NO.LSdVO '9 .LINK Naaix�ea vi ° Nanacs 'IIQOW'A'd 'dHVUOS / Q yF / / / / �� 0\ B oad2Io - ioJ "IIVA 30 Nmo-L 64 .Y 9'IADHVd `AVON ADUIH MOQVAW LTS7 r SASCIOHNMO `9 ZINfl H - © s s z 0 a w w 0 Q �9 o' x� a� z 0 a w w 0 Q o NONE NONE moon moon Mill z 0 a w w 0 Q �9 o' x� a� z 0 a w w 0 Q o PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 2010 1:OOpm TOWN OVAIL'� TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Luke Cartin Rollie Kjesbo Micheal Kurz Sarah Paladino Bill Pierce Tyler Schneidman David Viele TOWN COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT Dick Cleveland Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem Kim Newbury COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT MEMBERS ABSENT Andy Daly 1. A joint work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss environmental stewardship and sustainability policies and employee housing goals and strategies. 60 minutes Commissioner Pierce, the Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission called the meeting to order and thanked the Town Council for coming to the hearing. George Ruther thanked the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council for coming together to discuss Housing and Environmental goals and strategies. He then asked if some time could be taken to revisit the process that is currently being followed for the review of the Ever Vail development. He went through a flow chart depicting all the applications that have been submitted with regard to Ever Vail and where they fell in the order of review. Councilwoman Rogers asked if any member of the public could appeal the results of the Ever Vail process. George Ruther expressed that the Town Code identifies that an "aggrieved party" is able to file an appeal. The definition of an aggrieved party is broadly defined. Councilman Foley stated that the Council is currently reviewing the Town's parking requirements and if any changes were made to assess new lifts a parking requirement could that requirement be applied to Ever Vail. George Ruther stated that as the lift was a conditional use he believed that a parking assessment could be applied to the application. He then asked the Mayor to begin the discussion on the Environmental discussion they have recently had in the Visioning process as there were no further question regarding Ever Vail. Mayor Dick Cleveland asked the member of the Commission and Council to speak more about their concerns with regard to Ever Vail. Page 1 Commissioner Kjesbo raised his concerns that Vail Resorts is five years into the process and spending significant money and he consistently is hearing that the Council questions the need for a new portal. Commissioner Kurz stated his concerns about the questions being asked after the inclusion of the new portal into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He felt it was disingenuous. Councilman Foley expressed the concerns he is hearing from the business community with a new portal and the closer proximity of parking making the portal more desirable. Councilwoman Newbury expressed her support for breaking the process into steps similar to the Front Door (Mountain Plaza) project. The process as it is set up help the reviewing authorities learn more about the project so the correct questions being asked and answered. Councilwoman Rogers suggested that no one has nor should they be telling the applicant that their application will be approved. All applications need to go through the process regardless of their inclusion within a master plan. Commissioner Kjesbo clarified that he was not stating that anyone has told the applicant that their project was approved, but there is a foundation for the request as it is anticipated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Councilman Cleveland stated several questions he will be asking and would like the Commission to consider are the phasing of the project and how to ensure delivery of promised improvements. How much parking within the development is truly available public parking? He was also interested in receiving a report helping to ensure the community can absorb the commercial being proposed, including the need for significant office space. Councilwoman Rogers added an additional question with regard to the fiscal impacts to the Town with regard to services. The costs need to be weighed against the benefits. Commissioner Pierce highlighted that the Town has contracted with a group to review the documents being provided. George Ruther identified that Environmental and Planning Services (EPS) out of Denver had been selected to produce the requested document. Councilman Cleveland added that he wanted a third party to review the parking and traffic reports as that is a concern for him as well. Councilman Foley asked what the time frame for review would be moving forward. George Ruther suggested that the pace of the review of the project was largely dependant on the Commission and Council. Councilwoman Donovan stated that the flow chart helped her to understand the process and where the project was in the process. She stated that Staff has an exhaustive listed of topics, concerns, and questions, and that Staff should be afforded the opportunity to present their knowledge and understanding regarding the topics at the public hearings. Councilwoman Tjossem stated that the process in Vail has been time tested and she stated that the process is not intended to result in decision prior to review. She asked that the time be given to the process to allow it to work and reach a determination. Page 2 Councilwoman Newbury wanted to remind the public that regardless of the Ever Vail project the properties have development potential and change /growth will occur. Councilman Cleveland asked the Commission if there was anything the Council could do to help make the Commission comfortable with the process. Commissioners Kurz identified the value of having constant contact and feedback from the Council throughout the process. Commissioner Pierce was concerned about going through the process and not discovering a fatal flaw until the conclusion. For example the applicant not being able to guarantee phasing. George Ruther highlighted the success of the Front Door (Mountain Plaza) process as being the avoidance of continuing forward in the discussion until a level of consensus is reached around the conversation /topic at hand. Councilman Cleveland stated that it was incumbent upon each member of the Council to clearly identify when they see an issue that concerns them, but is not being addressed verse holding that information for a later time. Kaye Ferry, resident, stated that she was a republican and would never suggest allowing government interference with private property rights. She continued by suggesting that the application before the community was different in that an applicant has purchased multiple properties with the intent of requesting inclusion in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, variances, re- zonings, etc. She has been attending all meetings stating that it feels like the cart is being put before the horse with regard the development of a new portal. She stated that in the past 1.6 million skiers has always been the magic number for the viability of the community within a single season. Things have changed and now 1.6 million skiers is not the magic number as the average skier is different. George Ruther and Commissioner Pierce stated that the goal of the day was to discuss process not specifics of the Ever vail project. Kaye Ferry concluded that she felt that the community has not had a chance to weigh in on the changes in policies and direction. Commissioner Kurz asked the Town Attorney, Matt Mire, if it was required that the opinion of the general public be positive prior to a property owner submitting an application. Matt Mire described several legal points with regard to the application and the opportunities for public participation. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, stated that he was not convinced that the process was well defined with regard to reviewing a project comprehensively to understand how a project will relate to the economic and sociological aspects of the community. He felt the macroeconomic issues needed to be addressed prior to moving any project forward so the "new normal" can be understood. He believes that the incremental process of review in the past has not resulted in an outcome which is favorable. More attention needs to be given to understanding macroeconomic strategy for the community into the future when Ever Vail is constructed. Tom Steinberger, resident, inquired as to whom was paying for the additional consultants for the studies for Ever Vail. Page 3 George Ruther clarified that all consultants are paid for by Vail Resorts and that the consultants are selected by the Town and answer to the Town. Kaye Ferry reiterated that projects like Ever Vail seem to take on a life of their own. Kristen Williams, representing Vail Resorts, stated that their application has been using the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a guide for their proposed development. Commissioner Paladino expressed that in order to understand the bigger picture it is necessary to allow the applicant to help create a portion of the picture that may be Ever Vail. George Ruther put on the record that the process is being followed, all meetings are public hearings, and that information regarding any project can be acquired from the Community Development Department. Environmental Stewardship Mayor Dick Cleveland gave a brief overview of the Visioning that has been occurring with the Town Council. Kristen Bertuglia gave a power point presentation outlining the goals of the Environmental Strategic Plan. The presentation covered the goals of the Environmental Strategic Plan and the ongoing efforts of the Staff to address the goals. Commissioner Kurz stated that what outstanding environmental stewardship means may be getting back what may have been lost. There are cinders in the Gore Creek. Our guests and visitors only comprehend the environmental efforts we are making if they can see it, hear it, and touch it. We need to be much more open about and tout what we are doing. He added that we should be focusing on large commercial projects in the cores with regard to recycling due to the great impact verse the individual home or smaller development such as the one he lives in. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the waste per capita generation shown in the report and why it was so high. Kristen Bertuglia explained how the math was done and because we have a small permanent population and a large influx of visitors the math was skewed. Commissioner Cartin explained how the guest tends to produce greater trash amounts than someone when they are home as they are utilizing smaller sized products verse bulk and the mentality is different when on vacation. Commissioner Pierce asked if that behavior could be changed. Commissioner Cartin and Kristen Bertuglia stated that it was possible. Councilwoman Donovan asked that the Council look for real world solutions and applications in the community. Commissioner Kjesbo raised concerns with a proposal to restrict development within 10 feet of designated wetlands. With regard to construction waste, having multiple dumpsters on site to put the various wastes from a construction site in is not feasible. He further asked that we remember the customer who buys the product in Vail and requiring things like native grass landscaping may Page 4 not be appropriate. For example when a property is adjacent the golf course requiring native grasses on half the lot may not be appropriate. Councilwoman Rogers stated that consensus will be hard to obtain as there are full -time residents, part -time residents, and visitors. She suggested that there be incentives verse regulations requiring The Code should be reviewed to make sure there are no impediments to allowing people to be as green as they want to be. Commissioner Viele stated that a carrot will work better than a stick to gain greater acceptance and implementation of sustainable practices. He cautioned against the unintended consequences of creating additional regulations. Commissioner Cartin stated that he desired that regulations be prepared ahead of time to allow people who want to be able to install solar panels on their homes. He highlighted the need to focus on electric energy conversation as Holy Cross has some mandates on increasing their renewable power mandate. Councilman Foley stated that the business community is looking for a little assistance to recycle cardboard and glass. The business community is ready to embrace recycling of these materials. Commissioner Paladino directed the Town to look at the parking structures and Dobson Arena as a good place to start as they are users of large amounts of energy. Councilwoman Tjossem stated that the economic climate needs to be heeded when thinking about sustainable efforts. She mentioned a single power switch within a hotel room shutting off all power to the room. Employee Housing Strategic Plan Councilman Foley had to depart but stated that he would like to see a phasing plan for the Chamonix Site. Councilwoman Newbury stated that she had to depart in ten minutes, but that she was on the housing authority and was supportive of the Strategic Master Plan goals. Nina Timm gave a power point presentation highlighting the goals contained within the Plan. Commissioner Kurz stated a concern with keeping families here and kids in schools. The housing types should be designed to house smaller families. How do we communicate the housing opportunities that are available to them. Councilwoman Tjossem asked how we went from having 30% of employees living in deed restricted housing units and free market to a goal of 30% of employees within town housed in employee housing units. George Ruther explained how the goal was arrived at with regard to the numbers of employees and the assumption that over time the free market rentals would slowly be absorbed by new owners and not likely available for rent to employees. . Commissioner Viele stated that he wanted to discuss the Timber Ridge project. He stated a concern with the proposal with regard to the density being requested. His concern was derived from the Housing District process of allowing the Commission to determine many of the zoning parameters. Page 5 Mayor Dick Cleveland stated that the Housing District was created to allow the Commission to have flexibility and the Commission should vote based on the criteria not based upon the perceived direction of the Council. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, reminded the group that the criteria are the basis for making a decision. The property is currently zoned Housing District and those criteria need to be used in reviewing the proposed project. Individuals on the same board may have differing opinions of any proposed project based upon the criteria. Commissioner Pierce stated that he did not feel that the burden of providing employee housing should not fall upon the development community. He believes there should be a publicly mandated funding source to provide for deed restricted housing. Furthermore, he felt any new housing unit should be required to include an employee housing unit. Commissioner Cartin inquired as to what factors were taking into account in the data used to reach the 30% number. Commissioner Kjesbo expressed his support for the 30% goal and the need to reach for that goal. He believed that we should be looking at the needs three to five years from today. Commissioner Viele departed after the Commission /Council joint work session, prior to the start of the Commission hearing at 3:35 pm. Site Visits: There were no site visits. 15 minutes A request for final review of variance from Section 12 -61-1-6, Setbacks, and Section 12- 14 -17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side, rear, and stream setbacks, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 16B (Vail Trails East) /Lot 15, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100002) Applicant: Bruecker Wood Real Estate Trust, represented by Steven James Riden Architect Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paldino VOTE: 6 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. This approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The applicant shall provide an employee housing mitigation fee -in -lieu payment to the Town of Vail at the time of building permit issuance to mitigate 1.8 sq. ft. in accordance with provisions of Chapter 12 -24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum Commission Kurz stated a concern with the requirement of mitigating the 1.8 square feet for employee housing. Steven Riden, applicant's architect, stated that he had nothing further to add, but was available to take questions. Commissioner Kjesbo stated that the requirement for mitigating the 1.8 square feet was required by Code and could not be waived. Page 6 There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for the application. 60 minutes 2. An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Administrator's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Donald Zelkind Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Uphold Administrator's determination MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Cartin recused) Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Cartin recused himself due to a conflict of interest as Vail Resorts was the owner /operator of the Arrabelle project and left the hearing. Donald Zelkind, gave a power point presentation discussing how the parking has been allocated and is being marketed at the Arrabelle. Dominic Mauriello, speaking as a local planner /member of the public, stated that he was not representing any client, but was involved with the creation of the language which was adopted with regard to valet parking design and obligation. He highlighted several projects which would be impacted if the interpretation made by staff was overturned. He suggested that if a different interpretation was desired by the Commission he asked that an application be filed to amend the Code and proper notification be given to affected properties. Caroline White, land use counsel for Vail Resorts, stated that the company agreed with the interpretation made by staff and encouraged the Commission to uphold the Staff's interpretation. Donald Zelkind, stated that he felt the statute was quite clear and should be interpreted as he is suggesting. 60 minutes 3. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Cartin recused) Warren Campbell introduced the Town's consultants and clarified the revisions to the report provided to the Commissioners. Dominic Mauriello, of the Mauriello Planning Group LLC, applicant's representative, summarized what issues were to be addressed at this work session. He clarified that the applicant considers Ever Vail a new access point to the mountain instead of a new "portal ". He stated that Ever Vail Page 7 is much smaller in scale than Lionshead and Vail Village and is not intended to compete with those commercial areas. Steve Thompson, Thompson and Trautz, LLC, representing the applicant, presented an economic analysis of the proposed Ever Vail project. This presentation included a summary of the on -going and one -time revenues projected from the project. Commissioner Kurz expressed that the hotel occupancy numbers could be too high, but the spending per visitor number appeared too low based upon more recent data that he was aware of verse that data which was used in the study. Commissioner Paladino asked how the employee housing factored into the calculations. Warren Campbell asked Mr. Thompson to clarify if the former gas station business was factored into the calculations. Mr. Thompson stated that the old gas station numbers were not included. They just received the day of the hearing the most recent data for the existing businesses. Warren Campbell asked if any construction phasing was built into the study. Mr. Thompson acknowledged that phasing was not included in the study. He speculated that the conclusions of the report will not be substantially different based upon construction phasing. Commissioner Paladino recommended the applicant address construction phasing in its economic analysis. Dominic Mauriello noted that many of the improvements associated with the Ever Vail project including parking, landscaping, etc. will be privately maintained, and those on -going maintenance and management costs will not be incurred by the Town. He provided a summary of the Town's recent tax revenue trends and how they related to recent construction activities. He summarized the anticipated review schedule for the Ever Vail project, and clarified that the schedule will adjusted as need to ensure the Commissioners receive all the information they need to evaluate the applications. Commissioner Kurz recommended examining direct costs to the Town that can't be offset by the development plan, such as police and fire services. Dominic noted that many of the direct costs to the Town must be evaluated by the Town's consultants. He noted that the lift tax is intended to help off set transit costs to the community. Jeff Winston, Winston and Associates, representing the Town, asked how the TIFF funds would be used. Dominic stated that the TIFF funds are not being request to fund the Ever Vail project. He mentioned that if directed by the Town that the TIFF funds could be put towards elements within Ever Vail. Commissioner Pierce asked Staff if studies about phasing, traffic, economics, etc. are on -going or to be started in the future. Warren Campbell described the status of the already started traffic studies, retail studies, transit studies, etc. Page 8 5 minutes 4. A request for a work session on a proposed Development Plan, pursuant to section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, to allow for the redevelopment of a five (5) acre portion of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments, with up to 352 new deed - restricted employee housing units, located at 1280 North Frontage Road/ Lots C1 -05, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090038) Applicant: Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Committee Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 5. A request for final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for a re- subdivision of the Timber Ridge site, located 1280 North Frontage Road /Lots C1 -05, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100005) Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 6. A request for a final recommendation for the adoption of the Frontage Road Lighting Master Plan, an element of the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090014) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 7. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 8. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 9. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and un -zoned South Frontage Road West right -of -way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Page 9 Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 10. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 11. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of the Glen Lyon Commercial Site, Development Area D, (Glen Lyon Office Building) from the District for incorporation into the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 12. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 13. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of public buildings and grounds (West Vail fire station), located at 2399 North Frontage Road /Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090019) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 14. A request for final review of a variance from Section 12 -6G -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side Page 10 Applicant: Robert Boymer Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Withdrawn 15. Approval of February 8, 2010 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -0 16. Information Update Warren Campbell directed the Commission's attention to the staff approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the playground at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. Commissioner Kjesbo inquired as to any concerns raised by Mr. Faessler, the neighboring property owner. Warren Campbell stated that no concerns were expressed. George Ruther informed the Commission that Resolution No. 6, Series of 2010, which extend the entitlement approvals for four projects for a period of 18 months was passed by the Town Council. 17. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -0 STAFF APPROVALS: A conditional use permit, pursuant to 12- 16 -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to a conditional use permit for a public school and active outdoor recreation facilities, located at 551 N Frontage Rd W/ Part of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100004) Applicant: Eagle County School District, represented by Ray Scott Planner: Rachel Friede The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 19, 2010, in the Vail Daily. Page 11 0 - 5 E M 0. • • w z ID LL i LO 09-9 ca -j yj ams 4 q ca Ec ti 0 1 0 r 11 72 -S 0 Cd 45 0 C4 0 0 CO , w 6 as 0 "a cct 0 cri -Z3 o 0— "0 C* c 0 4) 0 rn 0 0 63 1.- 0 0 C> — 0 0 4 6 .14 Lv 4 c; rA co 0 s tu (U 0 co :z 7S W > r- cts 0 0 ,n 0 rA 0 r) 7E v 7E v a: CO -C� 0 m Im. 0 t Cd 5 Q ;0. (L) w 0 U el 0 ctt o 10 0 Cd " � C.d "0 Cd 0 b cl = == 0 >1 lu o 0 0 w = '. , 0 0. 4 0 0 Co rA 0 cm 0 N 0 � 0 03 9 ce 0 0 C , 3 8 i LO 09-9 ca -j yj ams 4 q ca Ec ti 0 1 0 w _<m ¢ N N -�Nin W O2 0) ID p C� D - L O -DN i1Q mC NOG O"D N.,C U'V N W.:'Dd y(/3p L « ° D W .m'�.9. 70j - 0 >2 0 w E O . y - 4 - OWN S+I CO opC 3'6- W= 7�J 5G W O �Q> _ 3 mN 7�mL_ W O1 OCR mmJ ] OC >..°. c_>o..m a LWRm e m o epD� �SU CCrN'[_"W _eW ca E� • >0 i eu O ¢rW _t: °ca C OST 7 oNCE P maM¢ oo, EOO Ec" E� Ez >v�cnc EiaPmD E o3y = I Et' EEO 4o .f- oc� >_n mmtu m�°o, "'ro 'eEoJtii' u�]�? ,° mc�cwm 3O O N C N; n O m f O] W 'N a. 01 N N n = OU djVQ W Wp V` W EpEWD D��rn 0 ~o oa9 ; ; wELLLO ' c c 3 ; C o ;_ mmmU�v -On ro m_occ N O O).0 L` m U O D ._ C ... m 0} W- ro _ >o c"m �t ° c °oS mV i� - �dHO °r U M, 0 �m >oc C CW _O NJC�00 Cw v.Ory O Oa_ '2n0 C > . mC_O OWp]'O .Q¢. -- O_ go- _ » o - UL�LL. -O A C O) OW_U 01 0'S� DN> O >LC N N F--N 0,130 °V . �L'�L roU U u_�Wm� v¢O�O 1 2 0 4- 5 O rom ,.- ;Lm 9a dTJ qj� / (j 1 CJ Da N _2LwO508! oc(_,3 ~ OHO � aN C'O " !E - ' cE t ou . d �_� U'O �'y m � C O `�� ° � C nZ U YLC O °E o.- Vora m cC 3t0NC v JUVIOOU n v0 nO IO j W C EOi g4Ul t) Vi�� mF -E O°>.DW 2n�^.� w W!> >. mC - Ld W N� 1 01- .LCm N Wd-• LLC EmJ G m BEM me _AC C � U d= - « U m E � U drno� oaU oQE«c U F N O nO mLL BOO Z N71_ WL'J _ d J O O N�OOJ -OU�� J D ODJ O n Z ¢ v pp �W m2m rn- 5 m �mo' R _ _voE a U- °W�Qrnnda cVCCC7 W W 4 6: O l'!O `W 1047' m ] W O> d O� _ Ot,„ t Ole C Y n g mW0 mdy._ m W D n >7�¢Wy JC > -bm0 �` .O ° W p �A CUv CLO ]W0, ] Z �'�O Nm> N` LL 3 Cm - t°D WW Nro�� ] i'. m NO.P>: - -. ._ O]JO O OZo <0(.) IWV� n�P N`v/ pm� ®�cdrn ]�y ^cm� =� o-- ° i.�.0 Tp rn �12.ZCD �� c0a1 C7 ¢Q p Z J� m dA 'm L) 46 d� dmi Wes' U ( °dC�DC � m� C > ---V Zffl mOJ3': > nO�y UfWf�11 0 wA.NlLL aCC �QO ;'iDV "�rpC ODJ3m C r�UCNZA FW mat C U -2 p 3C °U ma ❑. N o , p �0 1_u, W- .OE m NWOO>O5 Cm _WL O7 m Z g oo 7J W E' >oca E N W d BE m 2 H. O m o D CroNa j__ a O`N o Z D 4+ N¢ E ��- r�i 3 ��o �i'g rno c o¢ nW E v� d co >- o ¢Vg O W, W omen o �w °•� .222 v aR m WmEv m'c oe >UW -cam M_ro>.m mS } WOG 3 U� 0 O 'OON U D E`J xro -'�� �O-oo mC O1_ .0 O y0> W N O D m ¢ N 00 E$ Q mm d NC d J W Ot �m C] t 3« O ] .w Ga o D? mR V 0 'j` Z._C m. 4j• -...._ Oi ODL W O WW d`� - L - CL W O C Qi m OU J C V' -C O_ O = O - C A c6G` -'C'O: OC W O OC d -r � W Z 3 rn n'Ca .¢o d ,� O W ;o_mi or-o ?: g cv NEmC = O O N! '_O O H ]47 UU 'ipd �0�� T O OOH W NT lL m C T W > ¢ i- m• S p' - «U O m m m C UD . -,A . p.- LL O> C ' n C W FQ EO mC CPD 0I A W f7 C'�` « LL ~ qJA J LL W - S A C3J mUX W C0 O O.-C C mD O }jl110t G N =' O CC>'U d E W ° � WO EWd Cry W]m. -,Z C QE m mC' -NON O D OL o°,N A +_ J >F 3EE,5i8EEM N ° .. O D O m; .W .. d N mo3E$ c A W N 9 Wm9J W ip C COW ma - m nm �, N mm,C OlU 0 01 . ODDd Z o Op m I m Lc o >O o_w Z . - p W of oa _E_W_c EEm ;! m �y mzm-_mm E,.,_ = U �LE ^O iJ�m@ W . N = :.WOD 01 -N.. y3 0 - DCOC -_N o(n m� -� EvW� -.w ... r- u rii 3 -0 ' W 3 N�a wm3m��0 nm uF 3 ^W�mW nW Oh u� > EA >r ¢ >d m u"_ WWO m h p¢ h m > m O � dA d0 >WO mdArui 0 0 1 1 MY P_ '�mcw a a - ..L •�'�LLII °c oo ,W an - ti y `o W¢U °¢ >O > `T2¢ O mroQ� °m � 00 aoCjg} �dou��O °(3 maDC�ocpo O . momcy�nEc >_ 6 � ..���� O diU O m mLL Z ;'� .W ON OG C O N O0 Cry WC NUO O m'� 120 m m� Lo C � mWad� Z _ Ey Z �> rm O W mb rod¢aeimZ .�- •Q do ^Z ' c1 vW °'y F u'C'.2 _1°iom °On o Eem• r H Qo}o O o�'" O U o�3gom w �'pm�a�3 > _��� 0 o �c ° AV o`r `�°"CL°¢m70 on �CYd W 6g m a�-6Ee w mg>t7 w °w¢¢ N o�omo� > pmW °i�=i. ©> >F-w N - ,UR m `m o, mmWU m+ -pWmmr V_ry DL.. `N Da "crg c'-v_� >' N m-- _W> N Tn « ° C1 W m�a_��' ~ u w i mcu i tt 0 �� a' m o m >3f 't w i� mro = cHm WW m 0 O 21L CJ d>.O"'Y3 D: d_ d . - OL C._ p m Wffofu�=0 �o�`c �4Z tlmg' c `p z y« c E- a�+OZO m ©i�°?oc0 40 Q�mD �_o�dp0 � O,�apO a vm�J]�m� E a -, 00 9c - mC O C n o- -_c F c Dm .mac.. d -v N o C tt:- �hr o uch�- '�cm ai3'3t�nWo UO ¢ ¢ E'wxmn°'nchh mmmOa >�c�h m WI �m amF ��i -_.0 roUCi _N a -U ]0.�0� Ti �Eh�Ta m a ¢E cv m Q CL Q'2 mU� ¢g vm-- -d Uao.Cg vi C'lomrncE¢a Qg tO Omz S... ¢a4 ¢a ¢S iiO,_.�D¢c OA + ccs N o O cn ro 00 N C 7 0 m ° y O ¢ ':, U = 3 cc O l c� CO U •''' L CO 0 b _ N D L) ° o OVA •«Y O n O C b e a p ;; 0 C CL b n bA co N) 4 O ch U Cl) b 4: t7 +-+ cz cc 0 w O U t� O �„ N c i 'O c N p c .� W Z "v W 0 6 p0q a h —, 2 - 0 0 0 O N 0 C 4. ►.a O Q Q u U 0 O 0 v O �O ct N y O 7 El) y n rn [ � a� a • � U ow.? Co En > o a O moo, @off L E 0 En tz 0 3 0 p fl _� N N 0 cV V1 ca v v F, - > c 0 G w ¢ N N M `� p O • U p 0 N N O N O. N> 3. 0 ca co Q 0 O >. b 0 N O> 4. Z7 7 N N N - AK Z 0 Q, y N y ry) , b n Q. 0 N U cn b a z � u N C- m�O Q1 C...D Oz ail ~ OC ALLG O 5 0 c 3 E mc mc m OD p Imo � N ® �q E�av Ec�n �° E"c� Eul n0 � L 'n Enu N C O N �Oy g W c = aaic _m~� my c AWL rn m A U > � °O ° >o oca° a 6 3 o c_:oi od .- o_z - m,.p M'3: EO m- O 0 n ti - _v viU na m C�Lp o - ^'o� m~ 3 W 3 Lli � o cc m o u ' p vw [ n m m 616 v �rn0 mvN° y-mo� E> ° r °°' c cn�� Qacm c 0'oa my a o ,r `5 - 4i 2 (} co TEz6 L m _ a U O O: m no ¢DH U E C C O> L m rnm d Q mcl y u CN 3 0 d N N N En _n 000= Fmn� ou vo � d m-E NEd �€ y° n Q Rm�� m �OmN 8 0 ON Nona =Ea ° 'rn n °ooE a� CU�O) m4vo p,..m V6 D NF, - gym y. Q OmUm _ 3m ouNVC a«° L m mE off -. �E°'O ¢w o c c°f` n o 0o E 1 09E m` mm Lya N °V 5 m m O C > Vi E0 m - O E p CU O� O OCO O C On ° - ` - O n N m m N.. O ... O N W -D N E C m ENCNC N.. .3.. N 0 ° W N - m> m> E `o C= 0 m 5 u0 °LLL= 0 '0 Q Ec aiF p�vm `m�vm oO mU N�a �oF NW li7 v m> a0 m¢�' nd W> To U ^ a c 0 xmo p 0 >a =mQ�'> > m> m > v °mac a d �ZO,o�' mac+t.>.°/OO no o O mcypE c� mU mc oor�m m oa U aV ��EEm -0 a 0 c0 c" ma 0 o C) C HE]F0 inN o UF--W yc p Ulu N «E �F m ~m N o y cN �'�5� m N h �3mmc..=Z N C H m N 4 E..=Z m m- m ca �2Z N ,a EC¢Z2 N 22 � E -Z t noa> �u tiFo- mau�00 dd COp Np =L,cp0 T": COO ap DO m aL - �o MM O. U O Q - `=F C � a �00 O m Q > c m > �' n `mU0 ^ m O.- a m= ° DMuo N N m n �O y ,Q O °i ��o rn 0i °aa¢f °c ti Qf .- D3m<FL <2 ^D¢aQx 5.- .- -2 Hones C '"7 � N F� r T a c 0 N N L rc c� m Et t N �b o a E O m O c E E V t b �+ 4 S � v