The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.404 Park Ave.3-81G 9 2 -. . 4 - 1)/ - Werning Subdivision Exception 4 0 4 V al V t\Vt - Condominiumization i -4.0/ r 1 , 0 c itittu cj 3~LU- t S 2 1 1 - -*ouled g 276 100/ / 192 1 No. 3-gl CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 1~5/fl STAFF: Art RicknupÂ·\ 2. APPLICANT: kkrno 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 61&66 1414*\ Box (0001 /4~tt~(D â‚¬1012- 4. PROJECT NAME: Orni~ Subdioi 510\,1 5. LOCATION: l# 3 2 Sunniprk 51*divi strn 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning 3<f Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. Exception 8040 Greenline Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use HPC '>4 Residential Bonus Other frandatory TOD 7. REFERRALS: , )< Attorney Sanitation District School District )4 Engineering Dept. X Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas X Housing Parks State Highway Dept. X Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell - 04*Y fty.ur- (Carnry#s re: imfÂ¢r (14(1101\Â«Play\) - 241 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 9. DISPOSI~ION: j , p&z Approved Denied Date 2 7 4 l RL. AE ULA_ - Council ~- Approved ~ Denied Date 3(1~9-4 tÂ·U- NÂ®LÂ£3 10. ROUTING: Attorney ~ Building ~Engineering a~Other u-'A~' CITWOASPEN 130 fouth gale--~~s~treet asp ~"NEolorad#\81611 303-92542020 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 1981 TO: Alan Richman FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Werning Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 20-22. PJT:mc ... 9 4-) Lk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Werning Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: June 9, 1981 Zoning: R/MF PUD Lot Size: 17,555 square feet (0.4 acres) Location: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision (160 N. Park Circle at Park Avenue) Background: At a special meeting on February 24, 1981, you gave conceptual approval to the applicant's previous proposal to upgrade and expand the Werning Apartments. The applicant intended, at that time, to remodel eight of the existing thirteen units and, by taking advantage of the Residential Bonus Overlay provision, to build twelve new units, with ten of the twenty total units being deed restricted as employee housing. One condition of your approval was that "A very high concentra- tion of low income units be provided among the proposed ten deed restricted units". Council, at their meeting on March 9, 1981, took this idea one step further by requiring that all ten units be deed restricted to low income guidelines due to the high density being requested at this location. The applicant has deter- mined that he is incapable of following through on these conditions and instead is proposing to condominiumize the existing thirteen unit apartment complex. The applicant intends to make substantial improvements to the existing buildings prior to the sale of any condominium unit. Engineering The reviewing engineer, in a memorandum dated May 28, 1981, Department's indicates that the improvement survey submitted with the Comments: application is not an adequate condominium plat. However, the engineer recognizes that the applicant intends to make substantial modifications to the property following condo- miniumization and would prefer to have these improvements completed prior to recording the plat. It would therefore seem appropriate to require that the applicant prepare a condominium plat suitable for recordation prior to the sale of the first condominium unit. This procedure will insure that the purchaser of the unit is protected by the subdivision record while also giving the applicant the flexibility to improve the premises prior to marketing the units. Planning Office As a proposal to condominiumize an existing residential complex, Review: the applicant must demonstrate full compliance with Section 20-22 of the Code. The applicant has provided a letter to the Planning Offices attached for your review, stating that he will comply with 20-22(a) and (b) which require that 1. Existing tenants shall be given written notice when their unit is offered for sale with a 90-day option to purchase their unit at preliminary market value. Tenants shall be provided a 90-day right of first - refusal to purchase their unit; and 2. All units shall be restricted to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. MEMO: Werning Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) June 9, 1981 Page Two Furthermore, the applicant has addressed the question of impact on the supply of low and moderate income housing (Section 20-22(c)).withthe following comments: 1. No tenants have been required to move involuntarily within eighteen months preceeding this application; 2. The rental price of the condominium units will not be substantially increased after condominiumization; 3. A tenant who does not wish to purchase a unit will be allowed 180 days to relocate; and 4. Of the 13 units to be condominiumized, only one has rented at a price which falls within the guidelines for deed restricted housing during the previous eighteen months. This unit (number 1) a four bedroom, 2303 square foot unit, has historically rented within moderate income guidelines. The other 12 units have exceeded the middle income maximum of $0.63 per square foot prior to November 1980 and $0.68 per square foot subse- quent to November, 1980. The applicant has agreed to deed restrict Unit 1 for five years and should be required to limit it to moderate income housing guide- lines and occupancy. The letter, and accompanying table, attached for your review, addresses each of these concerns in detail. Building The Building Inspector performed an inspection of the prem- Inspector's ises and will be prepared to report to you on the results Comments: of that site visit. No condition is recommended to be attached to the approval of the condominiumization based on this inspection in keeping with the new administrative procedure in this regard. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that you approve the appli- Recommendation: cant's request for subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant preparing a condominium map to meet the specifications of the Engineering Department for recordation prior to the sale of the first condominium unit; 2. The applicant giving existing tenants written notice when their unit is offered for sale with a 90-day option to purchase their unit and a 90-day right of first refusal; 3. The applicant restricting all units to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; and 4. The applicant following the measures proposed to miti- gate the impact on the supply of low and moderate income housing including, but not limited to deed restriction of unit 1 to moderate income guidelines for a period of less than five years. *MEMORANDUM* TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department 6~-- DATE: May 28, 1981 RE: Werning Condominiumization, Lot 3, Sunny Park Having reviewed the above application for condominiumization, and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comment: The improvement survey submitted with the application is not an adequate condominium plat. The applicant should be required to submit to this office a condominium plat for review and recordation prior to sale of any units. LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON L KAUFMAN TELEPHONE - AREA CODE 303 DAVIDG. EISENSTEIN May 4, 1981 925-8166 Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Condominiumization of Lot 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION/ John R. Werning Dear Sunny, This letter is submitted to the Planning Office in conjunction with the application of condominiumization for the above referenced property in order to demonstrate the applicant's compliance with the requirements set forth in Â§20-22 of the Aspen City Code. If condominiumization approval is obtained, the applicant-owner of the property, John R. Werning, will comply with the requirements set forth in sub- sections (a) and (b) of Â§20-22. The condominiumization of the above referenced property will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. There will be no tenant displacement as a result of the conversion. No tenants have been required to move involuntarily within eighteen (18) months preceding the date of this application. The rental price of the condominium units will not be substantially increased after condominiumization and therefore persons who are able to afford renting these units prior to the condominiumization will continue to be able to afford renting these units. In the event any of the units are placed on the market after condominiumization, a tenant who does not wish to exercise his or her option or right of first refusal shall be allowed at least one hundred eighty (180) days to relocate. The condominiumization of this property will not result in the loss of any low, moderate-income housing as only one (1) of the thirteen (13) units has been rented in excess of the maximum rentals for the low, moderate-income guidelines Sunny Vann May 4, 1981 Page Two and applicant will be willing to deed restrict such unit for a five (5) year period in accordance with the requirements of the Aspen City Code. The chart attached hereto and incorporated herein demonstrates the rental history of the property. I believe the information provided to you in this letter adequately demonstrates that this application complies with all the requirements set forth in the Aspen City Code to allow for condominiumization of the property. A property survey has been submitted with this application and not a complete condominium map because applicant plans to make substantial renovations to the property and thus the condominium map will not be prepared until these renovations are completed. Should you need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN 0 -1 4- By f . - / Gideon Ka*Â¢man Attorneyi/for Applicant V GK kw Enclosures RENTAL HISTORY 0.63 (4 f. &48\4 F UNIT NUMBER SQUARE GUIDELINES RENTALS GUIDELINES RENTALS NUMBER OF BEDROOMS FOOTAGE TO 11/80 10/79-10/80 11/80-PRESENT 10/80-PRESENT 1 4 2,303 $1,450.89 $900.00 $1,566.04 $1,100.00 2 1 572 360.36 375.00 388.96 400.00 3 studio 244 153.72 300.00 165.92 380.00 4 3 819 515.97 600.00 556.92 675.00 5 1 465 292.95 350.00 316.20 350.00 6 2 850 535.50 550.00 578.00 600.00 7 1 387 243.81 350.00 263.16 375.00 8 2 552 347.76 450.00 375.36 450.00 9 2 835 526.05 550.00 567.80 600.00 10 studio 367 231.21 350.00 249.56 350.00 11 2 552 347.76 450.00 375.36 500.00 12 2 835 526.05 550.00 567.80 575.00 13 studio 387 243.81 350.00 263.16 375.00 . APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Request is hereby made on behalf of JOHN R. WERNING, (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") under Â§20-19(a) of the City of Aspen, Colorado, subdivision regulations for approval through the subdivision exception process of applicant's plan for condominiumization with respect to real property described as : Lot 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION An exception in this case would be appropriate. The application involves subdivision of an existing structure. Requiring strict compliance with subdivision regulations for the subdivision of a lot with a thirteen (13) unit residential building on it creates conditions which will deprive the applicant of reasonable use of land. If this exception application is granted, owners of the property will have a common interest in the land; and there will be a condominium declaration applicable to the property which will not in any way increase the land use impact of the property. An exception in this case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations which are directed to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen, to ensure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate the need for public services and to encourage well planned subdivisions. The granting of this application will not undermine the intent of the subdivision regulations, as it is clearly I . . . within the area intended for exception under Â§20-19. The building is already in existence, and there will be no change in density, which is presently in line with the desired population density for the property. A follow-up letter addressing the Â§20-22 implications of this condominiumization application is being submitted with this application. The applicant would appreciate your consideration of this application at your next regular meeting. Dated: April 30, 1981 LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN By ~L /4 - Gideon Kay*lan Attorneys,jEor Applicant 611 West 'Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8166 -2- C,-*46 43.(01 1. The applicant's provision of @~emeb.igll/GeRÂ©%kpak'i* low income housingAamong the oposed ten deed . 1\ 1 4% 9 ,estricted units; 2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed AP?,-e .<iL su~y.* -6 1 10,000 square feet of open space, said area to be shown as part of the subdivision plat; 3. Agreement by the applicant to provide a water system interconnect between the King Street and Neal Avenue lines; 4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road right- 1 of-way following consultation with the City and County : Engineering Departments; 5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage, further consideration will be given to the landscaping, massing and bulk and their relationship to the request for Residential Bonus Overlay. The approval of the i RBO shall be based on the provision of aÂ«IthleneeoUâ€¢- U. tllo,vof low income units among the 10 deed restricted units proposed for the site; and 6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate planned road improvements in the area with construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, which shall be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Werning Subdivision Conceptual Review 1\ DATE: March 2, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~;:tu ~/'0~'~~Â«,6.0,Â« Zoning: R/MV PUB g Lot Size: 17,555 square feet (0.4 acres) Location: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue at Park Circle) Applicant's This application is for conceptual subdivision review for the Request: Werning Subdivision for the purposes of remodeling and rebuilding the units at a higher density. The property currently contains 13 free market residences and the appli- cant is requesting approval for a total of 20 apartment units on the site. However, the applicant proposes that 10 of the 20 units would be employee housing units and thereby requests that the additional density be permitted through rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay rather than through GMP. The hearing for RBO will occur at the prelimi- nary plat stage before P & Z, although the actual rezoning is a function of Council. Planning In a memorandum to P&Z dated February 10, 1981, the Planning Office Office expressed several concerns regarding this application. Review: These concerns included on-site open space and setback limita- tions, curb cut and drainage inadequacies, problems with traffic congestion in the areas water service needs and the high density of development proposed. At P & Z's meeting of February 24, 1981 the applicant submitted a revised site plan which addressed several of these concerns. Specifically, the applicant's proposal now shows 20 parking spaces on-site for the 20 units without the continuous curb cut prohibited by the Code, provides adequate drainage facilities and documents that no setback violation exists. The applicant further demonstrated that 35 percent of the site is proposed to remain as open space and that a lease is to be obtained for an adjacent 10,000 square foot parcel to be landscaped and maintained by the owner for 30 years without development potential. The applicant questioned the need for the requested water system interconnect to improve service in this marginal supply area due to the presence of an 8" line along the perimeter of the property. Finally, the applicant documented that while the unit density will increase from 32.5 units per acre to 50 units per acre, the actual bedroom count will drop from 224 (with studios counting as 3/4 of a bedroom) to 18% bedrooms. The Planning Office remains concerned about the proposed density and open space on the site, particularly in terms of the mass of the buildings required to provide twenty units on this site. In addition, since the applicant is required to provide on-site parking, much of the site is impervious surface, with open space visual relief confined to the outskirts of the development rather than being part of the development mix. P & Z, however, expressed overall approval of the added density at the site, provided that a very high percentage of the employee units be deed restricted as low income employee housing. r Memo: Werning Subdivision Conceptual Review Page Two March 2, 1981 P & Z Action: At a special meeting on February 24, 1981, P&Z took the following actions: A. Exempted the Werning subdivision from mandatory PUD procedures, as provided in Section 24-8.13 of the Code; and B. Approved the applicant's request for conceptual sub- division review, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant's provision of a very high concentra- tion of low income housing among the proposed ten deed restricted units; 2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed 10,000 square feet of open space, said area to be shown as part of the subdivision plat; 3. The applicant agreeing to provide the necessary water system improvements if the Planning Office and Water Department determine that improvements are needed; 4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road right-of-way following consultation with the City and County Engineering Departments; 5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage, further consideration will be given to the land- scaping, massing and bulk and their relationship to the reg uest for Residential Bonus Overlay. The approval of the RBO shall be based on the provision of a high concentration of low income units among the 10 deed restricted units proposed for the site; and 6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate planned road improvements in the area with con- struction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, which shall be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle. In response to these conditions, the Planning Office contacted the Aspen Water Department to reconfirm the need for the , requested system improvements. Verbal comments from the Water Department indicated that despite the existence of an 8" water line in the areas there is definitely a need for improved facilities if additional development occurs in this area. It was also stated that the cost of the requested inter- connect should not cause an undue burden in additional cost for the applicant. Council Action: If Council agrees with P & Z's recommendation, the appro- priate motion is as follows: "I move to approve the request for conceptual subdivision approval by the Werning Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant's provision of a very high concentration of low income housing among the proposed ten deed restricted units; 2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed 10,000 square feet of open space, said area to be shown as part of the subdivision plat; 3. Agreement by the applicant to provide a water system interconnect between the King Street and Neal Avenue lines; Memo: Werning Subdivision Conceptual Review Page Three March 2, 1981 4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road right- of-way following consultation with the City and County Engineering Departments; 5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage, further consideration will be given to the landscaping, massing and bulk and their relationship to the request for Residential Bonus Overlay. The approval of the RBO shall be based on the provision of a high concentra- tion of low income units among the 10 deed restricted units proposed for the site; and 6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate planned road improvements in the area with construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, which shall be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle. P & Z Action: At a special meeting on February 24, 1981, P&Z took the following actions: A. Exempted the Werning subdivision from mandatory PUD procedures, as provided in Section 24-8.13 of the Code; and B. Approved the applicant's request for conceptual sub- division review, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant's provision of a very high concentra- tion of low income housing among the proposed ten deed restricted units; 2. The applicant's signing of a lease for the proposed 10,000 square feet of open space, said area to be shown as part of the subdivision plat; 3. The applicant agreeing to provide the necessary water system improvements if the Planning Office and Water Department determine that improvements are needed; 4. The applicant's dedication of a sufficient road right-of-way following consultation with the City and County Engineering Departments; 5. The understanding that at the preliminary plat stage, further consideration will be given to the landscaping, massing and bulk and their relation- ship to the request for Residential Bonus Overlay. The approval of the RBO shall be based on the provision of a high concentration of low income units among the 10 deed restricted units proposed for the site; and 6. The applicant agreeing that he shall coordinate planned road improvements in the area with con- struction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, which shall be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle. MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision and Exemption from Mandatory P.U.D. DATE: February 10, 1981 Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. In terms of the requested exemption from Planned Unit Development, it would seem that the application is deficient in terms of the intent of P.U.D. Specifically, the proposed development results in a unit count in excess of the underlying zone without retention of open space. While the RMF zone does not have an open space requirement, improved amenities and retention of open space through clustering are goals of the P.U.D. avoided by this application. 2. As a conceptual application for subdivision; a) Parking shown along Park Avenue utilizes a continuous curb cut in violation of section 19-101. b) If the new parking shown off Park Circle is to be paved, on-site drainage will be required to facilitate storm runoff. c) The project should provide curb, gutter, and sidewalks along Park and Park Circle. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision Presentation DATE: February 10, 1981 Zoning: R/MF PUD Lot Size: 17,555 square feet (0.4 acres) Location: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision (Park Avenue at Park Circle) Applicant's This application is for conceptual subdivision approval and Request: mandatory PUD review for the Werning Subdivision. The applicant is also requesting an exemption from GMP by providing a 50-50 mix of employee and free market units through rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. However, from an administrative standpoint, the process would be better served if the request for rezoning were held by P&Z at the preliminary plat stage, since a public hearing is required at that stage of the review process. The advantage of this procedure is that it gives both the P&Z and Council an opportunity to hear a presentation by the applicant and to recommend appropriate modifications to the proposal before hearing the issue of rezoning. The applicant has agreed to this procedural change. The Planning Office does feel that an informal consider- ation of the density issue at this time by P&Z would provide valuable guidance for the applicant- in later submissions. Background: The applicant previously came before you at your meeting of September 2, 1980 for a preliminary discussion of his conceptual subdivision proposal . As a result of several concerns raised 1 by the Planning Offices the Engineering Department and P & Z, the applicant has slightly modified the requests although the overall concept is similar to that which you have previously reviewed. The current application does meet the informational requirements for both conceptual subdivision review and concep- tual mandatory PUD review. Review Concerns: The current application has been reviewed by the City Engineering Department, Water Department, Acting City Attorney, County Engineer and the Planning Office. As a result of these reviews, the following concerns have emerged: 1) The application does not provide for retention of open space, as per the intent of the PUD ordinance. 2) The parking shown along Park Avenue utilizes a continuous curb cut in violation of Section 19-101 of the Code; the parking shown off Park Circle does not provide for on-site drainage. 3) The road system in the vicinity of the project is poorly maintained, has limited rights-of-way and is in need of reconstruction. Future improvements of the road as well as provision for curb, gutter and sidewalks along the perimeter of the project will need to be coordinated. 4) The proposed subdivision is located in a marginal water service area which will need to be improved for purposes of water supply and fire protection. 5) The proposed site plan meets the front yard setback provisions of the Code but does not meet side yard requirements. 6) The density of the proposed development, 20 units over a 0.4 acre site, amounts to fifty dwelling units per acre. Each of these concerns is addressed individually below. Memo: Werning Conceptua February 10, 1981 Page Two Open Space - There is no open space requirement in the R/MF zone district, so the provision in Section 24-8.3 of the PUD procedures allowing variations from the Zoning Code open space requirements does not apply to this request. However, in Section 24-8.1 of the Code, preservation of open space is defined as a purpose of PUD and the applicant's site plan, in its present configuration, does not meet this provision. The applicant refers, in the application, to securing a lease of 10,000 square feet of adjacent property to mitigate the removal of open space from the current site. The extent to which the application meets the requirements for a PUD is questionable in that this arrange- ment does not meet the intent of the PUD ordinance to preserve open space by clustering buildings and mixing in undeveloped areas, instead providing only visual relief nearby. The Planning Office recommends that additional open space be provided on the site as part of the development mix. Parking - The Engineering Department, in its memorandum of February 10, 1981, raises several objections to the present parking configuration on the site. The continuous curb cut shown on Park Avenue violates the maximum width of curb cut specification of Section 19-101 of the Code. The parking shown off Park Circle, if it is to be paved, does not provide on-site drainage for storm runoff. The Planning Office recommends that the conceptual submission be revised by the applicant to cor- rect these identified problems. P&Z should also recognize that the applicant is requesting a one space variation from the parking requirement for the site as part of the rezoning to RBO. The County Engineer, to whom this application was referred due to his role in planning road improvements in the Smuggler area, is quite concerned about the lack of off-street parking in this area and the relationship this has to future road improvement plans. Roads - The County Engineer, in a memorandum of January 27, 1981, indicates that the Smuggler area road system needs reconstruction. He also states that the site plan, as shown, involves encroach- ments into the public right-of-way, which is already quite limited in this area, as well as an unworkable snow removal system. Since the City Engineer is recommending that curb, gutter and side- walks be provided along the perimeter of the site, the Planning Office recommends that the applicant be requested to agree to coordinate the site improvements with those planned for the neighboring roads, thus also eliminating the encroachments shown into the Park Avenue right-of-way. Water Service - The Aspen Water Department, in a memorandum dated January 31, 1981, recommends that the applicant provide an interconnect between the 6" King Street and 6" Neal Avenue lines to improve water supply and fire protection pressures and flows in the area. Setbacks - According to Section 24-3.7 of the Code, the front yard setback on a corner lot may be reduced by 1/3 of one of the frontsides of a corner lot. Therefore, the applicant's setback of 10 feet from Park Avenue and 7 feet from Park Circle is in accord with Code provisions. However, the setback on the south side of the property, toward Midland Park, is only 34 feet from Unit 5A and B and 4 feet from Units 6A and B, which does not meet the requirement of a 5 foot side yard setback. The Planning Officerecommends that the applicant adjust the concep- tual site plan accordingly or seek a variance from the area and bulk requirements of the zone through the PUD process. Density - At the present time, 13 units are located on the 0.4 acre site. The applicant could, without requesting additional density allowances, renovate these units and retain them as free market residences. Instead, the applicant is proposing to add Memo: Werning Conceptua' February 10, 1981 Page Three seven new units, while demolishing and rebuilding five others, for a total of 12 new units plus eight renovated units. The total of 20 units is well below the maximum density of 35 units, which could be permitted on the site if rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay wereeventually approved. However, this amounts to an x overall density of 50 units per acre, an increase of over 50 percent above the current density of 32.5 units per acre. Among the 20 requested units, ten are to be restricted to employee housing guidelines (category not yet designated), while ten will remain as free market units. The issue before P&Zat the present time is not whether to approve a rezoning, but rather, whether the 20 units on the 0.4 acre site is an acceptable density at the conceptual stage. Section 24-8.13 of the Code establishes review criteria in mandatory PUD districts for reducing (but not increasing) the allowable number of dwelling units on a site. These criteria include the adequacy of water pressure, the capacity of roads for fire protection, snow removal and maintenance, site suitability and drainage, each of which has been addressed above as limitations of this proposed subdi- vision. Section 24-10.9 provides criteria for evaluating RBO requests, including compatibility with surrounding neighborhood design, bulk and density, compliance with PUD, degree to which the pro- posal discourages automobile use and provides unique measures for on or off-site storage of cars, and minimization of environ- mental and social impacts. The Planning Office feels that the site plan presents an unacceptable density in terms of reduced open space, increased impervious surface necessitated by removal of on-street parking in this already congested location, and minimal or substandard setbacks from front and side yards. The Planning Office further believes that the gain in proposed employee housing units does not offset the severe impacts which would be generated by this project on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Office recommends that any further consideration of this application by P&Zbe predicated on a reduction in the proposed density at this site. Summarizing these concerns, the open space and setback concerns appear to be best addressed through variances from PUD provisions, the parking design, roads and water service concerns through revisions to later subdivision submissions, and the variance from parking requirements and density concerns through rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. Based on these conclusions, the Planning Office recommends that the applicant not be exempted from either full subdivision or mandatory PUD procedures. Instead, the Planning Office recommends that the applicant's request for conceptual subdivision and PUD be approved, subject to meeting the following conditions prior to conceptual review by City Council: 1) Revision of the site plan to provide additional open space on-site, as part of the development mix; 2) Revision of the site plan to eliminate the curb cut violation and provide for on-site drainage facilities; 3) Agreement by the applicant to coordinate planned road improve- ments in the area with construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk as recommended to be provided by the applicant along Park Avenue and Park Circle; 4) Agreement by the applicant to provide a water system inter- connect between the King Street and Neal Avenue lines; 5) Revision of the site plan to meet the minimum five foot side yard setback of the R/MF zone district or submission of a request for a variance from area and bulk requirements through the PUD process; and 6) Reduction of the proposed project density prior to request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. TO: Alan Richman FROM: Jim Reent~- DATE: February\1,1381 SUBJECT: Werning RBO Application The Housing Office supports the concept of the Werning application. It renovates an older structure in the community while at the same time proposes build-out in an area of existing multi-family structures. The community can only gain by the proposed concept. Where there now exists 13 free market units, this total would be reduced to 10 and at the same time adding 10 deed restricted units to the secondary pool. I have met with the applicant and have had the pre-application conference on the RBO. Although the RBO ordinance states a preference for under or undeveloped sites, I believe its application on this particular site is appropriate. The arguments have been presented time and again that development should take place within the existing corporate limits, as opposed to annexations such as the Marolt property. There seems to be a catch 22 involved if our code then disallows additional employee development in already built up neighborhoods. My recommendations for deed restrictions will be made further into the process after more information is available. JR: ds MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department 44 DATE: February 3, 1981 RE: Werning Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay Having reviewed the above application for residential bonus overlay and made a site inspection, the Engineering Depart- ment has the following comments: 1. Transportation - while the property is located on a bus route it is also located in a densely populated area which is already suffering from poor traffic circulation and deteriorated roads. The site plan maintains an improper parking configuration in Park Avenue is violation of Section 19-101 since we would require curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Park and Park Circle. Additionally, the plan is one parking space short of the code requirement. 2. The site is located adjacent to utilities which are probably adequate, subject to specific comment by the individual utilities. 3. It should be noted that the application is for a site in an already dense zone adjacent to many built-out sites. CITY.QU*PEN 130 sEilh affen a~treet aspen~ 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 3, 1981 TO: ALan Richman FROM: Bob Edmondson RE. Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application Speaks to the ordinance. RBE:mc - ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN RICHMAN-PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: WERNING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION LOT 3 SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION DATE: JANUARY 31, 1981 The proposed application of twenty units located directly across the road from Tract 4 Sunny Park is in a marginal service area. As per my recommendation regarding Tract 4 Sunny Park Application (reference my letter of December 12, 1980 which is attached), it is my recommendation that the Werning application, along with the Tract 4 application, be required to interconnect the 6" King Street line with the 6" Mill Street line in order to improve pressures and flows. Perhaps both these developers can get together and do this work jointly. As stated in the December 12th letter, if the proposed interconnect is made, I foresee no problems for water service at thsi location. pitkin county 506 east r-nain street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM ---------- TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office ~ ~ FROM: Patrick Dobie, County Engineer \ i DATE: January 27, 1981 RE: Werning Subdivision The information provided is inadequate to assess the impacts of this Droposed development. What is needed is a survey of the lot and vicinity map, a topo of existing grade conditions, a drainage olan, and a clear distinction between what is existing and what is proposed. What is shown on this site plan is several encroachments into the public right-of-way and an apparent unworkable snow removal system. Since the Smuggler area road system is in dire need of reconstruction, coordination with future improvements should be coordinated. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Pat Dobie, County Engineer Jim Reents, Housing,Director Aspen Water Department Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application DATE: January 13, 1980 The attached application requests approval for the rezoning of the Werning property (17,555 square feet located in the Sunnypark Subdivision) to Residential Bonus Overlay in order for the applicant to remodel and/or con- struct a total of 20 units. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17, 1981; therefore, may I please have any comments concerning the proposal no later than February 3, 1981? Thank you. LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 DAVID G EISENSTEIN January 5, 1981 925-8166 Sunny Vann Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Werning Application, Lot 3, Sunnypark Subdivision Dear Sunny, Please consider this letter An Application for Designation of a Site or Area Within Housing Overlay Designation pursuant to Â§24-10.7. Mr. Werning's application provides for present and future housing needs of the community by developing bona fide low-moderate, middle income housing, free from speculative investment influences, for primary residential use by local residents. This application involves Lot 3, SUNNYPARK SUBDIVISION, which contains 17,555 feet and is situate in the RMF zone. This lot meets the minimum lot area requirements for the RMF zone. This project involves "pure" residential, qualifying it for residential bonus overlay. Since it is situate in an RMF zone, multifamily is a permitted use. The applicant is willing to deed restrict one-half (1/2) of the total dwelling units on site within the terms of Â§24-11.4(b)(3). Since one-half (1/2) or more of the dwelling units constructed on the site will be deed restricted, the applicant qualifies for the minimum lot area per dwelling requirements set forth in Â§24-10.5(b)(5). Minimum lot widths, front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks have all been complied with as well as maximum height requirements for the underlying district. There presently exist on the site thirteen (13) units. All these existing units are free market units without any employee restrictions. The applicant intends to remodel eight (8) of the existing units and to build twelve (12) new units. Under allowable density, this site would support seventeen (17) units. By taking advantage of the full bonus density, applicant could construct thirty-five Sunny Vann January 5, 1981 Page Two (35) units. The applicant, sensitive to the site and the neighborhood, seeks only twenty (20) units, ten (10) free market and ten (10) employee, only three (3) units more than the allowable density and only seven (7) units more than presently exist. Of the twenty (20) units, thirteen (13) will be one- bedrooms and seven (7) will be studios. The site plan. prepared by Welton Anderson, which you have in your office, denotes the location of the structures on the lot, the density, parking, landscaping, open space areas and trash area in compliance with the requirements of Â§24-8.7(d). The site plan also indicates general landscaping, elevations, exterior design, bulk of the development and its relationship to terrain features on site as per the requirements of Â§24- 8.7(e). Nineteen (19) parking spaces are shown on the site plan. Twenty (20) spaces are required, one (1) per bedroom. The applicant will seek a variance to reduce the required parking spaces by one (1) as is allowed and provided under the overlay ordinance and PUD ordinances. The Planning Office has expressed its concern about open space which I think should be addressed in this application. The underlying zone district of the property in this application is RMF. There is no open space requirement for the RMF zone according to the Code. Therefore, taken by itself, there would be no requirement for open space in this application. The bonus ordinance does however tie in to the PUD ordinance and there is mention in the PUD ordinance about maintaining and preserving open space as development occurs. It is important to note, however, that in the very next section of the PUD amendment, it talks about variation from zoning code requirements and it specifically states that open space may be varied under the PUD process. There are areas where variances are not permitted, but open space is not one of them. The intention of the PUD open space amendment is to comply with the open space requirements of the underlying zone. Since there is no underlying open space requirement in the RMF zone and since the PUD process does allow variances in open space requirements in zones where there are open space requirements, it seems one can comply with the requirements of bonus overlay district and PUD provisions of the Code without providing great areas of open space. It is important to note also that the applicant, being sensitive to the question of open space, is on the verge of securing a Sunny Vann January 5, 1981 Page Three long term lease from the Midland Park Owners' Association for 10,000 square feet of open space adjacent to his property although he is not required to do so. He will be landscaping and maintaining this land as open space and this will therefore provide a large amount of open space contiguous to his project. I think if we look at the review criteria this project clearly meets the requirements of the ordinance for bonus density. The applicant clearly has the right to renovate the thirteen (13) units and to sell them on the free market. The applicant has instead chosen to come in to seek seven (7) additional units which would result in ten (10) employee units and ten (10) free market units. The applicant, by his own volition, is reducing the number the free market units that he could have. Examining the review criteria, the project is located in an area already built out, not a single family neighborhood, but in an area where multifamily dwellings already exist. It has proximity to transportation since there is a bus stop at the corner. Adequate utility service is available there since the project is already partially constructed. The applicant is not maximizing his build out and applying for thirty-five (35) units but rather, applying for twenty (20) units, three (3) over the permitted number of units he could build without the overlay density bonus and only seven (7) units more than presently exist on the property. The construction quality and unit size will meet the requirements of the ordinance. The geographic requirement is complied with for it sits in an area of other multifamily dwelling units most of which are free market units. The project meets the adopted housing plan guidelines and the overall intention of the PUD. I look forward to this application being placed on the next P&Z agenda. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, ( 01 L 1 1 r.% 0 Gideon Kaufman GK kw CC : John Werning W. :1 , I .Wr--3 A CATY OF , F. > #h B e' t- t.1 1 *AJ 1 621 lili Il--1 14- T - 1-1 k.j Ji -11-_.1 1- "4 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 21611 December 12, 1980 ./LÂ· Mr. Jeff Costley Archdeacon Ltd Box 884 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Tract 4, Sunny Park Dear Jeff: As per our discussion on 12-12-80, it i- my understanding that you wish to construct a 14-unit project consisting of 7 PMH and 7 free-market units and that said project will be located adjacent to an 8" mai.m in Gibson Avenue or a 6" main in Park Circle. Therefore, water would be available from either of the aforementioned lines. However, since this project is located very near a marginal service area, and since the project will, no doubt, have an adverse effect on the existing facilities, it is my recommendation that the Planning Office encourage you, as a condition of approval, to connect the 6" line on King Street to the 6" line on Neal Street. This is a rather short section of line and would increase the reliability of service to the project,.as well as increase flows during peak periods of consumption. If the proposed interconnect is made, I see no problems for the Water Department regarding this project and would certainly recommend its approval. jincerely, 1, 6110 L~-L-UA~.-<~> I 24-m Markalunas Director Aspen Water Department CC: Planning Office ' fl* c welton anderson & associates architects / planners box 9946 j asper', , colorado 81611 / (303) 925 - 4576 E DE d 'ed, FEu. \\/EEÂ¢AllUd, Al*e'r..~,~.prs. - 13ENSrn, BONUS ougZLAL) 1>25,4- St,71â€¢Â·* ~ 77+ E- .2,0 AOI 0%-r 19 8 0 KA,140 Foe- -TNE AF*oVE APPLI LA,tr }Â£> FbA 61â‚¬ALLY U"CHAu#*AD Exeâ‚¬PT F'527*E Â¥20 LloW,4 4 Â£ -TEE/4 S A . ND LAND <COULÂ© 82 Agu{2Â£0 pROM MtÂ©&*uo PA,2.14 CON DO Atioe,Amod 7MIEFEAAâ‚¬ : '21. 1 9 g,w'+64 -THAA, 2-+ CAL#5 c ALL 13â‚¬ p>'Uvioe, de 45,1-E j COA; SEQUEN 74 I ~ 701*L 13â‚¬40245~4 e.oukry H#t BEEU g-,E OueED Â¥0 10 TE-E-da>'tw,5, Ar (â‚¬40Â£8Â¥ poK- A fAut'4Â§ 0â‚¬outnad BE 21Â£ 6,2Acâ‚¬-Ae*Â£*vâ€¢t.lby P~1 . ~0 -rogt_ u Al rT SE M As BEEd tZâ‚¬Oueâ‚¬O , Ak,C> trTE pLA11 1taftte,) 2. ESULDâ€¢14 IN MORâ‚¬ -92â‚¬tf-_92~-Â£Â£ AL~.i 4 ~A"-- A.veuot, FLE ME 6â‚¬-t. C.AW,Al. 5 Fet AOOrT,ount DA-74 1 ANO 926\115Â£0 PrepU Â£80 *kl pal Ey CEFT,Okl .~42,0â€¢1 pULL Soeing(90Â£1 P~UCEâ‚¬OU#~El, , 78AWL 9 84 Fut AUY RE-Lp Wilk_ c welton anderson & associates -- architects / planners box 9946 / aspen , colorado 81611 /(303) 925- 4576 LOJ Fl -1(]CENEEN._4432 i DON-E'' 114=.4CD' 1 Â©l./th.>r F>St<1 ti-,FIDI~#15-i,14 \-4 \/ 66>\ ,1 lk- 4 4 /499 /0 Â£ . 4/ /-4 , -)' D \VER I KEr FFER 5/ /1/ .477 26 -K- 'Al-'lli , -4 ' f.1 l .34 -- 1(i 9>77--\ Af /,- -VUT.- â€ž fl} 1 -4 1 6 27-3 itti, L--1 -,42 ~â‚¬224 i l-. 222222 i \- 1- u j iri C; r -Ir 2 -,----- 'd/ -0,Â·Â»16\ R. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office Â· RE: Werning Apartments, Preliminary Discussion DATE: August 26, 1980 The applicants are proposing to redevelop the Werning Apartments, which are located at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle, under the City's new Residential Bonus ordinance. Ordinance #16-80 provides for an increase in density if 50% or more of the dwelling units are deed restricted within the City's low, moderate or middle income housing guidelines. The Werning Apartments currently consist of 13 units, 8 of which would be retained under the proposed redevelopment. An additional 12 units would be constructed on the 0.4 acre lot for a total density of 20 units, or approximately 50 units per acre. As a result of several concerns raised by the Engineering Depart- ment and the Planning Office with regard to the proposed redevelopment, the applicants have requested this preliminary discussion prior to proceeding. The application would be processed as a full subdivision, and the applicants wish to discuss some of the more salient features prior to proceeding to Conceptual Subdivision. The Planning Office will provide preliminary site plans at your September 2, 1980 meeting, and is prepared to discuss the pro- posed project in greater detail. CIT'V'IfÂ»PEN - 130 sutÂ¥galena~treet aspen 'R814** 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office -~~--" DATE: August 25, 1980 RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision and Exemption from Planned Unit Development Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. In terms of the requested exemption from Planned Unit Develop- ment, it is clear that the application is deficient in terms of the requirements of P.U.D. Specifically, the proposed development results in maximum units without significant retension of open space. The RMF Zone does not have an open space requirement, however, encouraging open space through architectural clustering is one of the intents of the P.U.D. Zone and this proposal avoids such qualities. 2. As a conceptual application for subdivision, the Engineering Department has several specific problems with the application as presented: A) Parking shown along Park Avenue utilizes a continuous curb cut in violation of Municipal Code Section 19-101. Although the parking is currently existing, an app- lication for development of this magnitude provides an excellent opportunity to correct code deficiencies. B) If the new parking shown off of Park Circle is to be paved, on-site drainage will be required to facilitate storm runoff. C) The conceptual sketch as submitted includes no 400 scale location map and no disclosure of ownership. D) The project should provide curb, gutter, and sidewalks along Park Avenue and Park Circle. Ll' The Engineering Department recommends conceptual approval of the Werning Subdivision providing the concerns under Item 2 above are addressed at the preliminary plat stage. Mi-kNUDAN[1! IM Ci'.1 l./14.1':% 1./.ji . TO: Dan McArtner, City Engineer Ron Stock. City At-toritey 4 FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application DATE: July 30, 1980 The attached application.is a conceptual proposal to be located at Park Avenue i.ind P.-~ "!. r.i pr. 1 a As directed by the Municipal Coch the appiication must be ,&.11\ Ull ./1... processed by the Planning Office in 14 davs; therefore it has been scheduled tu come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980. May 1 please have your written comments concerning this application no later than August 8. 1980? Thanks beaucoup. 1 / j, ,\ t 73-51 < (~-7 2.-.41/Lk_--11_.~2 SMUGGLER AREA BUILD-OUT . T SF = Single Family MF = Multi Family OBL = One Bedroom Limited . 11 ' DUP = Duplex MH = Mobile Home UL = Unlimited # Bedrooms Increase Possible 1975 1980 1975 Units Under Existing Additional TOTAL Existing To Area Current Current Units Units Uni ts Units 1980 (sq. ft.) Zoning * Zoning A. Ok Flats 12 26 I 38 -24 14 Al 19 396,571 R-30 City 13SF/26DUP A2 6 78,095 R-15 City 5SF/10DUP i A3 1 44,190 R-6 City 7SF/14DUP . . Williams 24 20 44 31 7 81 3 61,333 R-15 Ci ty 4SF/8DUP 82 28 531,429 R-15 County 35SF C. Silverking 304 0 304 304 0 AR-2 County 304MF D. Smuggler MH Park 90 0 90 90 0 10.2 ac. City SPA/MHP 115 SF(MH) E. Other County 20 125 145 65 45 - El Annex 164,952 R-15A City 11SF/44MF 56 838,095 R-15 County 55SF E2 E.of Mid Park E3 Silver.Phase IV 0 13.5 ac. AR-2 City 106UL/1830BL 0 E4 Kuhne A 4 ac. AR-2 City 31UL/54DBL F 0 1.3 ac. R-15PUD County 3SF -5 Kuhne B 0 5 ac. R-15 PUD County 14SF E6 Kuhne C E7 Rubey #7 0 " 8 ac. R-15/R-30 County CUMr 0 8 ac. AF-1 County 0 Pa Hyman 0 8 ac. R-15 County 23SF Es Hyman F. Other City 136 51 187 193 57 F1 -BU 281,905 R-6 City 47SF/94DUP 29 r2 335,619 R-15 City 22SF/44DUP 104 409,143 R-MF City 68SF/200MF Av. 2-bed : G. (Hunter Longhouse PMH County & Lone Pine) 0 0 0 68 ' 68 68MF TOTAL 586 222 808 777 ' 191 951-1314 4 ' SMUGGLER AREA BUILD-OUT SF = Single Family MF = Multi Family OBL = One Bedroom Limited *Conversion factors used: 3.5 persons per single family unit DUP = Duplex MH â€¢ Mobile Home UL = Unlimited # Bedrooms 2.7 persons per multi-family unit Population . Increase Increased Potential Maximum Possible Current Zoning Population Under Current Possible Units Under to New Potential Undfr Zoning * Rezoning New Zoning Zoning New Zoning A. Ok Flats Al 45791 17/35 A 24/49 3 ; illiams Bl 14/28 B2 122 R-15A City 35SF/140MF 105 122/378 C. Silverking 821 D. Smuggler MH Park 402 E. Other County El Annex 38/119 Ez E. of Mid Park 192 R-15A City 55SF/220MF 165 192/594 E3 Silver.Phase IV PMH 200MF 17 540 286/494 E4 Kuhne A PMH 84/146 ES Kuhne B PMH 701:F -1 189 10 49 E6 Kuhne C PMH - E ubey #7 54 PMH '20-30MF 10 54-81 yman 80 216 Eg Hyman PMH 80MF 57 F. Other City F1 164/329 F2 77/154 238/540 G. (Hunter Longhouse 184 n & Lone Pine TOTAL 2901-3899 ' 353 1313-1998 . a , - No. 35-80 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET Â· City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 7/30/80 STAFF: -Guilily-Â¥-aTm ~44 2. APPLICANT: WerningApartments 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Welton Anderson 4. PROJECT NAME: Werninq Conceptual Subdivision 5. LOCATION: Park Ave. & Park Circle 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning x Subdivision Stream Margin x P.U.D. Exception 8040 Greenline Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use HPC Residential Bonus Other Conceptual Stage 7. REFERRALS: x Attorney Sanitation District School District x Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: p-h - L Â¥â‚¬ 4 ' 9. DISPOSITION: J p&Z J Approved Denied Date -3Lp-His ' Â©3 1-%â‚¬ uâ€¢.~ ~-LAQ- A- (?f~CA.7 in-0 ,- 0AA --~A-~o AA.~~ eu. o 6) APR,Â®Jee CO-lf-944#l <,Mailv.lit'- 5&#8*d-- 4-0 7 3 AriP#L LAJT Q'~~& 9-&1 4 LcollA coklelayfi-\LOLA o e LOU~ u M, Lf f wg--1 f ,,Â·u~ P o Â·Â·0.&. I o 5- 10~(~ Ae.. 34 -le,2 u./..1-f 23 A Poli cd:k q , 1 ##&3 Y#4 ~~- i- 0'#- ,Â° ,,09,~~'~i' .F 0 t~~~ ~f *~t- 4,Low o. f l.31 0 4 0 e\ LIA 3 A-pU-J~ L~~xeJ..4 -04 My 5 1Â«- 1 --e ia,2.Â«10 , f Mece, f A1 13 Arpllâ€ž,â€ž3 lt.1.(-Al\:-1 5 . I 21 f , c I e 3 J A.0 4-1 4 -O- le 6 At QAL\. f\A 524 4~f\,(49~fivill %-1.L l.-OV'.d, 40" 4 -0 40 -As,Â·17 Ad- â‚¬u\K '442 BL.16 -5-4&. 40 06Â° 63 1-vAN- 09 ov.6,5,5*44 4 i.21*d# ~*,4-pplit#43 4(Â°-~ AA#Auc + kÂ·AL l.v_L A~-Q_ co.9 4~~~At&,- --d-L /~~lâ€ž,4 Ki>4 N-e-Â·,-9.,6.*CLOff J I Council J Approved Denied Dal~\ IAA"A- iL Y , Vig i Lo.4 . 4, 0-i $ ACÂ·,_ M 460 v t_ e xce** ~ - A Q OL, .4 4' 1 ~~ ~~ 4 9 0 -eu. <fe- 4< # 04 ,-LO-C- u ,64- / 4 ffA.fl. de- (9.ul 4KJA JL.9- 5 \ - Ar~ f~,64 Lf A-wit f/L,Ov -4 wA-1Â«- 9761.e-- ,~.du comvi~ M 10. ROUTING: Attorney v Building Engineering Other i , - ulÂ·n A Q v Q J.u 6 4X : Alik-,~ 5- v.-U' S l.p L Lt 4 Isa 5 A<v j '4. k k Ae'Â·t t'--l â€¢124 922 44 r 44 4., 1/ 4-1 =t t 9"-M 1 1 1 1, 7 -1 1 'S 4- -1 / - 1,1,4 f -4/ 4 06 G.C . d 0 bo 1 .7, 14 7 41 2 AM\L 64 , . - -,1 1 U L A-k ~ / A.~J--6 f 6 o A. A~AC A Ve <Ae- i; AA-;r lk,JE- FAA.-- 2*J#L,9 5 , 4 4 4 vic AÂ»# 1 B.,00â€¢c LAÂ£ Ge.,i... ,1 Arl\atldj. 8$&(11.1 5 A .L -4 64 ...tclt R 4197 5 k g ., To Gl.-j o Jl .1,-- . -8,-u.J PE dU_ 5 11- _ A- 9" $ rÂ»ve .* 41,=4 =4 4 --4-1 r o â‚¬ e.* 4 4-7 u-'41 A -L._ 911 ll --0 0.6 -9 6 ~50 0 f ,2 41 4 - 4Â£!43 8Jk r 4 -â‚¬-- 4, 4, Plr- e= CJ L *1 AÂ·-ua .5 4 \A- rue Al-, - A.Al. 041 16 ,-1 l lk# IC Lk 1 9 *7 t41 A-4 4.3 4 LS 1 0- AAAAJ A o J A AM- , Lu 99,1 4 Arp- .1 4Â£> 4 114.-4 â€¢F.ot) 6 6~14 s A '4 e,urf,-.16 U 1 4 4/ ilÂ£ t.k,< AKA I c A.J 44,~ A-rÂ·;h 4-J alh v..\,4. C,L5~~;~ 1-41 %,rk- Q,%43 . 4 4 441 1, 0332 4202; r#10-1$4_ . uLA+L cl <l JL*l (C' . AA\.4 4 (444 lo- < f Uh (Â°e A - /.&.--1 1 1 * -,1.- 1>01-'./1 74 ,Â»79Â»f J 0 -- -~y.7*-v-J,.*Wf + 0 741,1 --r~k-if rrfA,/ 1 1 1 \ 64 f Â¥ Â·Â·/ 1 1 , . / %- 4-1 /7'VO Y ~EVUSA --CA~,71 /7~: rj ---f"-Ull 994Â«j 02- -r.*.**n,9 1._dZ; / 1 -1,37 i *'ill t f , 03Â«- h 1.0 ly-Â»10 /k.6/0/' 1/ r - E~ * fr 7~.f'11 *Yl./lf >-f-fy ~ 004 -Â»v-Â·Â·re, 1914 -to-/--~9-YY-P---MYEW. rvM. *13 41 '-Dal' ilr~r(4 4?.try ;-93 0- l,49 -e & t ~7'.)7-74-0 r71+ NVI-}2 - Clf -fÂ«n ~xÂ©fgÂ«-9 f A 0 h -v>V-)7 '~9 ------0 -43 l -),9-94-~~t.111 Â»t K A 0 ---el -4 -ylÂ«*' -740- -*/ d-- , V 4 7-17<1092,D Yr .9 yÂ»-'77 F . ' TL,r lor j 1 99 OV'MOLL' 71'7 2 -t T j Vy- T , 1' 0-rua 649 .711 -- â€ž'.77*X,7 z ,rvlf *2 -2-4 4 --,-v'\409-1 9'y 37 ~6 V ' U--p/7 -nza--**Z/*- 790:*7 MEMORANDUM TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer Ron Stock, City Attorney FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Werning Conceptual Subdivision Application DATE: July 30, 1980 The attached application is a conceptual proposal to be located at Park Avenue and Park Circle. As directed by the Municipal Code, the application must be processed by the Planning Office in 14 days; therefore it has been scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on August 19, 1980. May I please have your written comments concerning this application no later than August 8, 1980? Thanks beaucoup. U po 0 f Mk~i trb~ AÂ» hials 6-4 k 4 8 U Â»~94 k- d m - , f 1_-19 Al -**% 7t, 0 of) 37-i - fÂ«'-3 4 0,0 4 >,9 4 44 "4*6 43% fUr L141.825-) 80~A Fnekl lt( rkll / F aurer --I~/atf-) crtug/,veh p04*Al ) OFâ‚¬#4 tr,86Â£ tes. 24-8 - â‚¬( 23 nnosl- inclock- 0-14â‚¬_ cpeâ€¢ trcc. Â·~423 is':' V/-4- Â·' Â« FÂ¥Mt. ---------9 Â·r 2-~1_ Â«artlj 1\14 -- - -rUU--'ll.yti79*-30 4~ UANrMIcf:V fer )j FEâ‚¬A r)ekt1-1/\L /54-Â«Â» 22 9 zftfz Â£231 +IL/C- 1*iL dzÂ«EriÂ·-Â«15 dz>Ce-Â«55 Â«-3/t Bat-* raÂ«1- MaicaBE tern Â«aL- J rr* MM29/6 72 /=tab. Fnâ€ž 4,/ANC)47-erf nbo kg*k-*b <th. k/BAN hjib_-__ 1 6 COCAAS-)4- - _ - d:22.Xa<22 P/NAL-rver METZEA)6721 KEt> . /92-Â«727 686./su/cab -_ _ /304.5 ~-Arb. kIEAFN/M~h) - 4/ - n=11/2Â«1-- *F / lk=- IFer-> 1 kt}El.Lc-r -AFEA (j~ ~-~-_-_ 1_ _ 927 50=:- -622_y-2/0 (2-5Â»zi= 1 .RDALI ---- /10>91 4% 1Â·Foort-j )1 8/5 _tf -0. rbr>ALI /9/i 6-Â»53_ /27.7 _ rAF19 41 1 l FbrJFU Q_(L~Â£0.- i 6-0 E-64 5 4,&Â£1 sla&- 1,0 (fLAO 61 L C 04( C?X U Zi hdow. Q 62 - F *LI 6..4,t *U,5.0- - WA AuQ-Al. Â¤- 9 40 Ukl Â· 3. G. Wts Q +2. A. (1~â€¢,Â«Â£- A,0 Lorg- C.0-t 0,2-u'A 4 FoA- ,&2-0 ~1 4 ~ 01/664% o.-5. 4 211Â£7.44 7 WAJ: ~0 0,~Auk~_ 4,\1< co-LA- te-FoÂ« 1 lcil-<-| fla %?f&-004 A#~L GLA.R.go.4.- S~411~-u,~ L.A- 1 06. I v -7 , l 1444 61 6\~L 442 5026#41 .(.5 4eb 6'LA *: ,Ae.Â£09_ 1.e lae_ Atsolve-.0 Vuvxkj%440 41 G)LCQ A- 116"0> 6 0F ;CA A '17 li i* 2, 62. - . Flu 1 A el-l J o sol ue. ... \\L-10*l u..)O U'LOT i tittli~Q,Ill tÂ°, fra ~1;~-Â© ~~f~-- A ~ - 4 CA - 44\q- 6*AL. 99- luS#J-9 Ucâ‚¬.6 9 04 Q/\/44,~ Srâ€¢Cef 6.,-8- *40 e,-1. fic) ~44 - ,449*.(As.ML ~ AA&Â£11 0.~, ~lÂ¢~L,(Co .41 Â·u- 6 44 J) St 9 -,90. <*~(2 Au,Q_ 65 -Â£)LATLO- 4-0 lu ..L C.A rectl l Co Rif b , 0 .A L A A/4-4 f *8 -1 - #-:1 .1 AL &,0 .4.- of lo,4 09 e ra- 9 p-ce U~A lAl/dÂ¢c 4,9,7 11 7- nd@% --dih ANA + /5 LA u.v-Ah CLAU 40â€ž) 4. / t~AUL ~9~ livt,4 u~ 4 vi A:lial UV.lt 5484.,$$to. fo- Mwi uo 9 9 w-AJ~J)Â£1 ~40 bel~lu#lia-1 ~69 45.J.3 44 LIA, w @LAA vAB-w-le FM. .- A.Â«,L 5 f"Â«c ~bt CA 6% 14- luU,wl- ccA-c- 61.-0 L O v,7 ~o~- ~A60. 3~ 0.37 6,1 A - V vio . %*Awâ€¢.,i-, 61..7 41*. ,\At j\. 4 â‚¬l,-<*us bw Â°e- sr'MA- 4 C .4 u JAC-7 < 4 9 4 0 15 ili leD,7 L 4-*44* A (-0042. ' 6 4. -it- 6\-~ A 42 2,<tll , 4/...' 1 11 9 u.-4 1 6\-- Ll Afx Â¢ 414 601- 5 1, Al A 1.-3 4 01~ ~ 414 j 1. Luch v h 0,0 ALL,0 'A,..Ll '- U r Q tn.- A Â·Â·â€¢.At ,V 4-~ lg se - C 0\ 1 Lht.k,K,,uU~ A.Q.% AT U U,t.- Ase-k ef ~-V*HJ 11/ A D(464 12% ALÂ·,i 4.(~\,t~ Ant_ ~-,Â£,31~ LS U.$444.HLFdl J-45 0 - 64- 51/-1, r k.4/UJ 90 k A v.ck Â°9 1 .tu 4 .~ 6% . ~ 042 4Â» 1 LE i 1 w , il A-~ 1Â© Lu,Q_ AL, 4 ~.3 ia g 4- 67-L Uwl +1 - Pht \% A/9 0 woAT co'--7 t.* 906 6\0.e. Â©9- 4 - .4 C V) 1 50. 41. FL *z~- I fooo o A. 1,5- Wh/ 6 ~ 6 3- bw)* 90 0- 10 -7. Q#uw.i ':A Â»-&.4- .5 A LON.4.,li w ,~9.- Je-,cL rÂ·-Ai \4'~Cel,1 3 - O v. A 16 u.4 A.0 -le 442. \ - A --bl * Fa -,l.) A ,\64 r k t 4&4â€¢AL & 1. Re AA + R A g.Kit~ CO-eo#LJL 4 1 AM-QÂ·Q.- Â£-, 1 -1% i. 6 v._ 5 râ€¢.,Â£ l o A 3.-19Â· &..4 pff?.&0 Â·d) c up-ti. 3,,3- 6, cti-) c,> 0# Â£4$ AÂ£-ou,4#44 fv,3Â¥ ~ 1 i# 43 t n~,r<- u-,f-J i i. i) 0 u ..4- U#$41~ k.u~ AN..4- 4- 1.,t/~,~- /'U.â€¢~ HAL.416 es / Â· f A. A .,4-PAL /1,0(-,u 6lkij 6.-1 Aoh S <CACY- Mock Q...,r 41 1.' 4 DowÂ» '43/Vt i- Â· - ,***,7 1-wt r - -- _- A~L&*&-v~ S Li#Lucuo-- ki-oâ€ž 00,~ A-e-A 09- A-fhÂ© ul~ v - pf ~2~6,-~64 lro 4-- 00)< t.,k 9-0- l/k.-L-67 QUo -.4 Oe- 5 rAL*e \.Si vuL A-3 . Ar~â‚¬0~L~ u-zpA<1 4/444 63 -il Q+ve- Ut f ,$%&.* edl_ 4 ej C>3 5 f.**"56.1 At&o'* \Â£*ch e-o rÂ°-3:i u.,4 SLOS #- _ _ 4 wL- ~g~3.-- 10 )4% A- 944 l 4 â€ž1, c. r-~ f 14- h Al, lÂ»> e p-- 5 r-,â€¢-u k..ul-r v.,I /1 ,;0<- ,- fl.7 4 1,~ A.L. LSS 4 e Ab c I~ 1.", .1- L- f..Lc. v- fl. w -46~*# 4-*e 4*, 20 4 ,~t 1 +4/ UNL _ 6% r *i x43-I i -40 2 -, 12 4 -0- w A-t,u-,-3 *43 4 vA- *- f&* 0 -el 4 J 1.0.4 6 -thos 4(- 40 611 ,+44-0-t + 2.6,-e ) UÂ·'*AA- '186,<- 2 k) VKATIC#tiv~ Ll 5411 J U 14 L) , ) 4 ,/11 4/t (61.-1 41 / 1 t~Â£ A-Â» --4 4 A-$24 5 44-4 -.3, RÂ¢Lu {2, *& 4 )0* Le-; 9 6-- F i,.t 9.0646% 1 ULA (Deâ‚¬-5 ~*0 ev#ov&fe Ly- L#. FLxid,/11 ,1 7 1 0 44& 44FLo - ,- A-~... Ar '1-~Ac (-Le. &Lij\. 44-1,-tte~~ BL.l~ f 1 A JL en,0 --3r , 9 L.4 6~ Ar 4~- - LA) '1. 4 4 2-4,+ 44 d U.>5 4 UA+AA~LO- .4 ~A#NO~ CAL,4 4-4.(. IJ 61- 150 3 - VAA.47-Lo- 0 re-- f M14 l.4 I L v.~- vu t /K,t **-R 4~, 6Â£-9 l -41 54-pll de- A~ ki FUL ~ f Cal- L 4- O 9 â‚¬~~..ti (3-(-1 % rL-s AG.Q~us o L LE-#AB *44# 61 Â¢i.Al- 5--41,1/u i 9 60 - $ p 'Â·Jr 4 4,91*i- .' US, M. I 't 1 , 5 0,Letj e'Â«- 4 c F~ _ WAL.1,6~,apoo *4 -1.11 R C..0 k.4+fu.Q_ S.#Glvur-- Â»r' CA-0 43. I ,-4 - i~\A- 4<- Aff-01, 64- 90 -4-- k.rÂ»* 6~:t 0-1- L-\ UL- 90 64*- 64.- .W-Â£-C C +L 4- AÂ£1- 0 (92, d'lu -TA wla 63 01-7 61_- ikiL LE o..3 L~ A.*- v-t-L .1.c- 04 1 4- A~ 61 ><tzi GL.-4- 00 0 6,-42--- /k_ Atul il--2(L /L,4 0 1 Q k (7 -~04 4 -3 1 A u~- LE v 'Â·-â‚¬- e,4 Puo 64 b Ar Asoc. 44. v A- At. 'hi AN- of- A- IA #f -l - 61.-a* 6011 SLE 32 F UL ~4Ll:- &â‚¬fru_ ? 4-1- 4.pr~..~1 , 1- , ~-tu,4<- CAB it &O PA,461 V A ., A 1Â«1 U L,-v~4.- 12- 6 D ..1 A ot + ... c * .... u A-,1 Fo . e --pp. ;, +,qc_.; 144 z lat -R 24- to.9 44 0 J Â£ C> 6,0 'Â«~'0), ~ /(-tf D 1 4 e)ed+-cilt dle_ Â¥.J?,/43 o F- A,Â»+0; A-1 A 6 '*7'-rt<-*f- ' C O -1 19 6 4 /-24 0// GED SANB-042 COQ. b k/1.5.422,1 MOLLIE Cle>5014 -:7/. 4.f Â»r.. 59,,Â·i*, '- -tt 't U.*01 &/.4 4.-7:* 134.a t94,~. 44 . 0.,171' 44*4 6 -4.- 11 4 0 IM- ./ A I. A.IN.lizillm.will'.-- . 4 , .:,4 / / V .5/.gv 1 .... . A . . .. ... ~ .kil . 2 @ . 6.. .. - A~9~Z'emy M J 1 2 I ..imilill- / 0 // 0 " :47 iÂ¥Â· ... , ..4 ... 0 ... S . . .. . 0. . A ... 4. . .. . A . . 0 0. .. D .:.. . . A ./ .. ... . A . ..0 0 0 . D. ... ... 0 ... A .0 ... I .. . I. .... .... ./ p ./ 0 ..... 4 : ... ... A. I. ..L . .. . .. . 0 .. ./ .... ..... .. ... D I . 4...Milaill.~WIT-0. 6- ... : 0. .... ... ... . P ./ p I . A . . 0. 6. .... ... A . .. .... 0 .. @ . 4. .. ... . A. ... -0. I . 0 .0 .... 0 . A. . 6.0 .D ..... ..... .. 0 0 ... . 4 . A 0 4. ... 0 .. .... A ...... ... 0 . ... 0 I ..... 4 . .4. .. . ... ... .. 0..... I . 0 ... I .. ..... . I . l. ..... ... .... A . .... ..... .4 .. A . ... ..... . .0 .. I . 0 . .. ... .. 0 - ..... .... 0 . :.. . f G. ... .. ...... . 0 .A. I . .A6. . A.. .. .... ... .. . .4 I . .. , . - 10 - - P. .. - . - 0 4 7 - . . 0 0 . . I . 0 - . 0 . 6 I I.- . - . .. 1 C I p .r . . Pâ‚¬o J ECT [3Â«1-A -*- 1~ /////- -ZOANA : 12,4,e / Rug e, 1 1 -%1-- ..Â»1!Ndi- 84?}**EU-: 0+1.Ft/IRDC./ EMPLo>/BE zoye~4Ay â‚¬ 0049-19 1304 0 5 .1-6'r,6Â£64; 6340,6 ACÂ¢e = 17,554.7 5,2 ExienNEr EPEN 0173/; 1â‚¬2 UNITD IN 4 8,1, 946- 23 EUÂ¥1 9, 62:1477*HINI,& 6 UNFTS Â»168 F700pDÂ·5â‚¬U -13) 06 128.MOVE-l:~ Â£2:LEE-Zwl/, 47 C/rNÂ·Jrly 140Nura V *.- =-t 1 0 0 - ---13><10-01%1<ST ep/LIA' FT UNCT-Typt i.zÂ©DR123%12f 0494#iÂ©4 6 ~ SUNIT 814*1 -[0 ZE.' 4,444 F 2 Â£72 214>22. 4 14 0Â£90* EE ZE25) t# ' \ /, 5 - drRJutz)9 1,1 <AS' 1* 3,020* 1, 950 * 418*3*-9 0 1.jh| rrâ‚¬2 ~ _~j /22 $ 1 6 220 * 6,500 1* i ..,1 4 1 r,/H )' E N P 1, * 1 4 ' Vurt:14.-2- ' â‚¬ % 17/555$09 IZE MANI #4 6,8 PEk'611Â¢ 61112,063 0 8Pt46Â£~5 4 (4')1&099 Â¢ 1 S.--- - Â· 1 . ' r 4 rt, 0 * . 1::*- -it k Froptot- Af.46'E F UN Â£13 4 *120: . -..p fflisÂ·7) 0~ f,57â‚¬> .3- i O '. I Ul-- 1- - 4*Â·C*EÂ»-Â£ 9 4-rupics 2 4 623 6,F-, 644 2 6 06 9 4,00 4 3 000 4 4 1. t '. . 8 V.. I 86Â£43Â¢6 g. 1 - EDEL? FrIG d -1 1 L â‚¬A F, M'â€¢:44 427 55 0 -7, 90 4 4 750 4 04 u961-2-0iE ~R73%0|3i 1-~*HAININaf C*N'011~/ @)55 2-7 3,4 -(2)*145*-645 4505Â¢ 4- 't Cecil 'Al:*61 ------ 2225'pet,EG LINFT' M u< k - 47 92 4 Norra; 7-05 19 242 0 F-Nts . twi' FAEtE-MAIZEET $ 4- | 272 3 112.~ Â« 3, r- 1,0 9 ~ h. 1 4 J NUL- : .ft U. 04, *4,4 4- 7 04*'44 - 1 U e d 1 60 3/640 41 1% 26-T A+LI,5475)KIE, UN DEE -TUE . 4 / : 0 UNIâ‚¬ 14 072 0 771 2 43 KIBV 5Â¥50 Â»Ialy *Â·N l,K, LA4/0 7./ // 1, F . 3 - I Â£ tle: 7-1 L.Â¢ f 4 *2 922012 IN FZ)12,1Amod - (. 6. -t*44441 (PEE-O 223TMACTED f Â£%3 i . ENE#- 5 ISHFUÂ¥%6 CHI-r>: 1 - 2 2229> 5-16Â¢ 5-16 9 121-12 UNi-e = 97% af roT ap Â· 4-Â«ult,110572- 777# c Â· f '1 1 Â£Â£LAÂ« - ------ - 4 3 >-2:zoit. 1Â£36*40,9 9, : OvE.'441 - 511.1 Le 2 4 34 ID 31 02 0 = 31% 4 -IM. 0 045. i \ rki f Fet? 12Â·qe 1 1 ,.7 . 4 1 / / 4 (Gule, â‚¬-74Â¥54 - \0 ut.1 34 11 t) 2. 44-1 3 43 TW, 6021~ LO NE[-p ADA" ELEAL- FA' 49A/4 Uy f C--527. 4 UNI-TO I. 1 AL-Â£0 ':\4024> 'fla/EL IN gER N itt~ 2249- , 1-. . . I ---- : 144*.KINE' . 1 .. 47*2 dEUOX\2\-_ -. , \ > 11 # $-- -- i r ' 0 1 127174.- 0 12142*:)Â»1 01*UNT = f * t>E.u>42:'f Â·10> Le-r[JPD> 374 0>2Â·~ . 4 %243Â·l.71Â©v/ i VA ]Clk.]6~ 8229 0/ - .-4, * 6,145 f,A k,9 7 ~ t COC> 151 - - f 2 3 6045 86640 ARy EGOLE-rioN) [AKEN-4 0-joÂ«1 * cI A 6 TA:w~eÂ·Â£97 i /-/I' A C d Fr- I i . , /7:----:fÂ°~t-rÂ»u ~ ~ _ - - f .- --- 1. - 1 - 1 3-1 2.16 1 : 1 6 -1122 $ ~ 4 -- -------- ~ 2.t Â£ p /2 1 0Â£3 r. 14 # 1 9 470 +5 . I , 2,*vt- 740 41 1 1/7.110/k~ 6 424 45 9,7Â¢ '0/ *36*1-4 - - 1-Zeâ‚¬ 2 1 1 11 14<1 J 1 -- (-6-~- 2&, 4/ ER.gedÂ»'Â· .t 3,6,0 -9. Fr, a#lera /-014 1-r' Bu*i , 1 +Lf >1,>~1.ANG 04 K. Flu retÂ»r.'', 1 Al / \ 1 f / _ i _ _---- - :0' ~ (12:Â«p-hrv+1 160Â·54 8 ''F .6 441 -1Â© I /\ 1 / 0. --- . 0 : â‚¬52 t53.jic[ SIÂ·41 -11 4 ,.Al ;22: Al 1 - 1 ' -. - ,* ) 06.60 2Â£.0U VA'26\Ach gal Ove-'22;* / ~Â· f / 1 \ .2 - \ Vt ,-p.... - Â·- ._i . . .1/- ---- 4 ft#Al #l/ HA:K- LA, 41/ HeT NAV KI}2174 124 1.4 j igA El,) 46 E FIR : 4-DNN Ei.2 ... 9/0 / \ 1 W L / 4 --Â·Â»- .- 1 4 4 , / 2,9. -41 .4. / \\\ 42 \\\ ..4 0 , 0 + 9 4 * 2 -:* ./.4 0 * I actiect 0- . ' , 7 1 .f. . / \ c --- 1 ' ,: 4% 1,\N .1 /4 1. 7 4.r -0% 8 Y aspen, COK, pa bo( 99/ / - ... .,1. N -- . , f / rv : / , 81611 I. 1 r:>7 303Â·925Â·45k / -- i --â€¢ 1 4- ... 1 - 04 ti~5->~:i :h.,44:11-74 1:1,' HIL 14.19 1.6-4 KILÂ·3 e.t:Ty M IC;lAI JU & Al,Lic -10. Dfl K.Eld, 1 -A.4 4270'LÂ·EELâ‚¬ LA} it/2* EC V/1212+1:e ~ + I. , r'-1 :% DE' Fl/, ' kh' -i-{*ZEÂ» )4512 2062$,1 <St 6 1 HAKLE ; hi 4 / : i Â¢HÂ»j~;74Â·,Inv Â©/ -740Â»4'puicard-1- / C~ % 41 j \AAD'Â£4 1Y 4 # \\\\\\ -1-\\ 11\91\1 i X E t. \ \\ 0 0 lita / 1 1 1 f -5111 2 -0/j/,//A - N /IF >, N 622 KEE FTLIAL- OI-TE R,ANi~ *m sheet no. 7,1 644 06400 . . \ J - /0 - -- 4 47 20 00 '2.15 441.---.-1*~ / h CkÂ»\ / 3Â» 1 . j I -1- 1 , f j * , ,Â· V - \ / / i f - ,b /- . 1 L t %4 L 7 411 3 \ \OK iA.i / 61 4,15 i - % 1 6.:649 Ck f 4 0 / / .{ 1// 11 1 3, / i 'JorT 1-4 1 I / ' / a 61. FAVEL 1 E-Flf' Â«rUVI O 1 11 1 714% - *. , (740 + f -rq f 8 1 6% 7 i.4-r-j ~ A 4 ' f 'Â®ElI I 1 1 . T,flht- - - -L 1 1 1 i L , i 1 1 1 1 1 - 7 111- v 11*. ~ Grf[-1 W / '1 1 HUE!216[- 6,0,*LEDE, <5Â£:*UE , ' ' kt 0 . 4 1+19 C 11=2 t=â€ž== U , 4 1 it - + --n.. 4 4,?A:=,86 C.0,7'EEâ‚¬V - Il 80Â·31, 4 4845 Â£50*Â·VAÂ£!01Â®e Fail 0 PECE ~ 9'KI-T 2.-6 1 --- 67[12#' 01.1-f.62 04 20~) 71 d e U YfeK LEVEL , . 441* 1 87/Â£, l o i i f i 3 -\ 1 4fACE'-7 - 10 Lâ‚¬41. F, H i (1166(Â·92Â·4-1,~41 Foe 13 1- 27,2 + 7 9701409 4 9 , :1 1 8, 1 k. ''lk,/ 2 126 r >/ 9 et -- i lit - . . CY' w 1, I ' J it i 1u* 4 - -. 4 i f r $ i 1 - Uk][T-9 9- 4 1Â¢22 (0 1 14 1 / 4,46. 6â‚¬4417; 1 \ 1 , .T-1 - 1 \4, / 1 ,+1.11 IL Â·4 - *f - - 'N 4-Il , 92 Y ... 1. , 1 r L 1 4 1 /..'.1 - 7 - /Ill 1 h / rm. . ... 1 /1 1 ; 1 0 64 1-19 4- Afe 1 FAÂ«.:AE 1 4 q \ 0â‚¬*94 : '41Â»\Al 4 /0, r 1 i 4 0 1 ~1902 5-4 0 LIN 1-Tzy 6A415> 1 '444 FAE Â£ Aet;rÂ·T , b 25*dis 96 71 . 1 ' ' RE Â£9.6.16. : v . - I f &5111461 * UN!1- BUILCA IÂ» - I i t 449' -12â‚¬10Â·100$. .0 0?SIWOr'10 505Â£- 9.4 / '1 19 441.- 0 Flaâ‚¬#1 (CON-1- 14 f 1--1 % Â£1 420*F (191,1 \ A 1 -16Â£2 1409F LFÂ·H,) -I---1 I erut/10 2 42,00Â· 051Â·IR -[*GO' â‚¬69.\ 11*7 _ 1- Let 2 576 91: Ce,KE - 9 t. 1 -i '- I k â‚¬ 191 6, CE,11,- - 9, Â¢ D P 7Â£,0151 3-- &08101 MICU*J O *1.1214 5195# 4 -Ij * -41-- 9 >573'0 M crchitect . I i lir' :.; . 34 1 014 w, pa bo< 9946 1 0 /. 1 4 ' &40 47 ao 9 37Â· iq cspen, cob. I . Â· 8Â¥m \ 303Â·92545% 1 - Â«D 1 4 li / i /7414 .#M 0 - A-Â·1Â«J ~;y %/ GATE FLAJ - 111=101 No tri+ C EN \ 2 k L_.rmÂ©~ j. FÂ»/1 6-JA/4/ NE- 07-10 OFS LO-r 5 , 50klhly 0,421Â£ &0>CAVIEMBIN , 2,0 AL-11414% 6012Â«r)*, 24-155 8/1Â¥&2 VBAREÂ«/ 1, 1-277 â‚¬:pl z 5 : I'7;555 4 / Af~~~0>Lizmod 2. 2Â£94!Na, 62>06-[67 ; 16Â·18 / fliP ~ - PArl>k : 3, z,pwiwei 6'/oF=efl) f pâ€ž.F / eiri fw>'re: 1100>Ki,br ovâ‚¬2-/ Crv/PEN@N BONUS)/ ~012 -2 t 7.4- 04125>c>CA/Ll/6 FE-,SPUE*if/ f â€¢F25Â£%ePhlik,I<91 -rE; 0514. 8. E;9 Coulle,L Ul* 12Â¢2 8Sfat~1 :2&-rekt AP'ne.t- *FE,:LNAL-0.EVIEÂ·,\/ AAJIP #3 -f5*IFLrlow F=26'MI FULL RUP. 279 94.2- , FÂ®42101.14 0!*JCTIONC!-9,9=2) By f.621, /Aeu-CE lerE Â£20622 =rl- 69 iDC?oF APJ,) AdID &#0*,AEM Ok.1 Â£16Â«DON Oi efU*1 UNE*7 50 IMMSWON fek/LMJÂ£Â£ Sy f# 2. - â‚¬â‚¬6 k.le 6 8;el,V 4, exterl #9 9845(19 ; 132 UNEFO IN 4 5811 DING, 9 - 5 0,4,-rÂ» t# '3 *Ulle'!449 (eu- NPN-ahle:.2rlt]460 IZÂ»/lovely- AU- I=*E. MA,2427 , (\ ~~ d F AL-LZÂ»Â»ette Câ‚¬hiGIT*; 17 LLAJVS <4/0 2. 0.2 4.Â»4/ AH. ff j 39 1|4174 0>v>/ E.01.O., 9' a.11.0 4 6/Â£Â£54 06.AEÂ»â‚¬ Al-be,AL '*A) -N' 4 4 4 fe-otesee PER4119 % 1.0 Uk]M"G (10 EtÂ·12 j Jo FBEAFIALKÂ¢Â·~1-~ Ne,-T-Ef ,Af*LUAI+'r cs:20 U W2/ 0,7,5':82~t .'ce-Â»1 1,32 FLEEE-MÂ·Â«.KErr 0411-re, i igE,Hove ANC> 12-ElmJ'll) 4.,AME, . \VÂ» Ably Belfle/le NOU'>INA 2~ 4.1/9 4,49 'PE keâ€žE m#c-etiÂ«E-6 , -eâ€žâ€ž. 1443 #ELF 942 dilkl rev,lAE. iN, E>'FÂ·;imprEPÂ·*31# 61'Hfur~~fldr AANk p#56'04'LIEEÂ» 29,4 9 19 4164(iLl IN -1116 42Â·â€¢IMUNre>/0 BEBT IN-rEefs-1- -- 0U sheet no. 14-tvf '02~pl*IsÂ¥' 1172110 713*12-36* 4 *11 46 1 [9 42 1 7 , 044 -- - 1 1 1 , 4 \-OF, i (-.LAâ‚¬ -/ 1 , 4 --1ELEL_~ l[ 7-11-171=..~1 - ., F 'r.. -----fl 1 *=t=.....1 ': 11 .-4-1 P 1 . 1 8 I 0 11 0 1 0 1 # U : xcr~rr'Ut- t. '' 1 T-- L.-4 4 r,\ / -_-1 ILE,_--~i ~ L--- * *--*--- 1 - I. - 1 1 l. .-- 1 ., -I! r lf- 11 'P, /1 ~ 1 , -. i r-- r ' i 1 -- c . 1, i T~-1-fi- 7 34 -71 1 77-j j , UNIT 1-A 1 i - Â· M -- L_1 -4 1. .....' :--*.-4 T--=- -r l -7-Â·-i It_~_ 1 4.-. 1 -1 i 1~ i- -. -7'1- . .. 1 ~ ,F .. ~--- o 15-10.~/et *row ~ 1 *115& :\Ch :3. ~ / 11 1 / I !,,-1 \X -, 1 ' i. -L..-=i 1-r- Ii- 01-- -1,94-It- -1 u ' r -r-=r=g==L Â·r- i ~ '| ' CAJ - 1 Â·â€ž' 7 1 'L 1. . 6- Wtht--6, | ' - - \ / 6. 1 1.1-_un r ; 1 --r 1 1 1 1 U KI VT(> 1><4 + 3- 0/ - Â»parTâ‚¬14 0 4 1.-Pt7 1 -A 4 1- 52 LIKI Â«, LA. 42 - 4 I]N!-le 'PA â€¢1'55â‚¬2 | LI, 1 rTÂ» 444* ~ 1.}ht{-rt> 6-Al 4-Â£2 4 < UNRE> 5/44.5-ty 74 9 1/ 7 Â· K --/ 1 -7 - 7 4 - --- 1 .'Atpt 3 1 4 8,et'[+14 0 LI,hi-[ pu!:l.nia *~ ED<1â‚¬-Aje g'ULJU- 851-Car 10>2~JO? > REâ€¢~*10* 4 AL. p CAUr = LF'2. Ee:,Zk Â» 10 J 470 LI -TH E LEV=-r 1 21~Â·-1 Ly'EST BLE.v* - L|klÂ» ~>AÂ¢ 4 AJJ2 5 6 4 Â«,4 4/5-83.4 --TIL L] 1 A 4 2> 1,-1:71 - 508101 crchited pa bac 9946 aspen, colo. 81611 303Â·92545k 7 Z M \P 4 - 4 fl . 1% 0 S 4 3 -ORU chact rvi %72; NaJgg' '911*12 710 0'3,7 734 Fe \0 â‚¬ *r \19 S t lf-1 / 4 4-- 1 - 1 4, 3, - j -, f ..