Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110104 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Noon — Site visit at the Given TUESDAY, January 4 2011 4:30 p.m. Council Chambers CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Joint hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission: A. 100 E. Francis Street, Given Institute (Ordinance 48 negotiation) VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Appointment of chair and vice chair VII. VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 23 Pow TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Appointment of Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson MEETING DATE: January 4, 2011 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice - Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to appoint , as chairperson and as vice - chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2011." Y 9 4 RESOLUTION NO. _ Series of 2011 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership- Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson at their first meeting of the year on January 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, was elected chairperson and was elected vice - chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 5, 2012; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that be appointed as chairperson and be appointed as vice - chairperson. DATED: January 4, 2011 ,Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 100 E. Francis Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance #48 Negotiation, Public Hearing DATE: January 4, 2011 MEETING PURPOSE: The purpose of the meeting is to review a proposal for redevelopment of The Given Institute. The property is located at 100 E. Francis Street, and is owned by the University of Colorado and administered by its School of Medicine. A contract is in place to sell the 2 '/a acre site to a private developer who intends to create three residential lots and to offer the City a lease /purchase option to buy a fourth parcel which would contain The Given Institute main building. The Given Institute is listed on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, an ordinance that identified potential historic resources of the post World War II /early ski history era. This ordinance requires a discussion of preservation options before a significant property can be altered or demolished. The City, CU, and the contract buyer hope to cooperatively identify a plan that will maintain the Given as a community asset, while allowing development that will offset the costs of this complicated undertaking. Staff has scheduled a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission because of the need to solicit timely community feedback, and also because of the benefit of the two boards sharing information and points of view on the proposal. An additional meeting is planned for January 12 Council First Reading is anticipated for January 10 followed by public hearings on January 24 and February 14 The Historic Preservation Commission has more familiarity with the negotiation process established through Ordinance #48, which allows Council flexibility in offering a package of preservation incentives deemed appropriate in order to achieve voluntary historic landmark designations. HPC and P &Z are acting as recommending bodies in reviewing this application. The development plans are not expected to return to either board, except for alterations to the exterior of The Given Institute property, which will be reviewed by HPC should they be proposed in the future. Some aspects of the application are within HPC's and P &Z's typical purview or expertise and some are not. HPC and P &Z are asked to provide Council with guidance on the development plan, and the value of the opportunity for preservation and a public purchase of The Given Institute. The boards' comments will form the basis of staff's recommendation to Council. 1 BACKGROUND: Founding of the Institute grew out of a conference on Advances in Molecular Biology sponsored by University of Colorado and held in the Aspen Middle School gymnasium starting in 1964. Dr. Donald West King, Chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Colorado Medical School, spearheaded the program. He envisioned the need for a meeting place where leading scientists could exchange information, at times a significant logistical challenge in the pre- internet age. Aspen provided a location more central than similar contemporary conferences held on the East and West coasts. In addition, the opportunity to combine research with the natural and cultural amenities available in Aspen was appealing, as the community already had a well - established reputation as a summer retreat and intellectually stimulating environment for academics. The conference quickly outgrew the space available at the Middle School. Dr. King negotiated with the Irene Heinz Given (daughter of food giant H. J. Heinz) and John LaPorte Given Foundation to secure a $500,000 donation for construction of a new building, to be named in their honor. Over its history, the New York based foundation donated tens of millions of dollars to Harvard University and other prominent medical schools. In 1970, Elizabeth Paepcke, local cultural matriarch and widow of Walter Paepcke, sold the University - '1/4 • of Colorado 2 'A acres of property, comprising a portion of her garden, at half its value to facilitate "R M construction of The Given Institute. Two ears 5 Y before, she had donated twenty-two adjacent acres ' .� j behind her home for the development of the Aspen t Center for Environmental Studies. tit t . N r1 , 11e r1M11 , .• c 1 The Given Institute was dedicated on August 3, 111‘ 1972. Speakers included 6 Nobel Prize winners, the head of the National Institute of Medicine and presidents of three health organizations. Since 1972, The Given Institute has operated as a "think tank" for the exploration of advances in bio- medical Elizabeth Paepcke at the groundbreaking for science relating to human health and well being, the Given Institute, watched by Mayor Eve attracting thousands of participants to its important Homeyer and Dr. King. presentations. The Given has involved the Aspen community by offering public lectures, inviting cutting -edge experts on subjects ranging from bio - terrorism to sports medicine and has also hosted youth summits on substance abuse, brown bag lunches on health topics for local senior citizens, and free dental and optical screenings. The University of Colorado made numerous upgrades to The Given Institute property over the years, including converting the main building from a summer facility to year round usability. Within the last decade, CU began fundraising to expand and improve the space. However, as state funding for the School of Medicine has been dramatically reduced, it was announced in December 2009 that the property would be sold. The Given Institute, like the surrounding West End, is zoned R -6, Medium Density Residential. Unlike the donation of the ACES property and the Aspen Historical Society, Elizabeth Paepcke's 2 sale to the University of Colorado had no restrictions on future use, and a limited period of time when she retained the right to review any proposed construction. This covenant expired in the 1990s. CU asserts that it is exempt from local land use regulations. However, the University applied for a demolition permit in June 2010 and began participating in a discussion of preservation concerns with HPC and Council. During these discussions, the City nominated the property to the National Register of Historic Places and the Historic Preservation Commission endorsed a nomination to Colorado's Most Endangered Historic Places. In September 2010, Council introduced First Reading of Emergency Ordinance to rezone property to Academic. The City subsequently communicated with two potential buyers, one of whom has placed the property under contract for $15 million dollars, expecting to close in approximately late February or March. A summary of a proposal to negotiate for preservation of The Given Institute in conjunction with new development on the north and east boundaries of the site was presented at the November 8, 2010 City Council meeting. At the University of Colorado's request, the demolition permit for The Given Institute has been issued with conditions, but cannot be used unless negotiation fails. City Council has withdrawn the rezoning ordinance. The proposal includes a one year time frame within which the City or a non - profit may purchase a 21,764 square foot lot containing the main Given Institute building. If this purchase is not completed, the building must be preserved, but will be converted to a single family home or duplex. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider preservation, rather than demolition of this important community building. This property has tremendous historical and natural value and is a snapshot of Aspen's history from pre- settlement to the mining era to the modern day. We find the criteria are clearly met for Historic Landmark Designation. We are concerned that other priorities for the property are not being achieved by the current plan, but could be if revisions are possible. We recommend a restudy of the site plan to achieve preservation of at least the most significant heritage trees on the site, and others as feasible. We recommend that the applicant look at the possibility of using the currently unbuilt section of Garmisch Street to approach the new homes, rather than building new roads around The Given, which destroy trees, the Elizabeth Paepcke Memorial Garden, and any usable outdoor space for the Institute structure. While City Council did welcome this application as an alternative to the planned demolition of The Given Institute in October 2010, critical information about the size and location of trees on the site was not provided at that time and has affected staff's current analysis of the project. In the end, the compromises made in the effort to preserve the Given Institute for the benefit of the community need to be embraced as worthwhile. The November presentation to Council indicated that the proposed new houses would conform with underlying zoning, however FAR and setback variances have been proposed. Staff does not support any variances that increase the property's development rights beyond what others could achieve, specifically exemption from the Hallam Lake ESA height limits, and the award of floor area bonuses, unless these exceptions more clearly contribute to sensitive site design. Other important aspects of the proposal, such as proposed fee waivers and terms of the lease /purchase agreement are viewed by staff as policy issues for Council to decide. Staff recommends HPC and P &Z discuss the project and continue the hearing to Jan. 12`h 4 4■•■■■■■■••=11W ■ , . 1 ' _. •., •-irr. .•--... , . .. . e ' - .... .L \• _ . . ,.. . - ---, .... .. . . • , r . . ., ... - ..':-..•:: ..allgilt _ . • , V ' .V.' • — 4' e . 0" , - . AlltE.1.■1 _ --Ause.,04 iiMP 1 1 1 1 1 iiIONI-- 10. . . . - • _... • i . • . • . . _ .....49ii• ••••-"- . - 1 , , .. :., -- 4 4.4 ! ' ':. 4 .'.. ,. . .. 40 ‘ „. ,Aktek- ‘..-. 1 _ .... z - : ,.. t . t ' - ..... 4 . ... ., : s.,, .,...•* .'" ' ' . • r : ! 4 ;i::,- . - , , t . • .... - : ... _ , . .. ... ..-. .== ... .....1 . e ' i; .t V . - • V .? " 4 -' 3 5'' —4 r 4 .• '-- • • -..=;...,- '-...., ': i A ir 4 ... ... • , , ' .. .. • . , . .1 ' .• ■ 1 L ^Z 1 . -... ... 1 ........., f , . „ .....11 ,..„.7_,_ :i,.... . . . .2 ,.." 7 : ,; . .i ., :: ' - - - . - - ' . ._., • A " '' ;::.. • . . 1 po,,, 4 1M n„ .., 1 • • .... a I 1• ir30 - • . log. ....• . : ... ____ — _ ......-- - . , , • ......"" ......... a..." ...a. to. ...00P' ......._ ...... 1 • a i 1 It r , • . ...._ , , .,. , .......„. , - - -.... 4,4 0 i l• T , , • „„. wi sp " 1 - d "f. ,.. ...".' • . , • - . . . • l . . A .. . • 11 . 1 4 APPLICANT: The University of Colorado Board of Regents, owners of The Given Institute, have authorized the contract purchaser, SC Acquisitions, LLC, to submit this application. Representatives are J. Bart Johnson, Attorney; Haas Land Planning; Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer Engineers/Surveyors; and Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design. PARCEL ID: 2735 - 124 -19 -851. ADDRESS: 100 E. Francis Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel of land known as the Given Parcel being described at Reception #499350 together with a parcel being described at Reception #405579 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, all being in the City of Aspen being more particularly described as follows: All of Block 63, part of Francis Street and part of Center Street as shown on the City and Townsite of Aspen Map; a portion of the NW 1 /4SW 1/4 of Section 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. and a portion of the NE1 /4SE1 /4 of Section 12, T.10 S., R. 85 W. all in the 6 P.M.; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Francis Street and 24.00 feet easterly of the west line of said Center Street also known as Garmisch Street, from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 7 bears N08 DEGREES 54'19" E a distance of 926.25 feet, with all bearings being relative to N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E along the centerline of Garmisch Street; thence N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E a distance of 121.59 feet; thence N33 DEGREES 03' 19 "E a distance of 42.21 feet; thence N07 DEGREES 19'05 "E a distance of 112.35 feet; thence S70 DEGREES 18'15"E a distance of 239.94 to the southwest corner of the vacated parcel described at Reception #405579 (Ordinance #13, Series of 1997, City of Aspen); thence along the boundary of said vacated parcel the following four (4) courses NO2 DEGREES 00'00 "W a distance 18.56 feet; thence S72 DEGREES 18'08 "E a distance of 44.16 feet; thence S79 DEGREES 11'00 "E a distance of 7.90 feet; thence S15 DEGREES 15'22 "W a distance of 20.06 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel of land described at said Reception #499350; thence S06 DEGREES 18'51 "W a distance of 103.11 feet; thence S18 DEGREES 12'00 "W a distance of 108.73 feet; thence S09 DEGREES 25'21"E a distance of 52.10 feet; thence S23 DEGREES 21'00 "E a distance of 83.49 feet to southerly line of Francis Street extended easterly; Thence N75 DEGREES 09'11"W along the north line of Block 64, City and Townsite of Aspen, a distance of 288.99 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 64; thence N30 DEGREES 59'37 "W a distance of 107.34 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential. 5 1 HISTORIC DESIGNATION 26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of 20 century properties like The Given Institute is evaluated according to the following criteria: A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Staff FindinS: Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke , ; '. came to Aspen in 1945. It was their vision and t �;?� energy that transformed the town into an a "' `t y international destination and retreat to nurture the ( 7. "mind, body and spirit." Initiatives the - 1 . : Paepcke's spurred included the Aspen Institute, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Music Festival, and International Design Conference. ' ` • Elizabeth Paepcke carried on this legacy after her _ - _ husband's death in 1960, donating land and funds for the benefit of non -profit organizations - including ACES (1968), the Aspen Historical Society (1969) and The Given Institute (1972). - - � Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke were also patrons ` " ~ ` of modern art and architecture. As a stipulation �, w , in the gift - purchase of the land for the Given y ' Institute, Elizabeth Paepcke retained the right to l,„ , , a.! 4V% p ; 1 select the architect. She chose Harry Weese, an internationally known architect, part-time _ resident of Aspen, and friend of the Paepcke's • , 'it" from their hometown of Chicago. ; L � Born in Evanston, Illinois in 1915, Harry Mahr Elizabeth Paepcke and Harry Weese Weese died in 1998. In his formation as an architect, he attended the Massachusetts Institute outside The Given Institute. 6 of Technology (M.I.T.), studying under Alvar Aalto and creating friendships with fellow students Eero Saarinen and I. M. Pei. Weese also briefly attended Yale for a time. He ultimately graduated from M.I.T. in 1938, then studied for a year with renowned architect Eliel Saarinen, Eero's father, at the Cranbrook Academy in Michigan. The New York Times said: "the effect of Cranbrook and its graduates and faculty on the physical environment of this country has been profound...Cranbrook, surely more than any other institution, has a right to think of itself as synonymous with contemporary American design." Eero Saarinen became one of the most recognized architects of the twentieth century, designing the St. Louis Arch (1947), Aspen's first music tent (1949), and the TWA terminal in New York (1962). As his own career took off, Saarinen regularly referred work to Weese. Before and after serving in World War II, in 1940 and 1946 -7, Weese worked for the one of the largest and well -known architectural firms, Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM). SOM are sometimes credited with having invented the "glass box" skyscraper. Reputedly skeptic of the "less is more" edict of Mies van der Rohe that heavily influenced SOM and the Chicago school in general, Weese opened his own firm, Harry Weese and Associates, in 1947. While classically trained in the tenets of modernism, Weese was philosophically fundamentally unlike the Bauhaus masters. Architectural historian Claude Massu has attributed this position to Weese's early travel study in Scandinavia in 1937 and his personal friendship with the Saarinens. Self - described as eclectic, Weese's prolific work in broad - ranging typologies including churches, educational facilities, single - family and multi -unit residences, and prisons, reflects a humanistic approach incorporating natural materials, particularly wood. As directly contrasted to Mies van der Rohe, Massu characterized Weese as an architect who sought unique solutions to every design program explicitly based on site, precedent (whether historical or in terms of context), and intended function. Early in his career Weese was invited, at the suggestion of Eliel Saarinen, to design a building in the town of Columbus, Indiana. After World War II, a manufacturing company in Columbus, Cummins Engine, recognizing the business value of creating livable communities, began to offer to pay architectural fees for local property owners who would engage firms identified on a specific list, which included the most significant modernists of the time. As a result, much of downtown Columbus, Indiana is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of its incredible collection of over sixty modern buildings designed by Eliel and Eero Saarinen, I. M. Pei, Robert Venturi, Richard Meier, and others. While most architects were invited to design just one building, Harry Weese designed at least eighteen, including the First Baptist Church (1965), which achieved the high honor of National Historic Landmark Designation and is widely considered one of the most iconic buildings in town. The design of the First Baptist Church is related to that of the Given Institute due to a similar use of wood elements in the interiors. Weese was a prolific architect, particularly revered in the Midwest. Harry Weese designed the U.S. Embasy in Accra, Ghana in 1958 and became one of an elite group of architects selected to work for the U.S. State Department. He was inducted, at a relatively young age, into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in 1961. Weese's most recognized project is the system -wide network of station designs for the 100- mile long Metro subway in Washington, D.C., heralded by the New York Times as: "among the greatest public works of this century." 7 Shortly after completing the Metro project and the 1970 Time -Life skyscraper in Chicago, Harry Weese designed the Given Institute, built in 1972. A longtime visitor to Aspen, Weese first came to town with his wife in 1947. He purchased a Victorian home, still owned by the Weese family, at 118 N. First Street in 1969. In the Aspen vicinity, Weese designed at least three other homes (outside of City limits). In addition to his own design work, Weese was recognized for his dedication to historic preservation in Chicago. Weese received a Presidential Award in 1967 for his personal donation of time to restore the landmark Adler and Sullivan- designed 1889 Auditorium Building in Chicago. In a July 23, 1973 Time article, Weese said: "Fine old buildings give our cities character and continuity. They give us a sense of stability." He further ruminated: "It might sound a bit chauvinistic —but maybe someone will save one of our buildings some day." The full roster of those involved in construction of the Given Institute includes: Harry Weese & Associates (architect); Bill Lipsey (supervising architect); William Bauhs, project manager; Philip Prince, job captain; The Engineers Collaborative, structural engineers; James Burke & Assoc., mechanical and electrical; HWA, interior designer; and H.E. Anderson, Inc., contractor. The Given Institute is a 12,000 sq. ft. building comprised of a series of geometric volumes constructed out of concrete masonry units with raked joints, painted white, with a flat roof and no ornamentation. The neutral color scheme allows the form of the building to predominate, and it fits within a perfect square, 90' x 90,' with circles, squares and triangles that are deliberately interweaved, cut out of and pushed beyond the boundary of the square. Harry Weese carefully located rectangular (horizontally oriented) and circular windows that frame the outdoors as viewed from the interior. The interior is three levels: a basement/garden level, ground level and second level. The geometric volumes that Weese created are clearly evident and repeated with subtle details, for example a curved railing on the second floor runs parallel to the cylindrical seminar room to reiterate the shape. The geometry of the design appears to have been of equal importance to the overall program. Some of the interior rooms are triangular, for instance, an intentional result of the plan form. The University reportedly requested a simple design that would harmonize with other buildings on the grounds and relate well to the site. Program components included a laboratory, a library, and several smaller conference areas, along with office facilities, a printing/reproduction area, storage space, restrooms, and a kitchen. Other specifications were a seminar space configured to promote free interchange between speakers and audience and interior spaces that were warm, relaxed, and comfortable and conducive to informal, spontaneous discussion. Weese had extensive experience in the design of theaters. The seminar space is organized as a "theater in the round," and could be used for demonstrations and experiments core to the sharing of knowledge at this research facility. Also on the property are two Victorian era structures, which may or may not be original to the site, neither of which are proposed to be preserved by the applicant. Northeast of the main building is a 475- square -foot circa -1890 residential structure with a gable roof, clapboard siding, 8 and double -hung windows. It was remodeled to be a caretaker's residence when The Given Institute was constructed. In 1999 it became the office of the Aspen Global Change Institute. A second clapboard- sided, shed - roofed circa -late- nineteenth - century building also exists on site just north of the AGCI building. No information at all is available regarding this secondary outbuilding, which did not appear on Weese's site plan for the complex. In addition to existing structures, the landscape on The Given property has cultural and natural resource value. Weese located the Given Institute building to take advantage of views and preserve natural site features. Mature trees are abundant, and they provide significant contributions to the community forest. Some of the trees are estimated to be as old as 130 years of age, are part of the riparian forest adjacent to Hallam Lake and established themselves during the earliest part of the town's history. Some are believed to have been planted by D.R.C. Brown, Aspen pioneer and predecessor to the Paepcke ownership of the property. Some of the trees were planted by Elizabeth Paepcke, who is reported to have continually tended the trees during construction of The Given Institute. The trees are a mix of some of the largest and most significant Colorado blue spruce trees in Aspen, a single white fir which is believed may be the largest in the Roaring Fork Valley, aspen trees, cottonwoods, and numerous shrubs and shade trees. According to supervising architect Bill Lipsey, an employee of Weese who moved permanently to Aspen after construction of this project, the trees surrounding the Given Institute building were "not to be touched." On the north side of the building, Weese included a limited sheltered patio area, leading out to open lawn area for functions and receptions. No dedicated landscape architect was a' engaged, but the architect, Harry Weese, ; 1 was himself particularly attuned to the ilk building's interaction with the landscape. A March 1973 Architectural Forum article recounted: He [Weese] describes the site as �, • .. , ..r "almost a botanic garden." Little r' .. + i. wonder. There are firs and spruces, some 50 to 60 feet high. Only one tree 4,4 `` was removed during construction of the Institute, and a deep bow was made to the cottonwood on the west (photo at "" w right). The building embraces this garden and looks north to a pond which _ is part of an ecological preserve. On the south and east, the building extends in to the landscape by way of fences (not #' yet complete). One wall will extend diagonally from the southwest comer; 9 the other from the northeast corner towards a creek. This will make the building a gateway to the garden." There are two observation decks on the site which overlook Hallam Lake. The decks are thought to have originally been foundations for buildings that the Paepcke's intended to build. They do not meet current requirements to setback all development at least 15 feet from the bluff above ACES, but have been allowed to be maintained as pre- existing construction. Staff finds that all three designation criteria are met by The Given Institute. Criterion 2.a is met because of the property's relationship to "The Aspen Idea," which, through places like The Given Institute, has had an impact far beyond this town. Criterion 2.b. is met through the property's direct connection to Elizabeth Paepcke, a historically significant individual in Aspen's history. Criterion 2.c. is met as The Given Institute is an outstanding and relatively unaltered example of the work of Harry Weese. Harry Weese's work continues to inspire study, as evidenced by recent coverage in ChicagoMagazine, Reconstructing Harry Weese, (Robert Sharoof) July 2010, and a new book entitled The Architecture of Harry Weese (Robert Bruegmann and Kathleen Murphy Skolnik) released in September 2010. Reports of the possible demolition of The Given Institute have been authored this past fall by Architectural Record, The Huffington Post, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, DOCOMOMO US (Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement), and other local, state and national media outlets. A Facebook group interested in preservation of the property was formed in June 2010. In addition to determining whether the designation criteria are met, the review boards must assess the physical integrity of the building to determine if alterations since construction have affected significance. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. Based on the architect scale model, building permit files, and contemporary publication of sections, elevations, and site plan, the exterior of the Given Institute main building and the site landscape remain largely unaltered since 1972. The design, location, feeling, association, and setting of the complex remain intact and reflect the original conception for the Given Institute complex. Alterations to the interior are limited to updates to bathrooms, water fountains, and the entrance to the seminar room through the addition of a ramp to meet accessibility standards and conversion of a laboratory into a conference room. These minimal alterations all date to 1993. In 1996, some glazing was replaced in -kind using the same configuration and similar material and type. Periodic changes have also been made to interior wall color, carpets, and select light fixtures. The noteworthy alteration to the landscape that has occurred since construction is a memorial garden dedicated after Elizabeth Paepcke's death in 1994. Coinciding with the Given Institute's 25 anniversary in 1997, there was an installation of a garden of native plants and Mrs. Paepcke's favorites as a way to honor her donation of the land and contribution to the Aspen community. It is set along the west and north sides of the building. 10 ORDINANCE #48 NEGOTATION Review of the redevelopment proposal for this site falls within the negotiation process created by Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This ordinance empowered City Council to work with the owners of potential historic resources from the postwar era to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for voluntary landmark designation. The applicant has summarized the requested development approvals as follows: 1. Lease and Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees. 2. Subdivision into a total of four (4) lots; 3. Approval of Increased FAR for each lot (to be specified on the Final Subdivision Plat) and approval for each of the three (3) new free - market lots as a TDR Receiver Site; 4. Platting of building envelopes that thereafter supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR), for each of the three (3) new lots. Any subsequent development within these building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR; 5. Growth Management approval for up to four (4) Free - Market Residential Allotments from the 2010 GMQS Development Allotments, with exemptions from the date deadlines and submittal requirements of Code Section 26.470.110, and from the scoring criteria of Code Section 26.470.120; 6. Exemption from the Residential Design Review Standards of Chapter 26.410; 7. Exemption from the City's Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements; 8. Ten (10) years of vested property rights. • LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT The application does not include a specific proposed lease and purchase option agreement, but this is expected to be submitted for Council review. The agreement will finalize the costs of acquisition of the Given lot, along with any restrictions or covenants expected to affect the use of the property. The application indicates a one year lease /purchase period at a price of $3.75 million for Lot 1. This figure may increase if the City wishes to recoup some of the fee waivers that are included in the negotiation request. If the City or a non - profit do not complete the purchase within a year, the Given Institute building must still be landmarked, but may be converted to a single family home. It is substantially over the size typically allowed for a single family home on Lot 1, or which would even be allowed on the existing 2 1 /4 acre site. P &Z and HPC may offer any recommendations that the boards' feel are pertinent to Council's consideration of this agreement. FEE WAIVERS The applicant is requesting fee waivers for the initial build out of the lots. The waivers include fees related to affordable housing, school land, stormwater (aka engineering system development fees), water tap, transportation demand management/air quality fees, parks development fees and tree mitigation. The waivers will only apply if the City, or an assigned non - profit, purchases the Given lot. If the Given building is converted to residential use, all fees except for tree mitigation would be paid by the developer. 11 It may be unlikely that City Council will forgive all of the fees requested since there are actual community impacts that need to be addressed. Council may choose to pass the fees on through the sale price of The Given Institute, may deny waiver of some or all of the fees, or may pay some or all of the fees through the general fund. The School Land fee is due to the School District and must be paid in full by the City or the applicant. The fee waivers are perhaps the most valuable and definable incentives being requested. They total nearly $2 million to the extent that they can be estimated in advance of specific development plans. The fee calculations estimated by staff are as follows. Affordable housing: 5,750 square feet FAR per new home x 3 x $73.74 (standard mitigation fee)= $1,272,015. The application mentions the possibility of ADUs being constructed for one or more of the homes in the future. Once the cash -in -lieu option is paid, there is no refund. School Land: This calculation requires a value for each square foot of the land be established. The City has not received an appraisal, therefore we assume $15,000,000 (purchase price of property)- $58,000 (assessed value of improvements)= $14,942,000/99,143 square feet (lot size)= $150.71 The fee is calculated by multiplying 896 (standard square feet of land needed per student as determined by the Aspen School District) x 0.452 (number of students generated, assuming at least four bedrooms per house) x $150.71 (value of land) x 0.33 (the requirement is to mitigate for 1/3 of impact)= $20,141.99 x 3 homes= $60,426 Stormwater system development fee: $2.88 per square foot x 16,748 (half of the requested FAR, which is assumed to equal the footprint of the new houses+ 8,123 which is the existing impervious area associated with The Given) = $48,234 Even if the impact fee is waived, the applicant is expected to provide appropriate water quality mitigation on site to avoid negative impacts on the environment. Water tap: $3,585 per ECU (standard water tap for Given service area) x 4 (estimated ECUs generated by a 5 -6,000 square foot free market home) x 3 homes= $43,020 This is the tap fee only and does not include the actual connection to the water main or parts and labor. TDM/Air quality: 4 bedrooms per house x 3 houses x $498 (standard fee) = $5,976 Park dedication: 4 bedrooms per house x 3 houses x $4,429 (standard fee)= $53,148 Tree mitigation: 51 trees proposed to be removed to facilitate roads and building envelopes= $527,166 12 P &Z and HPC may offer any recommendations that the boards' feel are pertinent to Council's consideration of the fee waivers. Environmental Health, Housing and the Parks Department, in particular have object to the possibility of a waiver in their referral comments (attached.) SUBDIVISION The applicant proposes subdivision into four parcels. One will contain The Given Institute and the other three will be for single family homes or duplexes. The Given Institute sits on a 2 'A acre irregularly- shaped site that is a flat plateau before sloping abruptly to the north towards the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve. The lot is abutted by private property to the west, a bike trail and the Red Brick Arts Center to the south, and nature preserve to the east and north. A substantial portion of the lot was once Francis Streets, Garmish Street (formerly Center Street) and Puppy Smith Street (formerly Smuggler Avenue.) Francis and Garmisch were deeded by the City. The portion of Puppy Smith included in The Given Institute parcel was vacated by the City. Vehicular access to the property is from a narrow curb cut at Garmisch Street, which opens up into a gravel parking area that accommodates service and delivery uses. For reference, construction of a single family home or duplex on this parcel would be allowed by right and would not necessarily require land use review. The application proposes three homes, plus the Given Institute as either a non - profit facility or single family home. P &Z and HPC are asked to make a recommendation to Council on the following review criteria. Chapter 26.480, SUBDIVISION Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP is a statement of a wide variety of community goals, some of which would support the proposed project, while others would seem to be inadequately addressed. Staff finds that the opportunity to prevent the demolition of the Given Institute and preserve its value as a community facility is underscored by language found in the chapters related to Economic Sustainability, Arts, Culture and Education, Transportation and Historic Preservation. This is a centrally located, pedestrian friendly facility that has brought many visitors to town for the past 38 years, and offered residents access to very high caliber programs. Demolition of the building would do nothing to achieve an "Arts, Culture and Education" goal to "Make educational, cultural and artistic experiences more accessible for all valley residents," for instance. Once lost, a facility like the Given Institute would be extremely hard to replicate in Aspen. The project is arguably in conflict with "Parks, Open Space and the Environment" goals such as "Protect and enhance the natural environment," particularly due to proposed tree removals. It 13 must be recognized that this is private property and not in fact a park. While a vote for public purchase was considered, it has not been pursued. The goal of this review is to balance the many legitimate goals of the property owner and the public. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The property is surrounded by a mix of private residences and other public /quasi - public sites. The neighborhood is located near to enough to the core of town to have supported a variety of arts organizations, childcare, recreation and non - profit facilities for many years. Staff finds that the proposed land use is appropriate. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision will not diminish the opportunity for adjacent properties to be developed consistent with current zoning and should not create unanticipated impacts since some degree of public and residential use of the site has occurred since 1972. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision does request some exceptions from typical requirements, however this is allowed at Land Use Code section 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The parcel does include steep slopes and environmentally sensitive areas. The subdivision plan, and the future development of individual homes on this site will be required to be engineered to address all natural hazards. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the pedestrian and vehicular access to the property as proposed is not appropriate. The roadways "strangle" The Given Institute, affecting its viability for a non- 14 profit and requiring the removal of important trees. The pedestrian access to the site is potentially confusing and not inviting. Staff requests the applicant examine use of the 24' wide strip of unimproved Garmisch Street right -of -way that runs along the west boundary of the site for vehicular access to the residential lots. Using Garmisch may minimize tree issues and provide outdoor programming space for an end user of the Given. Staff is unsure if the Garmisch right -of -way is adequate considering turning radii and required clearances for emergency service vehicles. Staff asks the applicant to explore this potential with the City Engineer. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: This criterion refers to the Engineering Department's standards for design of utilities, roads, etc. The application is expected to meet these requirements without exception. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: The application requests that the applicant not be required to pay affordable housing fees. Council may or may not waive the cash -in -lieu requirement. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding: The School Land Dedication standards require payment of a fee to the School District. Council is asked to pay the fee through a source other than collecting it from the applicant. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management 15 approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44- 2001, § 2) Staff Finding: The applicant has asked to be granted the growth management allotments through the Ordinance #48 negotiation process. FAR BONUS The proposal includes a request for an FAR bonus for each new residence, as well as The Given Institute property, should it convert to residential use. Below is an estimate of the allowable floor area for each proposed lot, and the proposed bonus. The applicant's goal is to achieve an FAR of 5,500 square feet for each new house, retaining the right to land a 250 square foot TDR for each residence, which is an opportunity available to all R -6 properties. The Given Institute building is very substantially over the size that would be allowed for a single family house. The application requests a bonus for a garage if it converts to residential use. Lot 1 Lot size: 21,764.18 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 21,764 Allowable FAR: single family. 4,358; duplex 4,778 Proposed FAR: The existing FAR of approximately 12,000 square feet if the building remains a non - profit. An FAR bonus of 750 square feet for a garage if it converts to residential use. Bonus: None for non - profit use. 8,392 square feet for residential use Lot 2 Lot size: 23,502.11 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 17,831 Allowable FAR: single family 4,162; duplex 4,582 Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR Bonus: 1,338 square feet Lot 3 Lot size: 31,804.53 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 18,106 Allowable FAR: single family 4,175; duplex 4,595 Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR Bonus: 1,325 square feet Lot 4 Lot size: 22,087.22 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 16,793 Allowable FAR: single family 4,109; duplex 4,530 Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR Bonus: 1,391 square feet 16 The FAR bonuses for the new house total approximately 4,050 square feet. Staff cannot support the bonuses, which were not included in the initial discussion with Council, unless reduced or combined with significant tree preservation, additional protection for the Hallam Lake bluff, or similar measures. The plan does not ensure that The Given Institute will be preserved for non- profit use and staff is sensitive to the possibility of excessive bonuses for the project without enough community value. Staff would be in favor of the possibility of Council creating TDRs that could be sold by the owner to help them address the costs of this attempt to save The Given Institute building. Please note that the FAR calculations above reference the lot sizes provided on the site plan, rather than those stated in the application. The site plan was revised slightly after submission to address Building Department concerns with preserving adequate space for egress around The Given Institute. BUILDING ENVELOPES AND ESA REVIEW A specific plan for new construction on the site has not been prepared, however the applicant wishes to establish building envelopes where all construction activity will be confined, as part of the Ordinance #48 review. The proposed building envelopes meet the standard front and rear yard setback requirements, but do not provide as much combined sideyard setback as required by the zone district. The area of each proposed building envelope is larger than what could be filled by the new construction, even if it were all one story. Staff understands that an envelope is beneficial to the applicant because it allows flexibility in the placement of the structure relative to existing trees and top of slope concerns, however the application does not clearly indicate an intent to preserve trees or fully meet the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements. In addition, the Parks Department has identified very significant trees sit within the proposed envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. Parks will not support removal of these trees, which are of such significant size and age that they refer to them as heritage trees. Staff recommends that the building envelopes be redesigned using the heritage trees that have been mapped as an underlying concern. Staff believes the applicant should analyze the potential site planning issues and determine if reasonable development is possible understood that the City may need to with this constraint. It is un ty y provide some leeway on removal p of other trees. Clear ro osals must be made as to the location of any paving and landscaping P P outside of the proposed envelopes. As stated above, staff recommends that other alternatives to bring driveway access onto the site be studied. This will affect the design of building envelopes. Staff has conveyed to the applicant that a non - profit might wish to purchase Lot 4 to retain some open space in association with The Given Institute building. However, it appears that Lot 4 is one of the most developable areas due to existing trees. Staff recommends Council and the applicant discuss acquisition of the western area of Lot 2, which is nearly unbuildable, in order to create some compensation for the land and to possibly preserve some public access to the bluff. 17 _ 4 Typically, development in the Hallam Lake �-.-- Environmentally O Sensitive Area (ESA) / requires that all 1/4 1"Iffir, \ development be held back at least 15 feet from - the top of slope, and the Q development is subject to 3 = a progressive height limit or layback so that the maximum height ' ` �, H ss limit of 25 feet cannot be \\,,s4.... • \ ppY 5 + �� achieved until the point which is 25 feet setback — d Ft Given Property from the top of slope. The applicant is asking 1 I to be exempt from the Q p 1 rogressive height limit. i O They also wish to be r oc y30 exempt from the typical ST \,, P &Z review to confirm F Z W FRANCIS ST that the ESA standards are met. This discussion w would usually include Q LLEY review of landscape and Q ii 1 illillidFI lighting plans, screening o d 444��� of construction with E HALLAM ST native vegetation, and W HALLAM ST ,4 part p of the s c=) protection of the slope. a O i As a I zo T\i-\ `LEY � o * r negotiation, staff could C7 [7 '7 ' 1 support the ESA review A 1 0001 i 4 being administrative, but not exempt from the requirements. Staff is most concerned that the visual impacts on Hallam Lake be addressed on Lot #3. Development on this parcel has the potential to "loom" over ACES. Staff recommends the setback from the top -of -bluff be increased for this parcel. The eastern setback on this Lot and Lot #4 should also be increased. The proposed 15 setback from the top -of -bluff on Lot #2 does not need to be changed. Development on all lots should be in compliance with the height restrictions of the Hallam Lake review criteria, with no exception. Staff believes that flexibility on non -bluff setbacks and tree removal mitigation policies should be provided to offset this request. While preparing this memo, Planning Staff met with representative of ACES. They have indicated that they do not support the plan as proposed. Because protection of the nature 18 preserve at ACES was the reason that the Hallam Lake ESA was created, staff is summarizing our understanding of their concerns, for the review boards' information. ACES is concerned about respecting the process and criteria of the Hallam Lake Bluff review. ACES feels the hearing process provides a foundation of healthy dialogue for development within this sensitive area. They also believe the eastern portion of the bluff is subject to the review standards and staff is researching this issue. ACES does not feel this property should be exempted from the height limit restrictions along the top of slope. There are important specimen trees on the site, as indentified by the Parks Department, that ACES concurs should not be removed or harmed. In addition, the site holds a significant amount of vegetation as well as other important landscape elements such as the Paepcke gardens along the west side of the Given building. ACES feels these gardens are an important historic element of the property and should not be removed as proposed. There is a trail along the eastern edge of the property that is regularly used by the community to access ACES. There is a public interest in seeing this connection maintained. Staff believes that some offsetting value could be provided by City Council in exchange for easements for existing trails through the property. ACES representatives pointed out the opportunity to redesign the site plan to better achieve mutual interests. There are a number of successful projects that have been designed around conservation and preservation principles. This site may lend itself to such an approach where the important aspects of the site inform and direct the appropriate areas for development. GMOS Any development in excess of one single family home or duplex on this site requires Growth Management allotments to be awarded by City Council. Normally there are two opportunities per year to submit an application to compete for the limited number of allotments allowed annually. There are adequate allotments still available for 2010 and staff can support forgoing the standard review process for this project as an incentive for preservation. No other requests for the remaining 2010 residential units have been received. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The application requests exemption from all of the Residential Design Standards. The fact that the proposed new houses will be accessed from a private road means that several standards would be considered not applicable in any event. The houses would be required to divide into a primary and secondary mass, and to locate fences and garages in a specific manner. Arguably the code has already acknowledged the limited necessity of design review for lots that are located off the public way. Staff, P &Z and HPC have the ability to grant variances when necessary. In the interest of negotiating a preservation solution, staff does not believe that exempting the houses entirely from Residential Design Standards would be detrimental when compared other priorities stated in this memo. 19 VESTED RIGHTS Once a land use approval is granted, it never expires, however it can become subject to new laws after a certain period of time. "Vested Rights" is the time period when the approval is protected from most changes that may be adopted (approvals are never protected from amendments to the Building Code, and some other life /safety issues.) The City is required to provide a 3 year vesting period. The applicant's request for 10 year vesting is a policy matter for Council. P &Z and HPC may choose to comment. REFERRAL SUMMARY Referral comments from numerous departments or agencies are attached. Most contain standard requirements for information that must be reviewed and approved at, or in advance of a building permit. A summary of the referrals follows. • Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District requires that the development meet their standard requirements in terms of location of sewer and other utility lines, fees, etc. • Building Department requires a 10 foot clearance be preserved along the east side of the Given to allow egress from the existing exits to a right of way, and to allow for openings (doors and windows) in the east wall of The Given if desired. • Engineering requires more information in the form of a drainage plan, which can't be developed without specific buildings proposed. Regardless of requested fee waivers, an acceptable drainage plan will be required. They will require landscape plan to be submitted with building permit and will require a sidewalk, proper design of proposed roads, mitigation for potential landslide and mud flows, and a Construction Management Plan. • Canary suggests that the project address new daily trips that would be generated by homes and The Given Institute. • Environmental Health has similar comments to the Canary Initiative. • Fire Department will require approved fire sprinkler systems in all residences regardless of size. Emergency vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Marshall's Office. • Housing requires payment of mitigation or construction of ADUs. If ADUs are ever built on the property, they would not object to using the deed restriction language typically for County caretaker dwelling units, which is apparently a preference of the applicant. • Parks Department recommends that the site plan be redesigned. They have identified the most important heritage trees on the site that are top priorities for preservation. Parks believes that mitigation fees should apply to trees that are removed, as an incentive to work around them. They recommend that the Hallam Lake ESA process be honored and ask that a hydrologic study be completed to ensure that new development doesn't negatively impact the ACES site. The Planning and Zoning Commission and HPC may: • Recommend approval of the application, 20 • Recommend approval of the application with conditions, • Recommend denial of the application, or • Continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that P &Z and HPC discuss their priorities and joint perspectives, to be relayed to Council. Staff believes there is no question that the property meets the City's standards for historic designation but recommends restudy of the proposal as described in this memo. P &Z and HPC should continue the discussion on Jan. 12 Staff does believe that a solution that addresses the applicant's goals and the community's is very possible. This application was welcomed by City Council and the applicant's attempt to resolve a somewhat urgent community problem should be met with appreciation and constructive discussion. Demolition of The Given Institute and residential redevelopment of the site in a form that offers less community input is a possible alternative. Exhibits: A. Integrity Score B. Referral Comments Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Building Department Engineering Department Canary Initiative Environmental Health Department APCHA Parks Department C. Site Plan by Parks Department, indicating trees that must be preserved D. Application 21 . too 7 2Sb\-- INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- MODERNIST Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. • LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5 - The structure is in its original location. 3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 0 - The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original site. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) — 5 points. The structure is in its original location. • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact. 6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - Alterations and /or additions to the building are such that the original form of the structure is obscured. Response: 10 — The original plan form is unchanged based on original Weese sketches and floor plans. ROOF FORM 10 -The original roof form is unaltered. 6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the current design guidelines. 0 - Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form. Response: 10 — The original flat roof is unaltered. SCALE 5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact. 3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or alterations. Response: 5 — The original scale and proportions are intact. SOLID /VOID PATTERN 10 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact. 6 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines. 0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered. Response: 10 — the original pattern of glazing and materials is intact. CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES 10 — The horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment are intact. 6 - There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. 0 - There have been major alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. Response: 10 — the character-defining features, including cottonwood trees that dictated the location of building and influenced Weese 's design remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45 points. • SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed. 3 -There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings but the changes conform to the design guidelines. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 points. The physical environment is largely unchanged from the date of construction. • MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements That were combined or deposited during a particular period of lime and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. EXTERIOR SURFACES 15- The original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. 10 -There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines. 5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing. 0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced. Response: 15 points -- the original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is intact. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact. 5 - Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units would meet the design guidelines. 0 - Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that would not meet design guidelines. Response: 8 — Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 23 points. • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. COMPOSITION 15 -The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate itself from style and sentimentality. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge. 10 -There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would meet the design guidelines 0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would not meet the design guidelines Response: 15. The building is void of decoration and is clearly follows Modernist tenets. All exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing. FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME 5 - The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. 3 - There have been minor alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. 0- There have been significant alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. Response: 3 — The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white the building is painted of=white and the window trim isgreen instead of the original black TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 18 points. Grand Total = 96 points MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION = 75 POINTS Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. -FAILivtaat ‘13 DRC: 12 -15 -10 ACSD Requirements- Given Institute Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter. patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. The district will not approve serving this project with a shared service line for the proposed three lots in this application. Main sanitary sewer lines that will be proposed in subsequent applications to serve this new development will require a line extension request and collection system agreement. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. Easements for proposed main sanitary sewer lines as well as access easements, dedicated to the district, will be required. The old service lines (2) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. A separate sanitary sewer service line to a district main line is required for each building. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a demo /infrastructure or foundation permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. The City of Aspen Development Review Committee Building Department Review Comments 12/23/10 The Given Institute at 100 East Francis, 12/2/10 site plan We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Departments /Comm unity - Development /Building/ http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Portals /0 /docs/ City /clerk /m unicode /coaspent08, pdf The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at denism @ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970 - 429 -2761. 1) The plan is very preliminary with no buildings proposed at this time. 2) The proposed property line on the east side of the Institute building is recommended to be a minimum 10 feet in width located with adequate space to permit egress to a ROW from the exits to the north and allow for openings existing and perhaps proposed in the future. 3) We recommend that language be added to the approval to address the construction activity to that may occur outside the designated building envelopes. 4) The plan for Fire department access will need to provide a method to turn fire apparatus around per the Fire code. 5) The Demolition permits are issued, and demolition is authorized, subject to the specific conditions listed below: 1. All Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2009, negotiations have been completed or terminated; 2. The information requested of the Given Institute relating to asbestos mitigation and other matters relating to their demolition permit shall be submitted and approved by the Aspen Community development Department; and, 3. Demolition shall proceed only in accordance with all existing rules and regulations of the City of Aspen for demolition. 1 Date: December 22, 2010 Project: Given Institute City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive. but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Review Standards: Stream Margin Review / Hallam Lake Bluff Review: 26.435.040 C(4): Increased on site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry in to the river or onto its banks. 26.435.060 C(4): Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. The proposed plan will not increased flows off the site, however the plan does not show the manner in which runoff will be discharged off the site. The plan as shown will have a negative impact on the slope around Hallam Lake and to the water quality. These impacts include increased frequency of discharge off the site and increased volumes of discharge off the site. Both of which will negatively impact Hallam Lake. To mitigate these impacts, the applicant must complete a drainage plan and report in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. Additionally the applicant must demonstrate that the manner in which runoff is discharged off the site will not negatively impact Hallam Lake. The applicant must also demonstrate that the volume, frequency of runoff events will not be greater than existing conditions. Recommend that the Drainage Plan that meets the above requirements be approved prior to final plat or building permit submittal whichever comes first. 26.435.040 C(8): There is no development ....within 15 feet from top of slope. The top of slope that shall be used for this site includes the surveyed top of slope which is shown on is defined as shown on Sheet 2 of the civil plans. 26.435.060 A: According to the Hallam Lake Bluff review the east side of the development is subject to the 15 foot setback from top of slope. 26.435.060 C(4): A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than 50% of the development as viewed from the rear slope. The applicant has not complied with this requirement 6.580.020 Subdivisions: Sidewalk: Sidewalk will be required on the frontage of the property. The sidewalk requirements can be found in Chapter 21.20 of the Municipal code. Street: The current configuration of the additional driveways at a curve in the road will negatively impact the traveling public. The street curve in this location shall bear a logical relationship to the topography and shall have a minimum center radius of 100ft. The final plan for the street must be completed prior to Council approval. Survey: The survey must show the adjacent properties including the ROW to the west of the property. Easements: The applicant must show all utility casements Miscellaneous Environmental Hazards: As shown the plan may impact the steep slopes surrounding the site in a manner which could result in landslides and or mud flows. The applicant must submit a plan which will mitigate all environmental hazards. Construction Management — A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging /encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion /sediment pollution. System Development Fee —The system development fee is $2.88 per square foot of impervious area. The fee is assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Department From: Lauren McDonell, Environmental Initiatives Progi am Manager Date: December 23, 2010 Re: Given Institute Subdivision Application DRC Comments The City of Aspen's Canary Initiative has reviewed the referenced land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. According to the city code, subdivision applications must demonstrate that they are consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). The AACP includes provisions for furthering the Canary Initiative emissions reduction goals of 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. In 2007 City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan, which outlines a strategy to achieve these emissions reduction goals. Below are comments based on the areas of these documents that pertain to this project. GHG Emissions from Transportation It is the policy of the AACP to "Require all ... activities that generate demand for travel to mitigate traffic impacts through support of alternative transportation modes in proportion to trips generated." The AACP also indicates that traffic volumes should not be allowed to grow. While parking will be limited at the Institute and bike trails are easily accessible, the project proposal suggests that there will be at least an additional 30 daily trips from the site. The project could meet the requirement by promoting the use of electric vehicles either by providing actual vehicles or plug -in stations, providing a carshare option, participating in a bikeshare program, or promoting the use of low- carbon transportation in other ways. Building Energy Use Energy efficiency and potential renewable energy opportunities will also need to be considered for the new construction. The Canary Action Plan calls for the following with regards to Building Energy Efficiency: 1) Require all new construction to be 50% more energy- efficient than the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code by 2009. MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Department From: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Department Date: December 22, 2010 Re: Given Institute Subdivision Application The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. According to the city code, subdivision applications must demonstrate that they are consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which includes reducing congestion and air pollution and promoting transit use. One of the proposed measures, having limited or no on -site parking for the Given, is a good example of a measure that is consistent with that plan. A requirement will need to be that the operator of the non - profit facilities have marketing and outreach to its customers encouraging them to use transit to get to the facility, providing maps, etc. This measure is also consistent with the AACP provision that "the amount of land devoted to parking should decline ". It is the policy of the AACP to "Require all ... activities that generate demand for travel to mitigate traffic impacts through support of alternative transportation modes in proportion to trips generated ". It also indicates that traffic volumes should not be allowed to grow. Traffic volumes will grow as a result of this project. Impact fees should still be collected since this project will generate additional PM -to pollution and these fees are crucial to the Environmental Health Department's ability to provide necessary air pollution monitoring. Using trip generation standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition, the three new lots, which may contain duplex units, would generate 57 trips /day, from not just residents, but deliveries, services, visitors, etc. If the non -profit space is not increased, it may not generate additional trips, but depending on the actual uses, there could be additional trip generation from it as well. Each vehicle trip generates PM -to pollution as well as pollutants that contribute to ozone formation and greenhouse gases. These code requirements could be met by a variety of possible strategies, including limiting parking in the three new lots, use of electric and carshare vehicles, providing mass transit services to the site, using offsets and efficiency improvements to reduce greenhouse gas and PM -to emissions, participation in the bike share program, and other measures. We would be happy to work to help determine the most effective mitigation measures. The applicant should pay special attention to the city lighting regulations given the location of the property, provision of adequate inside and outside bear -proof recycling facilities, and asbestos testing prior to any remodeling of the existing buildings. MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen. Housing Office DATE: December 16, 2010 RE: The Given Institute Historic Landmark Designation Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -19 -851 The applicant is seeking wavers and incentives to preserve The Given Institute and redevelop the surrounding parcel with a residential subdivision containing up to three additional single- family homes or duplexes. The Given Institute (hereinafter "Institute ") is located at 100 East Francis Street and was originally owned by the Paepcke's. Mrs. Paepcke sold the Institute to the University of Colorado for half of its value (the rest was a gift to the University). The University of Colorado is under contract to a private buyer who is willing to work with the City of Aspen to retain the Institute with the ability to subdivide the parcel and construct up to four free - market residential single- family homes or duplexes. The City of Aspen will be able to retain the option to purchase the Institute or work with a non- profit to purchase the Institute. The application states that if the City or non -profit purchase the Institute, the employee - housing mitigation fee will be included in the price. If this scenario does not move forward, the owner will be required to mitigate for employee housing. APCHA would not support any other option that would not provide the required amount of mitigation for employee housing as stated in the Land Use Code, from either the non - profits or the development of the free - market residential lots. The applicant is requesting the ability to construct accessory dwelling units ( ADU's) in conjunction with the free - market residences. The applicant is requesting language taken from Pitkin County's caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction to be utilized. The use of a non - mandatory occupancy ADU and a County CDU the same type of unit to APCHA; therefore, APCHA does not see a problem in utilizing the CDU language for the ADU's that would be built pursuant to Options 1 and 2 for a single - family home as stated in Section 26 ..470.060(2)(c) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code or Options 2 and 3 for duplex units as stated in Section 26.470.060(2)(c). Memorandum Date: December 21, 2010 To: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Planner From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: The Given Institute, Historic Landmark, DRC review Parks Department Approval Comments: Overall The lot configuration, as outlined in the application, does little to protect the arboricultural resources on this property, including tree removals requested for access and parking. Staff believes that a subdivision layout that is more sensitive of significant natural resources is warranted. The current layout also significantly impacts the following areas: 1) Tree Mitigation Waiver The Parks Department does not support the request to waive tree mitigation fees. The property is comprised of a dozen or more Heritage Trees (trees that have age classes greater than 150 years and range in size from 30" or greater) that will need to be removed if the proposed plan is approved. Once removed, these community assets cannot be replaced by any means, not even monetarily. However, if City Council approves a subdivision on this parcel, including the removal of any trees, Parks Department Staff will recommend that these trees be mitigated per the Municipal Code. Staff believes that waiving mitigation fees removes the City's ability to protect and save any significant trees. Although the applicant states "every attempt to save a tree will be made" there won't be any enforcement or authority to make this happen once the mitigation is waived. Mitigation Fees are an important tool that helps to incentivize developers to build around or use specialized construction techniques to protect significant trees on individual parcels in an effort to maintain significant trees within our community forest. 2) Hallam Lake Bluff ESA The Parks Department does not support the applicant's request to allow the proposed building envelopes to supersede applicable setbacks and requirements •within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. Development into the Hallam Lake Bluff that is not congruent with the current restrictive codes will have significant visual and water quality impacts on Hallam Lake Bluff. Staff believes these restrictions should be adhered to in the strictest manner. The Hallam area and neighborhood is developed around the importance of protection for the lake itself and for the historical and natural values of the area. Deviation from these restrictions will impact this area and take away from the community values supported in the AACP as well as the values that attract tourist to town and specifically to this site. 3) Impacts to Natural Resources The Parks Department is concerned for the overall hydrology of the site if developed as proposed. Parks is concerned for two reasons. First, the property is adjacent to three of the most notable trees in Colorado. All of these trees are below the top of slope of Lot 3 and 4 located on the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Property. The trees consist of the single largest Narrowleaf Cottonwood Tree in Colorado which is noted and honored by the Colorado State Forest Service, as well as the sixth and seventh largest Narrowleaf Cottonwood Trees. Second, development of the Given Institute, in its current configuration including sub grade levels (basements), could impact the underground hydrology and have a potentially negative effect and long term detrimental effect to these trees. A hydrologic study of these areas is recommended in order to understand the development's effect on these trees, as well as the effect on Hallam Lake Hydrology. Staff is concerned that these impacts cannot be mitigated and will have a long -term negative effect on the historical nature of the site and its natural environment. Parks Department Approval Requirements: An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition, development or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or planted on site. Per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. Each lot will be reviewed individually and mitigation will be addressed on a lot per lot basis. The applicant has requested to waive the mitigation fees for 46 trees. The mitigation estimate for these 46 trees is valued around $527,166.19. Staff also notes that all four lots, as proposed, have significant heritage trees which Parks Staff will not permit for removal and in addition require low impact development around the trees. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the City Forester or his before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencin: denoted on the Ilan. Per City Code 13.20. . . HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 1 - ASPEN, CO 81611 - (970) 9257819 - MHAAS @SOPRIS.NET To: Historic Preservation Three Amy Guthrie Date: December 2, 2010 Commission (HPC) & City Council Subject: The Given Institute, Aspen, Landmark Designation, Subdivision, and Ordinance 48 Negotiation Introduction & Existing Conditions: This application volunteers Landmark Designation for the Given Institute and assurances to its preservation in exchange for Subdivision approval and the granting of incentives available through Ordinance 48 negotiation. The applicant's proposal attempts to not only preserve the Given building, but also to maintain its use as a non - profit facility. The significance of these goals cannot be overstated as the current owner of the property (CU) could legally demolish the building today and the City has made several attempts to avert this. The Given Institute is located at 100 East Francis Street in Aspen's West End neighborhood. The property is in the R -6 Zone District and the Vicinity Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area. - • F 4 � • Vicinity Map -100 East Francis Street, Aspen 1 The property, which was originally Elizabeth Paepcke's garden, was a "gift" (sold for half of its value) from Mrs. Paepcke to the University of Colorado. The Given Institute building was designed in 1972 by Harry Weese, a distinguished modernist architect from Chicago. Weese, a part -time Aspen resident, was known for designing a number of significant projects throughout the United States, including the Washington, D. C., Metro system. Section 26.415.025 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code ") identifies a List of Potential Historic Resources (the "List ") the purpose of which is, "to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, structures, or objects...that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, and to limit the detrimental effect of development or demolition of these potential resources ..." The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 constitute the "List," which includes the Given Institute. Ordinance 48 and its associated list were adopted to address the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. Owners of properties on the List, including the Given Institute, cannot undertake any alterations, and neither building permits nor land use applications for alterations, demolition, or other similar development activity that substantially alters the potential Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community Development Department except as permitted in Code Section 26.415.025(E). Said section provides for a negotiation period for properties on the "List." The applicant understands that this period has been extended and remains ongoing for so long as CU allows the negotiations to continue. Ordinance 48 states that within the negotiation period, "the Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits [emphasis added] that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark." Furthermore, the Ordinance allows for the City Council to negotiate directly with the property owner or to direct the Community Development Director or other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. An owner who consents to designation of a listed property may concurrently submit any proposed development plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415. As mentioned above, Ordinance 48 envisions a "mutually acceptable agreement" and "other benefits" when a property owner is pursuing Landmark status for its 2 listed property. In exchange for the voluntary historic preservation of the Given Institute, the benefits sought by the applicant include the following: 1. Lease and Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees; 2. Subdivision into a total of four (4) lots; 3. Approval of Increased FAR for each lot (to be specified on the Final Subdivision Plat) and approval for each of the three (3) new free - market lots as a TDR Receiver Site; 4. Platting of building envelopes that thereafter supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR), for each of the three (3) new lots. Any subsequent development within these building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR; 5. Growth Management approval for up to four (4) Free - Market Residential Allotments from the 2010 GMQS Development Allotments, with exemptions from the date deadlines and submittal requirements of Code Section 26.470.110, and from the scoring criteria of Code Section 26.470.120; 6. Exemption from the Residential Design Review Standards of Chapter 26.410; 7. Exemption from the City's Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements; 8. Ten (10) years of vested property rights. Some of the above - requested incentives are already provided in Section 26.420.020(B) of the Code as available development "benefits" that may be granted to landmark designated properties. Others are purely specific to this particular application and negotiation process. Each of the requested incentives is described in detail following the Landmark Designation discussion. Designation of Historic Properties The designation of properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory) is governed by Section 26.415.030 of the Code. In order to be eligible for designation, an individual building, site, structure, or object, or a collection of buildings, sites, structures, or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. Section 26.415.030(B)(2) states that, A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20` Century, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, 3 setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional, or national history, b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified or documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsmen or design philosophy that is deemed important. The City of Aspen's historic preservation program includes official context papers about the Post WWII architectural styles that have influenced the City, including Modernism. The original context paper describes Modernism as a style of architecture that began in the 20th century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. The following information on Harry Weese was found in the draft of the City's most recent context paper. The distinguished Chicago modernist Harry Weese (FAIA, 1915 -1998) of Harry Weese and Associates designed the Given Institute for Pathobiology for the University of Colorado in 1972 on 100 E. Francis Street (located in Elizabeth Paepcke's garden, with supervision by Aspen's William Lipsey). The concrete block building has been described as "one of Aspen's finest modernist works [which] gives a playful rigor to a simple circle with angular extensions." Weese was educated at Yale (1936 - 1937), M.I.T. (13. Arch, 1938) and the Cranbrook Institute of Art 0938 -1939) with Eliel and Eero Saarinen before working at Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, and establishing his own firm in 1947. Renowned for a number of significant projects throughout the United States and the design of the Washington D. C. Metro System (1976), Weese had a home in the West End for many years and also designed vacation houses at Vail and Snowmass. The City's Historic Preservation Program includes Integrity Assessments in order to score a property's ability to convey its historic significance. A total of 100 points is the most a Modernist property can score in the categories of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. A score of 75 points is the minimum threshold needed for landmark designation. The Given Institute has been scored by Aspen's Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie, and the Integrity Assessment is attached to this application as 4 Exhibit 6. The property received a near perfect score of 96 for the following reasons: • The structure is in its original location (5 points out of 5); • The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation (the original sketches and floor plans) is still intact (10 points out of 10); • The original flat roof is unaltered (10 points out of 10); • The original scale and proportions of the building are intact (5 points out of 5); • The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact (10 points out of 10); • The character defining features, including Cottonwood trees that dictated the location of the building and influenced the design remain (10 points out of 10); • The physical surroundings are largely unchanged from the date of construction (5 points out of 5); • The original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is intact (15 points out of 15); • Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites remain (8 points of out 10); • The building is void of decoration and clearly follows Modernist tenets. All exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing (15 points out of 15); and • The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white, the building is painted off -white and the window trim is green instead of the original black (3 points out of 5). In June of 2010, the City of Aspen nominated the Given Institute to the National Register of Historic Places. In that application, Amy Guthrie stated that, Based on the architect scale model, building permit files, and contemporary publication of sections, elevations, and site plan, the exterior of the Given Institute main building and the site landscape remain largely unaltered since 1972. The design, location, feeling, association, and setting of the complex remain intact. Materials and workmanship embody modernist tenets: monochromatic white color scheme; concrete masonry units and ribbon glazing; minimized functional detailing; and standardized pre fabricated materials. The Given Institute design conveys an inter - relationship of interior and . exterior spaces and the feeling of simple, yet successfully deliberate geometries. Overall, the integrity of the buildings and landscape are high and reflect the architect's original conception for the Given Institute complex. 5 Additionally, as part of the National Register application, the Given Institute was considered to be significant and eligible for nomination in the areas of Education and Architecture. The application states, With regard to significance in the area of Education, the founding of the Given Institute (originally known as the Given Institute of Pathobiology) codified an Aspen legacy of hosting regular national and international conferences of leaders in the medical science and research fields. The Given Institute facility facilitates dialogue among scientists that contributes to tangible advances in the medical field. Past conferences have included topics as diverse as: carcinogenesis; pediatric infectious diseases; epidemiology; immunology; and environmental pathology. For example, the New York Academy of Sciences and Aspen Brain Forum Foundation conference scheduled for September 2010 is entitled "Building Better Brains." The University of Colorado, the Given Institute 's owner, describes the conferences as state -of -the -art, with a dedicated purpose to `provide a forum for tomorrow's health advances." With regard to significance in the area of Architecture, Harry Weese, a prominent modernist American architect, designed the complex, which remains an outstanding and largely unaltered example of his educational facility work Active early in Columbus, Indiana, Weese emerged as a major figure in Chicago architecture and planning. His career has been the subject of critical scholarly analysis in publications including Chicago Magazine as well as dedicated monographs including Reconstructing Harry Weese, The Architecture of Harry Weese, anticipated for release in September 2010, and Chicago: de la modernite en architecture 1950 -1985. Harry Weese passed away in 1998, since which time his First Baptist Church in Columbus, Indiana (1965) achieved National Historic Landmark designation in 2000. The subject building's integrity assessment achieves a near - perfect score of 96, it was constructed more than thirty (30) years ago, and it is significant in the field of education. The building also embodies the aesthetic achievements of Harry Weese, an internationally known architect who contributed to Modern Era Aspen architecture. As such this structure satisfies each and every facet of the standards for landmark designation, where only one of three standards need be satisfied before a building can be so designated. This property is clearly more than worthy of being designated a Historic Landmark, and the City has already expressed a strong desire to have this building landmarked. 6 Ordinance 48 Negotiation 1. Lease & Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees The applicant is offering the City a one -year lease on the Given Building /Lot 1. The base rent will be $1 per year, but the lease will otherwise be on a triple net basis, meaning that the City will pay all costs associated with ownership and operation of the building and its lot, including taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance. The City will not be required to keep the building open during the lease period, but will be required to pay for maintaining the surrounding landscaping and the building as needed to prevent deterioration of the structure and unsightly conditions. No alterations to the building will be permitted during the lease term. It is the applicant's expectation that use of the building will be minimal during the lease term and that the City will be using this time period to find one or more non - profit users to purchase the building. Also, during the one -year lease period, the City will indemnify the applicant for any liabilities arising from the use or operation of the building. The City may terminate the lease at any time, but the one -year purchase option (described below) would terminate simultaneously. During the one -year lease period, the City will have the option to purchase the Given Building /Lot 1 for non - profit use. The option would begin when the applicant closes on its purchase of the property from CU. This closing assumes the successful conclusion of this Ordinance 48 negotiation. The City may exercise its option at any time during the one -year lease period but must also close on the property within the one -year time frame. If the City exercises its purchase option, the base price will be $3,750,000 (adjusted by the rate of inflation until the option is exercised), plus an additional amount sufficient to reimburse the applicant for the fees that it will have paid or will be required to pay for the three free - market lots, including all fees associated with affordable housing mitigation, school land dedication in -lieu fees, stormwater management fees, water tap fees, transportation demand management /air quality fees, engineering system development fees, air quality fees and parks development fees. If the purchase option is not exercised, all applicable fees will be paid by the applicant without reimbursement. The City will have the right to assign its purchase option to a non - profit (or • consortium of non - profits) that will use the building for non -profit purposes. If either the City or an assignee exercises the purchase option, the Given Building will be restricted by covenant to non -profit uses that would not unreasonably 7 disturb or interfere with the use and enjoyment of the surrounding free - market residences. The use restrictions will include limitations on outdoor functions, outdoor lighting, hours of operation, noise levels and traffic. Specifically, rooftop activities will not be permitted and parking for the Given Building will need to be off -site in the lot behind the Red Brick Building. Additionally, service access for deliveries, trash pickup, etc. will be permitted, but the City and the applicant will need to further study how vehicular circulation and access will work to ensure that operations at the Given Building will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the free - market lots. Actual terms of the restrictions will be negotiated as an exhibit to the lease and, if the purchase option is exercised, will continue to run with the land. The historic designation of the building and Lot 1 will remain in effect after a sale to the City or assignee and will not be terminable without the consent of the surrounding Given Subdivision lot owners. Finally, if the purchase option is not exercised, the applicant will have the right to convert the Given building into a single family or duplex residence. The necessary remodeling for conversion of the Given building to residential use would include, without limitation, the introduction of new windows and doors (including garage doors). The proposed remodeling will be reviewed only by the HPC as a consolidated Conceptual /Final Major Development Review that is not subject to City Council appeal or call -up. 2. Subdivision The applicant intends to subdivide the subject 2.276 acre parcel into four separate lots. Lot 1 will be landmark designated, contain the historic structure, and have a lot size of approximately 21,685 square feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be 23,502 square feet, 31,805 square feet, and 22,166 square feet, respectively, and all will be left vacant for future residential development. On the north side of the Given building there will be two lots (Lots 2 and 3) that back up to the bluff overlooking Hallam Lake and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES); these two lots are affected by the City's mapped Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area. Lot 4 will be created to the east of the Given building, between the building and the ACES property. A conceptual plan of the proposed subdivision is attached to this application. Only Lot 1 will be landmark designated, and as such, the additional lots will not be subject to HPC Review in the future. While the Subdivision approval is requested as part of the Ordinance 48 negotiation, the proposal is demonstrated below to meet the subdivision review criteria of the Code. The standards and requirements for the subdivision of 8 property, pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code, are satisfied as provided below: A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Given Subdivision is entirely consistent with the AACP. One of the most important aspects of the AACP is historic preservation, especially of Post World War II architecture. This proposal seeks to Landmark the Given building, a resource that the City and its citizens have already identified as important to preserve. Furthermore, the applicant's proposal attempts to not only preserve the building, but to also maintain its use as a non -profit facility, which is another important goal of the AACP. In fact, the current owner of the property (CU) could legally demolish the Given building today and the City has made several attempts to avert this. One of the policies enumerated in the City's draft of the 2010 AACP states that the City wants to, Ensure that the Historic Preservation Benefits Package encourages owners of landmark property to preserve structures to the highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood. The proposed subdivision seeks to preserve an important resource to the highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood by only adding three additional lots that will not be seen from the street. Not only could the existing structure be razed, but the R -6 zoning dictates that the property could potentially be subdivided into sixteen conforming lots that could accommodate many more homes than currently proposed. Another policy goal of the 2010 Draft AACP states that the public sector should set an example as a responsible steward of preservation and adaptive re -use of historic buildings. The applicant is offering the City a purchase option of the Given building, and authorizing the City to assign its purchase option to another non -profit or consortium of non - profits. With regard to Growth Management, the City allows up to 18 new free - market . residential development rights to be awarded per year as a means of maintaining a less than 2% growth rate. Nowhere near eighteen new units were applied for or approved during the 2010 growth management year. As such, the proposed 9 3-4 units from the 2010 annual allotment pool remain not only unused and available but also well within the stated AACP goal of a less than 2% annual growth rate. Finally, the City states that it would also like to maintain the legacy of the "Aspen Idea" (simply stated as the integration of Mind, Body and Spirit) by enhancing and preserving non - profit and quasi - public facilities and spaces. The applicant is giving the City the opportunity to prevent the conversion of a non- profit facility to private use while ensuring that, regardless of use, a valuable historic resource will be preserved. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The property is located in Aspen's West End neighborhood which is primarily comprised of single - family residences. In fact, the three new lots will be on much larger parcels than most homes in the West End. The property could arguably be subdivided into many more than 3 new parcels. Furthermore, the Given building is part of the neighborhood's existing character and is proposed to be saved. The new lots have little -to -no visibility from the street while the historic resource will continue to contribute to the streetscape. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The future development of surrounding areas will not be adversely affected in any way by the proposed subdivision. The surrounding area is largely built out. Existing services, facilities and utilities are more than adequate to serve three new residences, and the cost of any needed upgrades will be borne by the applicant. See the Engineering Report from SGM attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Code as demonstrated throughout this application, and as allowed through Ordinance 48 negotiation. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard 10 or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. The land encompassing the proposed subdivision is entirely suitable for development. There are no natural hazards or other conditions that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Adequate setbacks from the top of slope above Hallam Lake are assured by the proposed building envelopes. Further, the proposed building envelopes avoid all steep slopes that are present on the property. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. The proposed subdivision has been designed to avoid creation of spatial patterns that might cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. See the report from SGM attached to this application as Exhibit 7. The applicant is proposing to subdivide this approximately 2.276 acre parcel as follows: Lot 1 = 21,684.98sf Lot 2 = 23,502.11sf Lot 3 = 31,804.53sf Lot 4 = 22,166.42sf These figures represent the proposed Lot Sizes. The effective Lot Areas of each parcel for the purpose of determining allowable density and FAR are discussed later in this application. Nevertheless, a specific allowable FAR for each lot will be approved as part of this review and that figure will be clearly stated on the Final Plat as well as in the Subdivision Agreement. As part of the Ordinance 48 negotiation, the applicant is establishing building envelopes for each of the three (3) new lots, and these envelopes will supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR). All development on each of these lots will thereafter be confined to the area within its building envelope. The building envelopes are further discussed below. With approval of the proposed subdivision, the property will contain one lot that has been designated a historic landmark, and three new, non - historic lots. The 11 GMQS provisions applicable to Lot 1 will differ from the other three, newly- created lots. Section 26.470.060(1) of the Code provides the Growth Management requirements for single - family and duplex development on historic landmark properties and states that, The development of one (1) or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land designated as an historic landmark and which contains an historic resource shall be approved by the Community Development Director. This review applies to the rehabilitation of existing structures, reconstruction after demolition of existing structures and the development of new structures on historic landmark properties. No affordable housing mitigation shall be required, provided that all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and provided that the parcel contains an historic resource. The resulting Lot 1 will contain the historic resource and, therefore, even if the purchase option discussed above is not consummated by the City and the historic resource is then converted to a residence, no affordable housing mitigation is required. However, as further stated in the above -cited Code section, Development of a single-family or duplex structure on an historic landmark property that does not contain an historic resource (for example, a new house on a vacant lot which was subdivided from an historic landmark property) shall be subject to the provisions of Paragraph 26.470.060.2 - Single- Family and Duplex Dwelling units. Said Section 26.470.060(2)(c) of the Code gives the following six (6) affordable housing mitigation options for development of a single - family residence, and these will apply to Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the Given Subdivision: 1) Providing an above - grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage house pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses; 2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized through special review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520; 3) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; 4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or 12 5) Recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. 6) Providing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Section 26.540.060 Authority of the Certificate, commensurate with the net increase of square footage, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §3) The same above - referenced section of the Code gives the following seven (7) affordable housing options for approval of a duplex: 1) Providing one (1) free - market dwelling unit and one (1) deed - restricted resident - occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; 2) Providing either two (2) above - grade, detached accessory dwelling units or carriage houses (or one [1] of each), or one (1) above - grade, detached ADU or carriage house with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to Chapter 26.520; 3) Providing either two (2) accessory dwelling units or carriage houses (or one [1] of each) or one (1) ADU or carriage house with a minimum of six hundred (600) net livable square feet authorized through special review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520; 4) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; 5) Providing two (2) deed - restricted resident - occupied (RO) dwelling units; or 6) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended 7) Providing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Section 26.540.060 Authority of the Certificate, commensurate with the net increase of square footage, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. (Ord No. 6 — 2010, §3) Although development on the three new lots resulting from the proposed subdivision would not technically fall under Section 26.470.060(2)(c) of the Code, the applicant is willing, as part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation, to abide by these affordable housing requirements. However, if any ADUs are built pursuant to options 1 and 2 for a single- family home or options 2 and 3 for a duplex, the applicable guidelines for these units will be the standard Pitkin County CDU (caretaker dwelling unit) deed restriction provisions enumerated in Section 4 -30 -50 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (not the City's ADU deed restrictions). Said section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code states that, The applicant shall by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land guarantee that the caretaker dwelling unit: 13 1) Shall not be required to be rented; 2) Shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; 3) Shall be limited to occupancy by (i) not more than two (2) adults, and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Office to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may from time to time be established, or (ii) members of the owner 's immediate family, even though they may not qualify as employees of the community; 4) Shall be rented for terms not less than six (6) months if rented. If cash -in -lieu is paid, however, and the City agrees to exercise its option to purchase the Given building, these fees will be reimbursed to the applicant as part of the purchase price, as discussed above. At the present time the applicant is not proposing to develop the lots. 3. Approval of Increased FAR for each of the three (3) new free - market lots and approval for each as a TDR Receiver/Landing Site. While the original parcel in the current case has a Lot Size of approximately 2.276 acres, certain reductions must be taken into account in order to calculate the effective Lot Area for determining allowable Floor Area and density. There are several former street rights -of -way on the property, however, two of these were deeded (not vacated) in 1913 and again in 1937 to the then - owners of the property. Therefore, the approximately 33,500 square feet attributed to those former rights -of -way are not deducted from the total Lot Area. The Puppy Smith Street vacation of approximately 903 square feet does, on the other hand, need to be deducted from the Lot Area for both FAR and density purposes. As such, the 2.276 acre property has a Lot Area of approximately 74,105sf (1.7 acres) for purposes of determining allowable Floor Area and 98,255sf (2.256 acres) for density purposes. The Lot Area calculations for the subject parcel are as follows: Lot Size = 99,158sf Land below High Water Line (HWL) = Osf (N/ A) Land within 0- 19.99% slope = 74,299sf Land within 20- 29.99% slope = 1,418sf (50% = 709sf) Land with z30% slope = 23,441sf R.O.W. Vacations /Easements = 903sf 14 Lot Area for Density 99,158sf (Lot Size) - 903sf (Puppy Smith Street Vacation) 98,255sf Lot Area for FAR: 99,158sf (Lot Size) - 23,441sf ( slope area) 75,717sf - 709sf ( of 20- 29.99% slope area) 75,008sf - 903sf (Puppy Smith Street vacation) 74,105sf With regard to density, a property in the R -6 Zone District requires 4,500 square feet of Lot Area per detached single - family dwelling unit, and a total of 9,000 square feet of Lot Area for a duplex or two detached single- family residences on one lot. Accordingly, assuming standard 6,000sf R -6 lots, the subject property (even if the landmark designation is not taken into account), maintains adequate Lot Area (98,255sf) to accommodate over 16 detached single- family residences, or 10 duplexes (with 9,000sf lots). Furthermore, at the allowed FAR of 3,240sf per 6,000sf lot in the R -6 zone, these 16 lots could hold up to 51,840 total square feet of Floor Area. Clearly, the applicant is proposing far less density than permitted by the zone district (16 -20 units) and, as explained below, far less Floor Area than could be permitted. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property in the following manner: • Lot 1 (the fathering parcel) retains 21,685 square feet of effective Lot Area for the purpose of determining allowable FAR; • Lot 2 will have 17,831 square feet of effective Lot Area for FAR calculations (23,502sf - 5,672sf); • Lot 3 will have 18,106 square feet of effective Lot Area for FAR calculations (31,805sf - 13,699sf); and • Lot 4 will have 16,872 square feet of effective Lot Area for FAR calculations (22,166sf - 5,294sf). After the subdivision, Lot 1 (which will contain the historic resource) would be allowed 4,354 square feet of Floor Area for a single - family home; however, the existing structure contains a good deal more area than this and its allowable FAR will be established as "the amount existing, plus (if converted to residential use) up to 750 square feet for the addition of a garage." Lot 2 would be allowed approximately 15 4,162sf of Floor Area, while Lots 3 and 4 would be allowed 4,175 and 4,114 square feet of Floor Area, respectively, for a single - family home on each lot. See the floor area chart for the R -6 zone district in Section 26.710.040(D)(11) of the Code. However, when looking at the density allowed by the zone district, 16 single - family homes, and the allowable Floor Area on a standard 6,000sf lot, it is clear that almost 52,000 square feet of floor area (3,240sf x 16 = 51,840) could be permitted on this site. As part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation, the applicant is asking for 5,500sf of allowable Floor Area per lot (for Lots 2, 3 and 4), plus 250sf of additional floor area permitted per lot with the extinguishment of a TDR, for a total of 5,750sf of allowable FAR per lot. This equates to a potential total of 17,250sf of new Floor Area on the entire parcel, which is approximately one -third (33%) of the square footage that could be developed on the property. Moreover, each of the potential three TDR landed represents 250sf of Floor Area that will never be developed on a different historically designated property. A note explaining these allocations will be included in the Subdivision Agreement and on the Subdivision Plat (the Plat) prior to recordation. 4. Establishment of Building Envelopes The applicant is seeking to have building envelopes established for each of the three (3) new lots. These envelopes will supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with HLBR. Section 26.415.110 of the Code enumerates some of the benefits available to historic properties. Subsection B thereof states that dimensional variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Ordinance 48 allows for negotiated benefits beyond those which may be provided in the Code. Although the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to allow, in relevant part, (a) development in the side, rear and front setbacks; (b) development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; and (c) up to five (5) percent additional site coverage, these limitations are inapplicable. Instead, they merely offer some guidance in the case of an Ordinance 48 negotiation. Since traditional variances are not adequate to ensure all development rights contemplated herein, the applicant is delineating building envelopes to be approved and platted for each of the three (3) new lots created by the subdivision and these envelopes will thereafter replace the need for any further HLBR or setback 16 requirements. Although subsequent development of Lots 2 and 3 would normally be subject to HLBR, the proposed building envelopes ensure consistency with the spirit of the Hallam Lake Bluff regulations inasmuch as they are delineated to ensure a fifteen foot (15') setback from the top of slope. Also, the flexibility provided by the building envelopes approach, as opposed to prescribed setbacks, will allow greater creativity in design to better enable sensitivity to the historic resource. 5. Growth Management Approval Free - Market Residential Allotments from the 2010 CMOS Development Allotments, with Exemptions As part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation the applicant is seeking up to four (4) of the 2010 Growth Management Development Allotments: one for each new single - family lot and, if the City does not exercise its option to purchase Lot 1 (the lot with the Given Building), then this Ordinance 48 negotiation will have pre- approved one additional allotment for the building's conversion to residential use. For these allotments to be awarded, the negotiation must include an exemption from the submittal requirements and submittal dates of February 15th or August 15th established in Section 26.470.110(c) of the Code for applications that require Major Planning and Zoning Commission review, as well as an exemption from the Scoring Criteria enumerated in Section 26.470.120 of the Code. Instead, all required allotments will be granted as part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation. As mentioned above, the proposed development will remain subject to the affordable housing requirements of Section 26.470.060(2) of the Code for the three new lots (Lots 2-4). Lot 1, however, will not be required to provide affordable housing if the structure is converted to residential use as it will remain a landmark designated historic resource. As mentioned earlier in this application, if the City does exercise its option to purchase Lot 1, the applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of any affordable housing mitigation payments made for the three new lots as part of the purchase price of Lot 1. 6. Exemption from Residential Design Standards and Review This application requests exemption for all resulting lots from the Residential Design Standards of Chapter 26.410 of the Code. The purpose of the design standards is stated in the Code as follows: • To preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The 17 standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of the owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. Since any development on the three new lots will not be visible from the street, the purpose of the Residential Design Standards will be met even if these lots are not subject to said standards. Furthermore, since these lots will not have street frontage, pursuant to Code Section 26.410.010(B)(4), said lots are already exempt from Subsection 26.410.040(A)(1), Building Orientation, and Subsection 26.410.040(D), Building Elements, in their entirety. Subsection 26.410.040(A)(2) would also be inapplicable as each lot is more than 15,000 square feet in size. The only design standards that would be applicable to the proposed lots relate to fences, building form and parking, garages and carports. Given the very limited potential applicability of the design standards and the fact that any future development on these lots will not be visible from the street, the stated purpose of the standards would not be promoted by their application. Therefore, development of the proposed lots should not be subject to any of the Residential Design Standards. 7. Exemption from the Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements The City of Aspen requires property owners to replace any trees that are removed from their property with the same value in on- or off -site tree plantings, cash -in -lieu, or a combination of the two. While the applicant intends to preserve as many trees as practicable, in order to create the access driveway and eventually develop homes within the building envelopes, several trees will need to be removed from the property. As part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation, the applicant is seeking an exemption from the tree mitigation requirements. 8. Vested Property Rights In light of the state of current economic times and the fact that Ordinance 48 is likely to be repealed and replaced with new, as of yet undetermined regulations in the coming years, the applicant seeks 10 years of vested property rights associated with the site specific development plan approved pursuant to this application so as to ensure an adequate degree of reliability on such approvals into the future. This time period is also necessary as the applicant will have three lots to develop, as well as the possibility of a significant remodel effort needed to create a fourth residence by 18 converting the existing structure. The standard three years of vested property rights is simply inadequate to undertake such an effort and responsibility in light of the community benefit of landmark designation that will immediately be realized by the City and will never expire. 10 years of vested property rights in exchange is only reasonable. Summary It is the applicant's desire to see the Given Building preserved as a historic landmark. As incentives and in exchange for this preservation effort, the applicant seeks benefits that are enumerated in the Code as appropriate for designated landmarks. As stated in Code Section 26.420.010(A), Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by owners of historic properties is [sic] an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Ordinance 48 was adopted to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The applicant maintains a right it would rather not exercise under Ordinance 48 to reject City Council's proposed incentive package and, in doing so, have the subject property removed from the Ordinance 48 list of potential historic resources. It is felt that the requested incentives are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for providing a substantial community benefit and valuable community asset by landmark designating a building whose integrity assessment achieves a near perfect score of 96, is significant in the field of education, and embodies the aesthetic achievements of Harry Weese, an internationally known architect who contributed to Modern Era Aspen architecture. The City has already demonstrated its strong desire to see this building granted landmark status. As such, it is earnestly hoped that the requested incentives will be agreed to and the subject property (Lot 1) will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 19 Exhibits: 1. Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Forms 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Pre - application Conference Summary 4. Authorization Letters 5. Integrity Assessment Scoring 6. Quit -claim Deed Conveying portions of Garmisch and Center Streets to the property 7. Engineering Report from Schmueser Gordon Meyer (SGM) 8. Mailing Addresses of Record for Property Owners' within a 300' Radius 9. Fee Agreement Attachments: • Existing Conditions Survey (3 Sheets) • Proposed Conceptual Site Plan • 20 EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: T)Ie Gitlen ,1215114t,tie Location: 1 00 64 FFaros aired f , 4yei 1 Co 0 p /6O / / (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) a') 3 Pj.— 1 i APPLICANT: I - / / A D" • Name: SC +)c rip i / e-A- 101� L�--l._ (cia J. isar�',1ahr t key) Address: l G 1�,sI" I l I/1 `) I Suie 2i7 4spe4 O (3 7/611 Phone #: (l U 5 / V4°2 REPRESENTATIVE: '^ Name: T - -as Land P v1 nv -Iv /j Address: ( - 7 // Al. . // L S . SGi 1 /0 CLSp4 C() V6// Phone #: ( q' 5- 7'I I q TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review Si Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment X Other: L.Qryfr1avr. test Aneb w1 ❑ Conditional Use Or Ne pti cj EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) U SPP tin )Taro Y,,n - I - .S) Y '0-1 PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) a app.( t caftov' and s i4e pla Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $9 9 q0 RI Pre- Application Conference Summary Attachment #I, Signed Fee Agreement. ® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: The 6j7Uer 7t75f hj/e Applicant: • Pc 'tn ,v7( L Location: i ' ! • S Zone District: ,2- Lot Size: 2.. 76 a Lot Area: • i 25 a1 R.• • I DIA ! (for the purposes of calculating Floor ' . Lot Area may be reduced for ar- . within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 11 Proposed: n/ /4 Number of residential units: Existing. ` 6 Proposed: 3. o r Number of bedrooms: Existing: N/A Proposed: 'f3 D Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 0 DIMENSIONS: See, 5Obrvl ( -f 4 Cpp l c o l (N\ rr r l ct is , Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments: Alone, Variations requested: cke air/ r n/7 -r } S4T n i Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: 100 EAST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: October 07, 2010 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06 -17 -06 $15,000,000.00 Proposed Insured: SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "ALTA" Loan Policy 06 -17 -06 $11,000,000.00 Proposed Insured: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, ITS SUCCESSORS AND /OR ASSIGNS 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION • Our Order No: Q62003675 -4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land known as the Given Parcel being described at Reception #499350 together with a parcel being described at Reception #405579 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, all being in the City of Aspen being more particularly described as follows: All of Block 63, part of Francis Street and part of Center Street as shown on the City and Townsite of Aspen Map; a portion of the NW1 /4SW1 /4 of Section 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. and a portion of the NE1 /4SE1 /4 of Section 12, T.10 S., R. 85 W. all in the 6th P.M.; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Francis Street and 24.00 feet easterly of the west line of said Center Street also known as Garnilsch Street, from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 7 bears N08 DEGREES 54'19"E a distance of 926.25 feet, with all bearings being relative to N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E along the centerline of Garmisch Street; thence N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E a distance of 121.59 feet; thence N33 DEGREES 03'19 "E a distance of 42.21 feet; thence N07 DEGREES 19'05 "E a distance of 112.35 feet; thence S70 DEGREES 18'15"E a distance of 239.94 to the southwest corner of the vacated parcel described at Reception #405579 (Ordinance #13, Series of 1997, City of Aspen); thence along the boundary of said vacated parcel the following four (4) courses NO2 DEGREES 00'00 "W a distance 18.56 feet; thence S72 DEGREES 18'08 "E a distance of 44.16 feet; thence S79 DEGREES 11'00 "E a distance of 7.90 feet; thence S15 DEGREES 15'22 "W a distance of 20.06 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel of land described at said Reception #499350; thence S06 DEGREES 18'51 "W a distance of 103.11 feet; thence S18 DEGREES 12'00 "W a distance of 108.73 feet; thence S09 DEGREES 25'21 "E a distance of 52.10 feet; thence S23 DEGREES 21'00 "E a distance of 83.49 feet to southerly line of Francis Street extended easterly; Thence N75 DEGREES 09'11"W along the north line of Block 64, City and Townsite of Aspen, a distance of 288.99 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 64; thence N30 DEGREES 59'37 "W a distance of 107.34 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly Sled for record, to -wit: 1. FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT. 2. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 3. A FULL COPY OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. SAID AGREEMENT MUST DISCLOSE WHO MAY CONVEY, ACQUIRE, ENCUMBER, LEASE OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY FOR SAID ENTITY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENTATION. 4. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS A LLC. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38 -30 -172, CRS. NOTE: SAID STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 5. CERTIFIED COPY OF RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO (AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS) AND RECITING THAT THE BOARD HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED IN THE PREMISES BY THE CORPORATION. SAID RESOLUTION MUST BE PROPERLY CERTIFIED BY AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION. SAID RESOLUTION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY BUT NEED NOT BE RECORDED. 6. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 Continued: NAME OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AS A CORPORATION. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38 -30 -172, CRS. NOTE: SAID STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 7. WARRANTY DEED FROM THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO TO SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. 8. DEED OF TRUST FROM SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO TO SECURE THE SUM OF $11,000,000.00. NOTE: ITEMS 1 -3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL URN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE LOAN POLICY WILL BE DELETED. UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE OWNER'S POLICY WILL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS IS DELETED AS TO ANY LIENS OR FUTURE LIENS RESULTING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY LIENS ARISING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. NOTE: ITEM 5 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION(S) AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. NOTE: UPON PROOF OF PAYMENT OF 2009 TAXES, ITEM 6 WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2010 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 Continued: STANDARD EXCEPTION 7A AND 7B ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: ITEMS 1 -4 OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED FROM THE MORTGAGEE'S TITLE POLICY UPON RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY LIEN AFFIDAVIT. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, Bens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any Ben, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, Bens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 8. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT OF RECORD. 9. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT OF RECORD. 10. PROVIDED THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR, OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS, AND PROVIDED FURTHER GRANT HEREBY MADE IS HELD AND DECLARED TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2386 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MARCH 24, 1885 IN BOOK 11 AT PAGE 162. 11. RESERVATIONS AS CONTAINED IN DEEDS FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED MAY 18, 1887 IN BOOK 49 AT PAGE 285, RECORDED JANUARY 3, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 245, RECORDED JANUARY 31, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 330, RECORDED MAY 11, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 434 AND RECORDED JULY 16, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 462. 12. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDER AND DECREE RECORDED FEBRUARY 09, 1951 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 472. 13. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES. 14. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR CLAIMS WHICH MAY EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACT SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY DATED OCTOBER 19, 2010 PREPARED BY SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, JOB # 2010- 364.001: STAIRS AND GRAVEL PATH ALONG EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. POSSESSORY INTERESTS THAT MAY BE CLAIMED DUE TO THE LOCATION OF FENCELINES ALONG THE WESTERN AND EASTERN BOUNDARIES OF PROPERTY. EXHIBIT I 3 CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie DATE 11.30.10 PROJECT: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Haas Land Planning, representing the contract buyer TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision and Ordinance #48 negotiation for preservation incentives, including ESA exemptions, GMQS exemptions, Residential Design Standards Variances and Fee Waivers DESCRIPTION: The property is among those listed as "Potential Historic Resources," provided with a level of protection under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. The - City received a building permit application in June 2010 which proposed demolition of the structures at The Given Institute. A mandatory 90 negotiation process was triggered to discuss alternatives with the property owner, The University of Colorado. A buyer has placed the property under contract and is willing to discuss preservation options with the City. The proposal involves subdividing the property into four lots, one of which will contain The 1972 Given Institute building. The City of Aspen would be offered one year to elect to purchase the lot containing The Given, which the City may then transfer to a non -profit. If historic preservation benefits are awarded, either the City, a non - profit, or the applicant will be required to complete landmark designation of The Given. No specific development is proposed at this time, but the applicant will request establishment of development rights, building envelopes, etc. that ensure the future size and location of residential units. The process will begin with a joint meeting of HPC and P &Z. HPC previously reviewed and commented on the property's qualifications for landmark designation, on July 14th. HPC and P &Z will discuss the specific benefits being requested by the buyer, and will provide recommendations to City Council. City Council will consider an ordinance awarding the requested land use approvals and benefits. If designation is completed, HPC will have purview over any future changes to the landmarked property. Land Use Code Section(s) that may be applicable: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.415.025 Negotiation process 26.420 Historic Preservation Benefits 26.435 Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas 26.470 Growth Management 26.480 Subdivision 26.710.040 R -6 Zone District Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations Historic Preservation Commission Planning and Zoning Commission Council Public Hearing: Yes at a joint HPC/P &Z meeting and Council. Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour) Referral Fees: None. Total Deposit: $2,940 Total Number of Application Copies: HPC: 12 Copies P &Z: 12 Copies Council: 12 Copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre - application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. 10. Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 11. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site features. 12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 13. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 14. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. City of Aspen Community Development Dept. s -- 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: The Given Institute (100 East Francis Street) (PID# 2735 - 124 -19 -851) Request for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation To whom it may concern: As applicant for the Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision, Ordinance 48 Negotiation and associated approvals on the Given Institute property (100 East Francis Street, Aspen), SC Acquisitions, LLC (c /o J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative) hereby authorizes Haas Land Planning, LLC Gordon, and Meyer Engineers /Surveyors (SGM) and Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design (R +B) to act as designated and authorized representatives for the preparation, submittal and processing of the application requesting the approvals listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications that may be associated therewith. HLP, SGM and R &B are also authorized to represent SC Acquisitions, LLC in meetings with City staff, the Historic Planning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC. Yours truly, SC Acquisitions, LLC By J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative {00003161 / 1 } November 30, 2010 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: The Given Institute (100 East Francis Street) (PID# 2735 - 124 -19 -851) Request for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation To whom it may concern: The Regents of the University of Colorado is the owner of the Given Institute property located at 100 East Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado (the "Given Property"). The Given Property is under contract to be sold to SC Acquisitions, LLC. Please be advised that SC Acquisitions, LLC acting through Haas Land Planning, LLC is authorized to submit and process one or more applications for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision, Ordinance 48 Negotiation and associated approvals for the Given Property. However, no approvals for the Given Property may be recorded or become binding on the Given Property until SC Acquisitions, LLC completes its purchase of the Given Property. Office of University Counsel By: Name: Steve Zweck - Bronner, Esq. (A0003907 / 1 } EXHIBIT INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT MODERNIST Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. • LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5 - The structure is in its original location. 3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 0 - The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original site. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) — 5 points. The structure is in its original location. • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact. 6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form of the structure is obscured. Response: 10 — The original plan form is unchanged based on original Weese sketches and f oor plans. ROOF FORM 10 -The original roof form is unaltered. 6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the current design guidelines. 0 - Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form. Response: 10 — The original flat roof is unaltered SCALE 5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact. 3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or alterations. Response: 5 — The original scale and proportions are intact. SOLID/VOID PATTERN 10 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact. 6 - The original pattern of glaring and exterior materials has been altered but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines. 0- The original pattem of glazing and exterior materials is altered. Response: 10 — the original pattern of glazing and materials is intact. CHARACTER- DEFINING FEATURES 10 — The horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment are intact. 6 - There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. 0 - There have been major alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. Response: 10 — the character - defining features, including cottonwood trees that dictated the location of building and influenced Weese 's design remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45 points. • SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed. 3 -There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings but the changes conform to the design guidelines. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 points. The physical environment is largely unchanged from the date of construction. • MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. EXTERIOR SURFACES 15- The original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. 10 -There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines. 5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing. 0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced. Response: 15 points — the original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is intact. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact. 5 - Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units would meet the design guidelines. 0 - Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that would not meet design guidelines. Response: 8 — Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 23 points. • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. COMPOSITION 15 -The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate itself from style and sentimentality. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge. 10 -There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would meet the design guidelines 0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would not meet the design guidelines Response: 15. The building is void of decoration and is clearly follows Modernist tenets. All exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing. FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME • 5 - The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and fmishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. 3 - There have been minor alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. 0- There have been significant alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. Response: 3 — The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white the building is painted off -white and the window trim is green instead of the original black TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 18 points. Grand Total = 96 points MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. 488896 QUIT CLALM DEED. EXHIBIT THIS DEED, made this 12th day of August in the-year of our Lord one thousand i - • hundred thirteen, between the City of Aspen; a municipal corporation, of the Co X / .. Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the first part and Grace Howard Potter and Mary R Potter of tae County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, parties of the second part, WfTNESSEMM, That the said party oQ the first part, for and in consideration of sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.,00) to the said party of the first part in hand -- the said. parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and quit - claimed, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and quitclaim nuto the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assignee forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand .which the said party of the first part has in and to the following described real estate situate, lying and being in the City of Aspen, county of Pitkin and state of Colorado, to -wit:- that certain tract of land described as follows: beginning at a point,in, North Center Street on the Borth line of Francis Street 24 feet easterly from the West line of Center Street and running thence Easterly alonythe Borth line of Francis Street 26 feet to a point on the center line of center Street, Thence Northerly along the center line of Center street 120 feet to a point. .Thence Westerly on a line parallel to Francis Street 26 feet to a point. Thence Southerly on aline parallel to the center line of Center Street 120 feet, to the place of beginning, containing o.072 acres. Also that certain tract of land described as follows: Beginning at a point in North Center Street on the North line of Francis Street 24 feet easterly from the line .of Canter Street and running thence Southeasterly 106.77 feet to the Southeast corner o±_Center and Francis Streets; thence Easterly along the South line of Francis Street about 342 feet to intersect line ' 4 -5 of Aspen Townsite: Thence North 43- 03 32" West,along line 4 -5 of Aspen Townsite to a point at the intersection with the No line of Precis Street; thence Westerly along the Borth line of Francis about 06 feet to the plane of beginning, Containing 0.558 acres more or less. Saving and excepting from the operation of this deed all that portion of the above described premises included within-an extension of what is known as Aspen Street, in the ' City of Aspen County of Pitkin.and State of Colorado, northqrly therefrom to the Roaring Fork.River; said excepted premises now being used as a public thoroughfate' or highway from the Northern line of the Aspen Townsite to or near the said Roaring Fork River. This deed is made iu pursuance with an order and resolutions of the city Council of the said City of Aspen,•duly passed and adopted. TO HAVE A_,D TO HOLD TH3 SAME, Together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto beldnging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, igrt, title and interest and claim whatsoever, of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, to the oAly proper use, benefit and behoof of the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, forever. III WITNESS WHEREOF, the said City of Aspen, party of the first part, has hereunto set its name and corporate seal by the hands of F. D. Willoughby, its Mayor, attested by Alton De. , its City Clerk th` }y and year first above written. THE CITY OF ASPEN. `' N 9 t ) . Fred D, Willoughby ATTEST: i Mayor. • Alton Beck ._. -- . City Clerk. STATE OF COLORADO) County of Pitkin )55 • do hereby certify that Fred Willoughby and Alton Beek, r respectively , Mayor and the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, ffersonally known t to me as. the persons whose names are subscribed to the annexed Deed, appeared before me this day in person, and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument of writing as their free and vo act, and as the free and volintary act of the said City of Aspen, for the uses and pa erein set for%h. 1 y - 0 ..der my hand a 4 notarial seal, this 16th day of January, A. D. 1937 r ���' ` Y , scion eapir: 191 - ,M. M. Heihardt 1 e• - or reco . to a •' h .:yo ._e.ruary :. ,. a - :, Count Clerk. '88897 Form 348 '• '` L ar. _eon .er THIS DEED, Made this 28th� January in the 1.undred and thirty aevea,betwee Grebe Howard Potte the�City, County and State New owk and Mary Louise Potter of the County of San Fraloiseo and State of California, of the • •irst part, and Marie Louisa Potter of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the • =eoond part, - WITNESSETH, That the said parties of the first Part, for and in consideration of the •0 of one dollar and other valuable considerations to the said parties of the firsu part .. hand paid by the said party of the second part, the reoeipt whereof is hereby oongessed and acknowledged, have remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT - CLAIMED, and by these , resents do remise, release, sell, convey and WIT-CLAM ONTO the said party of the second. ..art, her heirs and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which yen sa parties of the first part have in and to the following described real estate situate, being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado to -wit: A. certain tract of and described, as follows: Beginning at a point in Borth Center Street on the Booth line if Francis Street 24 feet easterly from the west line of Center Street and running thnce a- sterly along the North line of Francis Street 26 feet to a point on the center line, ot, °Inter Street, thence Northerly along the center line of Center Street 120 feet to a point; •. eaoe We sterly on ailine parallel to Frannie Street 26 feet to a pdimt; thence Southerly ' • '' •ontaining 0.072 acres. .Llsb center-line certai a tract l t of landd escribed follows: of Beginninng t a point in North Center Street on the North line of Francis Street 24 ,feet easterly from • he West line of Center Street and running thence • +' "'' n.....i-mm.446;444kmaace Southeasterly 106.77 feet to the Southeast corner of en er and r :.oes Streets; thence Easterly along the South line of Francis Street kbout 342 feet to erseot line 4 -5 of Aspen € , 32" a•wnsite to a pea rater a te; th with North 43° 03 32 West, along line he of span point at the intersection with the North line of Francis Street; thence West - ly along the North line of Frannie Street about 306 feet to the peace of beginning, • :; ontaining, 0.558 acres more or .lees. . - Saving and excepting from the operation of this deed all that portion of the above describe • remises included within an extension of what is known as Aspen Street, in tae City of Aspen, ,Minty of Pitkin and State of Colorado, northerly therefrom to the 'Roaring Fork River; 1d-excepted premises now being used as a public thooughfare or hialawav from the if,-no-v,0,..., line of the Aspen Townsite to or near the said Roaring Fork River. The streets, blocks and lots named above relate to the City and Townsite o£, Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. TO HAVE AiiD TO HOLD THE SABBA, Together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the said parties of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said . party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, forever. •• IH WITNESSS WHEREOF, The said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in Presence of� Grace Howard Potter , (Seal)+ Margaret Dean,'as.to -nary Louise Potter . (Seal) - . GSeal) Si n 0 0 A (Seal) • • County of DADE )sa I, Margaret Deane, Notary Public in and for said County, anthe State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Grace.Howard Potter personally known o me to be the person name is subscribed to the foregoing Deed, appeared before Cie this day in . person, aa$qd acknowledged that She signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument of writin'g'$s fifer free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth. • • -. Given under my hand and Seal, this 9th day of February, • A. D. 1937 l My Commission expires • ,19 Margaret Deane' , notary Pablio State of Florida at - • Sarre `* Commission Ex•ires 8 1 2 e . - or reco . s • b. .ay o" e.ruary r. 1. a :1. : `. le .a . •-co #88898 • THIS DEED, made this 4th" day of December 1936, between Grace Howard Potter, of the City, County and State of New York, and Mary Louise Potter, of the County of San . Francisco and State o ±.California, parties of the first part, and Marie Louise Potter, • of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, party of the Second part: WITI.ESSETH, That the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar($1.00) lawful money of the United. States of America, and other valuable considerations, to the said part }es of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, aad.07 thes presents do grant, bargain, sell, • convey and confirm unto the said party of the seco.id part, her heirs and assigns forever, • all the following_ described lot or pareelof land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to -wit: Lot C in Block S3 "(sometimes known as Lot Min said Block 63- and so assessed in the County Treasure ;'s Office in said Pitkin County, State of Colorado, in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin and State of Clorado. ALSO all the right title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to the lot of parcel of land now in possession of the parties of tae first part and formers; comprising a part of,Franois Street adjacent to Center Street and to Said Lots A, B, C and D in Bleq$ 63,, which lotor parcel is bounded on the 40RTH by the southerly . line of said Lots A, B p ;and D,and oy Center Street; on the iAS'r by the .prolongation of the Easterly lice of.ea},d,lot D; on the SOUTH oy a line parallel or nearly so with the • former southerly side, bQ Fxanois Street and Distant Twelve (12). feet, more or less, from said southerly, side of Francis Street; and on the NEST by Center Street and Francis - Street. • TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belong - ing, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and . remainders, rents, issues and psatixs_bi r_epX; ], s rig t•t terest, claim and demand whatsoever of, o` e'' ` He pr'�a's"3b' red - itaments and appurtenances."' . . TQ HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the ap- purtenances, unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their bands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of: Grace Howard Potter • (Seal) Marie Kennedy Tod Mary Louise Potter. (Seal) Helen Campbell State of Connecticut. County of Fairfield I Harry C. Frost in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby oertify that GRACE HOWARD POTTER and MARY LOUISE /OTTER,' who are personally known • to me to be the persons whose names are subsoribed to the a.�"8xea Deed, appeared before me this day im person, and acknowledged that they signed, seale and delivered the said • intni ent of writing as their free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set Yolth. c Given untied my hand and seal, ±, C � SeSl Commission e r ' p //1� this 4th day of �Deeccembb- er,, A. D. 1936 lilektor Record this 19thlday3T 193 February A. D. 7 st A.e07 A. M. It. M. Neihardt RecoxdE . a ss J: /9a T egto4 1 • • Offif Y 4 ENGINEERING REPORT FROM SGM PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 100 W FRANCIS LLC 111 WEST FRANCIS LLC 1 601 E HYMAN AVE 28 ROCK RIDGE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWICH, CT 06831 - esait AMATO JOSEPH A ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPEN VALENTINE LLC PO BOX 503 STUDIES C/O GERSCHEL & CO HIGHLAND MILLS, NY 10930 100 PUPPY SMITH ST 600 MADISON AVE SUITE #1601 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022 BRADY WILLIAM JB 111 CITY OF ASPEN ERWIN GREGORY D 14671 FIELDSTONE DR ATTN FINANCE DEPT 11248 JOHN GALT BLVD SARATOGA, CA 95070 130 S GALENA ST OMAHA, NE 68137 ASPEN, CO 81611 FABRY PAUL A FAMILLIE ALPENHAUS LLC GORMAN PATRICIA B 1127 BOURBON ST 1509 N PROSPECT AVE 1426 ROSE GLEN RD NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116 -2709 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 HENRY FREDERICK B TRUST JOHNSON RICHARD & MONTAE IMBT KRUMM DONALD PAUL REV TRUST 100 W HALLAM ST 6820 BRADBURY PO BOX 874 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST LEWIS TOBY D TRUST NICHOLSON JOHN J 414 N FIRST ST C/O KRABACHER & SANDERS C/O EDWARD WHITE & CO LLP ASPEN, CO 81611 18930 S WOODLAND RD 21700 OXNARD ST STE 400 CLEVELAND, OH 44122 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 NOLAN WILLIAM C JR RANDALL ELLEN SEGUIN WILLIAM L & MARILYN 202 WEST 19TH 25 BRIAR HOLLOW LN PO BOX 4274 EL DORADO, AR 71730 HOUSTON, TX 77027 ASPEN, CO 81612 SUTTON KERMIT S & JENNY W US POSTAL SERVICE WATERS DANIEL E 715 TENTH ST SOUTH WESTERN REGION BOSTOCK VICTORIA C NAPLES, FL 34102 SAN BRUNO, CA 94099 422 NORTH ST GREENWICH, CT 06830 WINTON CHARLES B & BARBARA M ADLER LOU REV TRUST 2949 AVALON AVE C/O EDWARD WHITE & CO LLP BERKLEY, CA 94705 21700 OXNARD ST #400 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 ExHHIBI E ` CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Apreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and SC Acquisitions, LLC c/o J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation, (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2,940 which is for twelve (12) hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: Chris Bendon SC Acquisitions, LLC Community Development Director by J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative {00003162 / 1 } , %_ ( y^ Q 11 1' s a iaE s g a `' p�$Fi`-I c % E 6 € € �8 Ni i € ° �t k . s_ k i LilIV1 I HuIHh J N � p .fr m rE a t.gg sg 8 - o Nal °V a 1 F ° s € 8 €$ s� .s ` a e„L a " °5'E %5° o fir ^' � I� ypg tl Q k a8 `fr 4 $43 Y3��p E E e �[ {i �, • a a [ O I b E ° °g Ea ON g i 1 1 r Yi 1 6 t °�Ia r E b € J ; fur i $� k. w 'V €� L ' € ' E .g & � p� $° € a $ n a ae ° , A l l rea q a as $a € �g- 12 a . f �Sg€ t L G La) �a � £ ° _'£a " € ¢P$' e $ Lo '' " 1 1 lx t "tP 1 °s is ` L0'£ 1 e$ gz. al $ Olio '� v yy ; z �t44 ' °'° gg its ` c$ b p . # 1. i a � !Hyb ti -1 $°$ [ B d Q O F e it ; L ! W Ip° E h $ U :..I j I§ $ a € � € P . i €8 e � . €. a E! • S $ tp' 9 E=r o „2. n 1 I 1ggg Y b� r ij N Lily aB € L°g 11011 9 i . ak h ? q - I a a u 4-1 az ,`°ts uS€ F �' ' e ms . gg F € toit L , @ 11€" E Y, $ d - - � L F a wi k€ a = a. a° H a 4 €' t "4..) a kt"`k k€ $gs� € "° 9 § €a € � € °gEap• sgg a€' {!il L f €a € s € �r ` Is$ -- aa,- - °•ai ;.1 E - F $ k $z '$z gg a a E L " e "� a UL � `' pG M a f b sh e a. 3 , b kq , R" 1,1, ° a b $ e` € % ) „Z1 Vt. € R ' 8 " ; ° E € E $ y y 6 W a € ' 'a L k w a a °�� k € € E €L € a e€a N -..>,41 gs °�e f € o rs° la r a$ �$ a a a g'° %,a 5 s s ° $L €1e t a . g[ N a k t o L ° ` N 8 $e rv g F . L a m ¢ 3 S E Y8 4 � ° �w km � �a a ��� Fe EE g ��� N�a g � �� € 8 g�.. ° °� c € a e ,� R C/) ° . 3 8 s 3$ $aa§° € $La' $ €'E ° '� if !IiiiIIPjDui G. g a m it kp g k €$ gg' g z L 8 g i g § i °` i EI'E ! L a EE Q 8 ° P g 5 kk i L € $e -.-E p E. o E a E a k w arar aLaa. L° E $ € $E € € °k € gcP ' € " €� 2 „tin 2 a ry 6 €$ fix' € a $g H j j j a s ,5 !La yy 8 § u Y. aAP c'�"'8'=G J Ea` iJ$L ^ifbe:E, i tg,g a � g E 4 1 °C€ M "6',3,`, Eft sz'''Ir #bt b iii ',�' € t h $ d S1 € . 8€ �£ t hh� 6 1 O `t e°d f @8 lac. L SN>nx $ x 111 11 1 1 1 IS M .- €a o93 L3° 88E L$EE n:.c €E'e. . � S°C e S •4.,..) e b \I e~ IPjI }Jry 2 , �8$ ^II111 • 2 y i e a 8 o & \ , ,.,-.,','43,e;,,?; & G € l 3 ) " if v ,E i i € l ? 5 nil e ,� �1 1 1 r — (DSO el e8000eX00 foe OOO®® ® 1 ®Q / ��! II 4 , d � '. . @ r J � / / //,,,/,,,, , I IIII e y * ry ° 518'12100"W !y ' 10873' - 0 5p6131 �c0 S--= 11 / 43ISmoP— L — ‘ I ^' "4 i /, _ 1 "W 10 h am , s. m LT o - o b I II / . m ^fC9_/ lawn I 1 4 /or N 1 Il , l l ; I ( l ( H/ 1 111 / � z o "ti "oil 1 i 1 � wn Zh E S V 1 111 I 11 (. I 1 it I ry ra/ '7 h� a \ I' 1 I IIH11 1 .1141 N y l ti, Bondi a q 1 11 1 I I V i1 II I II II III�1) 11%. m .1 .e" t ,II 1 H IK I 1 1 I I %If ® 1 1 o I II 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I II II II II I IM � N , h m ” • 8 101 =1 -,V\ i 1 I I � I II \;21 rm ' I j6 A � yl ,:,,At � 1? I �( I I� I , � 1 � m �, r 11 1 �ii11ll l Ililllli� 1 11 III Iy, � � . � ‘21k. �,� � a _� l 1 1 1 1 l II , E � `, c r �1 r s7 E r � ■ w t OI C'4 ie n III iIIIILI�� la n / ■ I ) I II b ry IIII I I w ��N "n I I I I I �t 11 � / , 1 1111 d. p �, Itl� h mP q^�my, 1 � I� I ' ll III I I 1 1 II y / % r see ° 1 1'lt \ s °> V 6 IN a� 8 W ' d 11 1 IL 1 /II I I / l �' . 1t v R \ I♦ Z a CI 9. 1 I I I F c 111 I v" ° g0 1 I' j 1111 I �/ l I " . f : ; u b 11 i Q �I'na o^ I� II VI 11 1 ry m O O n ' ry a ° C U ^ m �I ' °6p ' i1 i X111 1 / Om li��O W� � , -. b I ¢E �Eih�00 1 '*w{ q m ti °m e� W - CO q le Et.-`^ �i11 j ll l i � ph �I � I j �� � 1 � ° b I I 11 I ^( I . e� ObC _ Ws I 111 1 I I ll I 1 1 11 1 II !I / /I h-�=. . .. J °% 3 q „ z I1 w I ffiI�I III � 1 � 1 � 1� �1 . I E o v� 0 -9^ a rc m I I 11 11 ' 1 1I l l l l �i l II 1 1 � II I I I 21 _ ° m -� o e 11 i' 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l I II 1 m S �, i \\ s .I� _ \ an d f t /Ha a I I Ilj �l , Ica .1 4� I : I o iii"' ��}' y� / / 1 ( 1 k -• e1 E ry G ( Q1 y� 11� I III I� o l l S ° _ *'" - Garrn z 11 111 % / e 1 „ w m. � ";. ; Stre 11 1 '�l l @'REJ I ,', 1 " e -- 4 x a h 1 r dk m _ Qnc, II \ I lA l l \� A 1 .. 10 " MI °ee — 11 1 II l \ � n \,; ` V �11 1 � I ��‘1 1\111 1 v i� Y�*at P 1 VI' I IIII " I �I .- '0'.:e_ 11 I I . 3st �.�,,_- — "� ' '" m ' . .�`� ati ° z I I 01 ' 19, E b b - m° a$ uF N OT E ve ` tF 1g S 5 0 / i U H .5 / . c ti d ey5 to E g 6 _-- On '� 6 E Lga 'VP: 8 $ I Q yyp b rmr eg owe +a ro row :row e No w so feu owes oononrerowtl oylmMrWs too ' rxla/u1 n W d 3 0 Ct el 1-9 LT LI '71 IIIJJJ��� ° O 2 oO ::: 1 �, , z \ P41U \,\ o c q �`' C J ♦ a.1 ' 3 o El t (� J am". `� J .....1 q yl ( 1� S oQV ti MM ewe O `V • O Li SJ '''•1 1 u $ U 44>> d age >ooe 2re1 cpri U g d , P G U M13ry ' 1 509 er 5� ( S , 'i ? .../ .� C w r /� N ��e.)11 1 r1/ I��1 11111 1 1 �1 i t q l III ll 1 1 11 /. ( i I h Ill 1111 III �� 1I Ir,r1 I� l� ■ll1 l �, o � 1 I !1 Ii �I� l y f, 1 VIS gill%%iiiis.. 10.1111 .'■47184.%.,.1111111111k t P I II I I �'II Ij��IlI yll /I1 �/ 1�j _. /��� \ 1 I I I lili I' \ \ � , I II „ \ \ � � � C I aE f 11 11 1 it I I I � \ \ k g �,li lil I il g � f W 1 'b W gnN I�II���IIII��I� It y I 1 �ti 2 Il ly l II 1 1III � � iI) I � ., y o " ID 1 ,1 ' l l ll l ll ' 1 I11 1 1 1 \I� 1 U� i o 1.0 � � o^�� °a \ \\\ \I 1 {11 11 1 111 j I {I� / �o \ Ia cy� "m vvl\ 1 1 � � 11 �I I / I ® gg I 11 I I st - 0 W ra� l I u l 111 n RI II IC' �I I 11 m 18 i � � 7 'I. 1111 II 1 � � � I I I iI� 1 ./ I-- --- i ... � � I l 11 1�� 1 11 II I l I l 1 l v l 1 •_ . - ° a =um o �I 1111 ill I II �� I Ic Iti / p i i,/ Ju ( i ; ��li vim.* �� Gar °h L I I r� y ya $tree : l I Al , `I I I'I Ii �`IIl l ll1 \\ \ $ \ Z5 �# } 4; m _ • ' - E' — — ai eti 1111111 xWW1rt eiuw.o w 0C0P o 51o•prn,e.V enowcloierla . . O M 1.2 N P b N w p M Y l! 4 a O • ' p p p O g b p b �\ N N r_ �j N h N N h b h N N V1\ gg o gg 4 L W .7[ 1 / ' O O O , C VO O F` A R. 9 Y p , /, N N~ N y`i l N H ti O B R g r \ O \ ;SS heR hho �,m d x V 6-1 k 4 E N h ` ^ b q 00. y pE Y[p•• O Q ^ 'Kt, S 6 f C � t' 4 YbN°' V00•; �NN I v8a0 e .�Ny .m ^ N 4 4 4 4 n Q W [~ q w agoS SS S S8$ SS$ • 3 `1 �J p Nh � pN�g 2'R•9,%, N~ Z b m Ell k O ro O 0 O a $ O p O ^^ p ^^ O•-•- bppp 0ppp mppp rR% q y00 000 000 �1 '_,'- `,=; A Nh U 0 Nh 0 O 0 Nh Nh h 1 h Cjr ^, V E' 4 ▪ R m • a 0 Cii y c, . /I x a a o o�4, ,1 o 2 1 314 0 1 , 1 � I II r s p9 5 2 1 0 \ 518'12'00W ' 505.78 51"N s1a•1z'oo i' .70311. � I Ls ti �� �� �►� �M � a r� Cl.) a1 �eII •2 0 ,ti ..„b • \ \ r I I I € � el‘ I 4 j ( e1n3 gX� _ I . "''. °C W p W ■ t 3C 6 � Xg'W. °w — I , W r N M N p 9 @ 5 Tr ON � I / T Y I v L F, c w a % 98 I a I _ 10 °V i i gN ee /;� %I y , ; ; Gan- z / i 1 I H t i 1 V \ N 61, c...)-N..,c � l y9� street a . 8 35' 1 is Sli , N N0719'05'E i lill C.3 it a I 11111111 .1 4 1 ;11$ 1 11.11Mill 0 4 ,ti ) I, 1148 . • -. c E o ye rv� c E` Sb m m °° E mp e a ° [ Z vS O S Y Q.) nn\\ 'rv : EE a Ea-4; s m E d e li N Q.) W • 6 e aE e greA 8 s N' " EEE a e ° e ; t a 7t v�c - E o ° °° Eg ° S g.,k . • 'V ° n " ° g I ° Pa e„f€ = 2i. ry g a o k me" £ mYm \ S E °4 : °° : E g 14'1" 4§1.!°°%2"1. $�5. MV $ $ Y a w° c E I. E2°E Ec � O S ,� 1 €< Engo V A € o -"- F!E E ' ryYo `° °'S`' € EBg € Ee Be w` l '2111N4.! �` °¢s " `V E°S ` ..`S ° q ` ^ w, v, ,ce LL ao A• I !ii E E t g € h € °i ° `P r / F'E E 0w S o o q _ ¢�z' E #� E g €m °; e o : " £F F C o o �oa�8 E ES �` �E$` E o -8 € s E 8 $ V EA.¢ E mgt 28 S h efta^" E a >� @@ � g` ry E m�$Soso Eh € g. ° g h � =€ °o ; F e g l E E m Cc ts ° i S A E 1 g _ £Q�o h&j u° EN8 €^ <E p2 0¢°4 g e5,° $ E EE u ° o c "ry •.9e - E, 24 , a .. Y E " . 7 , e - £E °E ° t E a s m °m ¢ iI it i Y ` °p EE: £ S ¢ O e q °i E ¢N E E Y � ` " el- C '_u " pp E ° 'L h q Ea t " ° e e°$` & 'sc €e t flA e e a e oc o °Y m° '3A5 ' S s 3•A e ..A °;.-P1"1 N " E 8 `A w° St..) 1 ^ 4 .'q 50 `mm e£2 XEmE E M 4� yMe .� . co ° Y = g g _ca o c � ° € £ h �L 'c` ° z°e(E e �IJ ° E' uw°Y ° E z aE "0 ii 8 E tz �) 0° ozrv. ttlq & k k E'`^e EYn L c c o b - ee`E.c° - .o $ Y a to ' E � ' € E 'IL c n11 1,4 n ° \ ! € rv g e . sEE n x ° ° e " `� ` °e8 ,� E g 's�� °,.`°. £ ° g & h E o` ° TE p ° e e 41 ^1 �' 1 Z4 gt° At E' "° ° . h 8 °et ;: p tt �g % E $e z�°y3 e ,, : eti'tl v P 'q. \) ° 5� '^`� °O� n ^ R e¢1 _ 5 S L E E.Qrf c E°ham ap5 `m€ `T ° c � W ° a " y °E \E g ah E ° S o $ E tUE•e.anr6 a "a ! pq p$ E' E� ^ O r Li rc° `'r6 E�'Ee" 4$' "' \�mc ° F s"t �r, e e E E 5 y b'� � a g c $E $ o e °a ;gY E LI to e_. it :s s° E e° °Ion °iS'� ^Be ° � 8 . u - € o 1:. :3 „r„a € ° °a$ � ', i el N o l y O E, o omE@ "-n ^ry E c c s°-P o ^ . . E E ee ° ae E € 4 „S - -A : 6 g " : • E o , °c s` Za. EY' < i1 n i " A ea\ H` o ^ °me � "hrcE° 0 °E°8i.5 E- m '''''m-- ° SeE E �°gg[°t,T°'" p e.4 AE E ° °`,b °E`'c e H ('�� W �! ` €aS e a i8 c s, c' E,, Z V�me S` tat $rv s,esrnice k 8€ N ; „ WA sp =b1 W O t °^ a o o °” °E q e ° a !°w 4 €6 a” e$Br`£ •'� £'g "E`P Y� � °� o;o'- ; ;W ^Eee!°'d - -lid E g C : 1 .`c'c ° ec =rv4'E8 Eam'`n88w�25 : C E m p w E oc °' SR= 1 s s � @ �� F' E 8 a i° � °s� �pe a, $>r FE eE E ° SEE e .c m 5 ° o e e ° €ig'F $8 roE" $ my ° m "uEu E°eg8$oE °e €ro ' °t °° 8 O e¢ 3 m;$i..$- \e 2 III I I I 1 1 In6 o m „ ° 8m 83 ° ,8eo ^” m �E ¢ ErvEe° I E b } `o M$ 422 d 1 � k O , °o N " = F. _ X1 • IrA o _ b 8 P P s U L bNU'p g U] , ill 3 i _ ti u a x _ \. A9 h l 1 ' � 0,1,c4,0 0 � s i C y“ s i 5 .s s g S ti 5 r/� la l ry o, v g = ] o; ei gh` sa et�� / 11 l � N —I *SO a .a0sogzo o k 0 LIOD®® ®M 1/4' I l l ° z 3 .',. B 8 & N a VF V m FE SJB'7200 * 1 1'- 0 s. 506.1-.5 _ = -- 41 d , c � "° ' ' a ° r3/43/4 d EN re r �� /•/ o ,m— fO9 a!(_wn N I M b L To . •V M ,, 4y r o i N t �° • go b� Iry 7 1 1 14, ti a �& II I !' 0 0 I i � a�• 1 P � B l01 ) �, 1I kg I ' o l. • m � .M - • E� m m 1` � I y 1 � vii: m, I ~ m III° ' 1 ,�1�� � � . � .lam px..' _ b0 w m N I II V A °�� l a m � y '� 'el ° w oih r o O t ' <. ° I ‘:-.•,, �4l O ,� • .. * �-I N 0 0 ul P R' B 'i•i I ii I lp .v - .'I , ' h ti" r . N .II � � J 11 - F c, Ir "I r . Ipe,- J 0 111 � � � I' 11 1 1 11 11 11 y ^ . o _ ., �1�" few 1 1 '11 11111 11 16 / _ 1 b i 1 II lie b µ 111111 1 ' 1 ' 111 I m : I m n O O ,,, '11 _ rn O r P X1 1. ' 1 111 11 1 � T�iI ° . "I L ...., m pe k O W v le �� 1 I kE V I rn c m � Cv� �ro $ :� ' wc OU 1 I � °. , c '. ^ a ; b Iv 020 u �5 Om XI 1111 ' 111 u,... 1 �� ' _ �-. c � up - _ es 1 . . .. . III ' — LE , .. ° 53 3ow� �il �i i il XI II I II I1� 111 X 1 I h _ • m � ��' 7 - W -0 2 m ozki m ° a a n -� I 1 11 11 1 11 I m 4 - 9 I 1 I I l / i� . v � N � E w II Ail, it8 I I ., '' h Ill 1111 c ° e � s — I I - iR �� Ga m II m t II I I I' , ry re et h y v tr 1 I �u/ e S I •y V'1.° o \ ° ° m I 1 11111 gI. I 1I =,Ix ix,' -� m1R, _ Y� ° go (/�� II III ' , ,6 1‘ qE c° - • ,2,, Et m 1 Vi — � n j 1 j5, f0•('fN - 6S lZl _ ��•� V w J0 4N g a m 1 9 £g� Zit h� 3 _ ¢62 4 Et2 O" P _ �' ' k ski W U 4a _ �� i 1ge3eE: \ 11111111111 C'' 47 HIM wn �etr ma •ro o vex rvime ."snv ono[ ro o w n••"s e v - ramsl ^•vinW^9•^^u aw'rnr1040110 O Cb n\ 'b X CO 'b b m O 1(L p . CI) I� m o U O IICII) O 2-.9. .4 e3 a .S. C Q o '°I g LI � cb 0 3 moo o Ct 0 ,0N at oON .,� O k O ?It, p ^re 1 ; m QH 0r. \r4 W w\ N '♦ 4C' \ o \ 41) cu v y W -, U v Li q O .0 L i -4 R V u S l 8 ooC e ^N :22�� IFh ,rr l U R ,. ce ry R � I I S 5 2 01 06E fr, 414 4, 1 i 5/e 1 08:73' So6'18 i iao • 103.11 1RR° J ewe C.) ro qi I / N ry / o •'ti ya� III � i CJ I I ,� li' I I I II l I I I',� "i L I tr II !Ii I' I�'II a I Il m , -%% %4Iii ii • 4 11 1 i llii r { \ m Illllll�i I � j lll III S � C II �If I I l A\ w 2_' P b w ^m �� :°:: N o 0 N I'I 44 J �i i i' i i ii� i i i I / of OmuOW n h c I I CI ��� !��� . a GN -o g$ L w O U li �� mo I v� II ii �ii� i i i i i I I � a k U] - N 0 ,;1 B il I I o iil I,,, i I I I I I II 1 �III I — \ U _ �n drc j i I I y I I I II I I I 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 I V m -o.9.•20 1) HI ihi ,, i ,i i I / _ '`� a / 1 I o \ x � Gar et ° k• e o r .I 5 a 5 i nm� o 0 mo \ 3 o v I h E S d m 1. e \ � m "` E v w o n a >$i a w W i ri. 6x '4W I m \ N oa u :Hui � m �� iI� P . $ ..64,0 .*IN tle ° ` -' 4 4° c., �12J ; . . . ------ of m a a at N07'1 �\ eE �� — u e ^ g � E E _ .\ rc _ ‘b3 • a F “.: a 4 O "oay�6 ss _ �< 4 ro e F a F € _ Li C7 ° vim gg et $as & i ° _____NN__--- O $ + f Fkag e ? °`Ce_X W ° O q q 4 h O Q V O - O p N b O b ie • ibeft \I V\ CO v N N < ^ O p O Y O S l/ C CC C 3Q Q Q ZQC 1 � J v le. 4 u 0 p d ✓ H° h G in 4 h t' ti U V O q 0 -',eh NV10 Nhm ` o vb00 vb ^b y ^m m °h L O02 ...it. h Q � QeN X 000 t ,,,, ,°J.-'4, 5V1N tei y �O�O LnOh >N �^'N O 4 R 4 4 Q e e o (1� w ° ° ° °2 W o ° oo w w ° ° • �1 �J r L ° ° ,,,'22 '!",. v ^1 cam °^ ° �� � °N ° � O,�^l IJ e a o, o a r 0 o p a ° P°�- a°000 m °°oo VI q °° Oo° \ L O ry O O O ryM Ory ..4 N p V C` U O O 2 h K Q v I�V� 0 U 1, ¢ O o Ni o V o • 1 � Q Q am4. „ao*• ,aO■ p dote• el 1 011111 ' 444 cnot `� OIIIII 1 VIII 1 s oOE�' ,r� el RC � i I; i ' .qt E A/ r.. 1 S ,o �. X11111 5181100"W ®� g51 W C3 41 j oc041.0 III “ Veld �> ro m czti w � y I . m t . x 3 I • m w _ _ 1 1 A , N 4 ( 1 I ^I y� I II L �l/ 1 I VJ ' ,- r • allit 11111 11L SI ---.4% %, -.14,„ 1444 :t1:11. I I / .4.0 0 :: , 1 I / ]Ntl 11 { un3aona _ ° W 4.3 cz a ° _ i n � ce r W �ONN� tn � 1 e iNOONm n i n i t , a 6 C] � o g 1 `H _- -- � I � � a wssII wu00u �o 0 _ o k. E0 w i _ - O w m p, YY N W m 0 ( 5 ills l I ,�. 11 '-m0 o xo 1 l ml l i i ~ }M cn - V; I i1 Y - O � � a w ch I — a 1 Str o - w iz $ 712 d6 ( F O .FFN- 6S 'I LI - .9OS.'1 w ry07tg € €g € o y CO Ey 9 \ ro 4 lo Q3E • k c<ato I SS L. - i- I ^: g OW e C 111110111 s� x ii o ro t s�- w l O EESR Si m� 9 1 U n+° „ m og rl j�'y i a ge d SF w w LL ° t' O W rlit sI, Q 1 IGG �0 i Egy o E IN xi H Li i I I . , « [ RGt 5 t 3 ww i a z or w r w J 1 co w 6 0 ;Z Z q - F to , N 1 0 tw N. Qu L.t tt o a Sa b � ^ _ g — ! t / I. . : 7 /77 co k J / � / / M O 9 , 1� Ni Fo0 �r /j, a aaD r s ry b { p� O N a s ;'^y+ I F z8 W/ 1 ' J N I s e o A'' F N isc,...,, 1 A J b Fes �r �+ � � � _� / f o- ro i 9. O I / J N x, v z u ,� t l l: n Q G 4 � 4 a / p x A ti � �� 6 �� P/ I / o F3 CD Obbs bay — _ / �/ \ I I v 1l3 �°1 k s, v �: A I m 4, \v �`� i- z Iegboe„ &2 1 1 d / I j kr I 1 EXHIBIT 7 ENGINEERING REPORT GIVEN SUBDIVISION 100 EAST FRANCIS STREET CITY OF ASPEN 1 ..;..1, t � t , ti, # r December 2010 Prepared by 6 CHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G I N E E R S S U R V E Y O R S I 18 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 FAX SGM Project # 2010 - 364.002 [This page was left blank intentionally.] Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 1 -1 2.0 Project Background 2 -1 2.1 Project Overview 2 -1 2.2 Description of Existing Facilities 2 -1 2.3 Description of Proposed Subdivision 2 -1 3.0 Project Infrastructure 3 -1 3.1 Roads and Public Transportation 3 -1 3.2 Storm Drainage 3 -1 3.2.1 General 3 -1 3.2.2 Previous Drainage Studies 3 -2 3.2.3 Drainage Sub - basins 3 -3 3.2.4 Low Impact Site Design 3 -3 3.2.5 Hydrologic Criteria 3-4 3.2.6 Hydraulic Criteria 3 -4 3.2.7 Proposed Drainage Facilities 3 -4 3.3 Water Supply 3-4 3.4 Fire Protection 3 -5 3.5 Sanitary Sewer 3 -6 3.6 Electric Service 3 -6 3.7 Gas Service 3 -7 3.8 Miscellaneous Utilities 3 -7 Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 LIST OF ACRONYMS ACSD — Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District URMP — Urban Runoff Management Plan as adopted by the City of Aspen in 2010. VCP — Vitrified Clay Pipe. An older type of sanitary sewer pipe. WQCV — Water Quality Capture Volume as defined in Section 8.4 of the city of Aspen's current Urban Runoff Management Plan. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Drawings Appendix B Drainage Calculations Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 1.0 Executive Summary This report addresses engineering aspects of the Given Institute Property (100 East Francis Street) Subdivision submission to the City of Aspen. The proposal considers the construction of three new single - family residences on newly created lots on an existing property totaling approximately 2.276 acres. The subdivision application currently involves keeping the Given Institute building on its own parcel (Lot 1) for continued use as a conference and educational facility. The site is located on the northeast corner of Francis Street and Garmisch Street in Aspen, Colorado. Access is from the northeast corner of the intersection of Francis and Garmisch and will be re- located from its current position. Internal drives will also be extended to the new homesites providing sufficient width and turnaround capabilities for emergency vehicles. With regard to utility connections the site is adjacent to and currently served with water, sewer, electric, gas, phone and cable TV connections from the street rights -of -way and the trail corridor that is south of the property and north of the Red Brick School building. New service connections will be constructed to the three additional homesites and existing services to the Given building will be upgraded or replaced as necessary. Easements will be provided on the Plat to accommodate driveways and utility services that must cross intervening parcels from the right -of -way. From a grading and drainage perspective, the parcel is located at the top of the embankment to the south of the Hallam Lake wildlife sanctuary. As a general matter, the intent of the grading, drainage and erosion control plan will be to minimize runoff leaving the site to the north and east in order to avoid sediment transport or slope erosion toward Hallam Lake. Since the property is adjacent to the large- diameter storm sewer main in the trail corridor along the south frontage, on -site drainage associated with impervious areas will be captured and treated on -site with overflow and final discharge routed to the storm system. 5 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 1 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 2.0 Project Background 2.1 Project Overview This subdivision application involves an existing privately owned parcel on the northeast corner of the Francis Street and Garmisch Street (formerly Center Street) intersection. It comprises all of Block 63, part of Francis Street and Part of Center Street as shown on the City and Townsite of Aspen Map as well as a portion of the NW Y, of the SW Y of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West and a portion of the NE % of the SE % of Section 12, T. 10 S., R. 85 W. all in the 6 Principal Meridian. The total parcel contains 2.276 acres more or less. The subdivision application proposes re- platting of the previously described parcel into 4 lots, which will comprise The Given Subdivision. Lot 1 will consist of the existing Given Institute structure on a parcel of approximately 21,685 square feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will provide sites for three new single - family residences. Lot 2 is approximately 23,502 square feet, Lot 3 is approximately 31,805 square feet and Lot 4 is approximately 22,166 square feet. Access will be provided via twin driveways off the northeast corner of the intersection of Francis Street and Garmisch Street. One driveway (the west access) will be extended to Lots 2, 3 and 4 around the north side of the existing Given Institute building. The second driveway (east access) will continue to serve the Given building independently of the residential access. Driveway alignments anticipate sufficient width and turning radii for emergency access. Grading design generally represents minimal disturbance to the site. Drainage design anticipates collection of runoff from new impervious areas and treatment of the Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) associated with the increased runoff from the site design. Discharge or overflow will be to the City of Aspen's major storm line in the trail corridor south of the site. Utilities are generally in place in the adjacent rights -of -way or the trail corridor. Any necessary disturbance to the trail corridor will be coordinated with appropriate City departments and utility providers. 2.2 Description of Existing Facilities The subject site currently includes the Given Institute building, a small wood -frame structure that houses a non - profit, a storage shed and a wood deck and marble and concrete patio that overlooks Hallam Lake. The subdivision of the property anticipates the off -site relocation or demolition of the small wood frame structure and shed. The Given building and the deck / patio overlooking Hallam Lake will be preserved. The Red Brick Arts Center parking lot just across the trail to the south of the site will be used for any parking needs associated with the continued non - profit use of the Given Building in addition to available on- street parking. 6 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 2 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 • Figure 1 Given Institute 2.3 Description of Proposed Subdivision The applicant intends to subdivide the subject 2.276 acre parcel into four separate lots. Lot 1 will be landmark designated, contain the historic Given Institute structure, and have a lot size of approximately 21,685 square feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be 23,502 square feet, 31,805 square feet, and 22,166 square feet, respectively, and all will be left vacant with defined building envelopes for future residential development. On the north side of the Given building there will be two lots (Lots 2 and 3) that back up to the bluff overlooking Hallam Lake and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES); these two lots are affected by the City's mapped Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area. Lot 4 will be created to the east of the Given building, between the building and the ACES property. A conceptual plan of the proposed subdivision is attached to the application. 6 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 2-2 Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 3.0 Project Infrastructure 3.1 Roads and Public Transportation Based on discussions with Aspen Fire Protection District officials, the two driveways are sized to provide a 12' gravel surface width with 2' permeable shoulders creating a total driveable (and plowed) width of 16'. One access will be provided to serve the three residential lots, while a second access will serve the Given building. The west access will serve Lots 2, 3, and 4 and will be approximately 280 feet long, measured from the intersection with Francis Street. The east access will generally follow the existing driveway into the Given's existing parking lot providing access to the Given building. This access will be approximately 145 feet long, measured from the intersection with Garmisch Street. The driveways will be spaced 41' measured from driveway centerline. A minimum centerline radius of 42.5' will be used for all driveway alignment horizontal curves to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Assuming the Given remains an active institutional venue, the residential lots proposed for the site will generate approximately 30 more daily trips from the site. Transit opportunities are located within a quarter mile along Main Street, while adjacent trails connect to the Post Office and Puppy Smith commercial area east of the site providing convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to the site. 3.2 Storm Drainage 3.2.1 General The existing topography for the proposed development area of the Given Institute Parcel is reasonably flat ranging from approximately 1.5 percent in the south and westerly directions to approximately 3% in the north and easterly directions. Existing ground cover consists of impervious areas in the form of gravel drives, gravel parking areas, concrete and buildings (approximately 17 percent impervious). Pervious areas consist of well maintained landscaped grass, bushes, and native vegetation made up of perennials, grasses, mixed forbs and other natural bushes. In addition, there are pine, aspen and other species of trees on site. There are steep slopes to the north and east of the property that will not be subject to development. These areas have a slope in the neighborhood of 2 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit (2H: 1V). The slopes are densely vegetated with natural grasses, brush and trees that prevent erosion and /or rills from occurring. As mentioned above, the proposed project will divide the existing parcel into four lots, with residential residences constructed on three of the lots. However, the overall impervious area for the entire parcel will be reduced to approximately 16 percent due to the removal of a large portion of the existing gravel drives and parking areas, in addition to some of the existing structures and proposed access drives being constructed of porous gravel pavement (PGP) per the Urban Drainage Flood Control District's "Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 ". It is the intent of the project to disturb as little of the overall parcel as possible, leaving the topography and ground cover for the undisturbed areas in their existing condition. Topography for disturbed areas associated with the construction of the residences will be graded to drain towards the PGP drives or detention areas (if used) and landscaped to provide a vegetated cover. 5 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 3 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 3.2.2 Previous Drainage Studies According to the National Flood Insurance Program's FIRM mapping, the site is in Zone "X" for areas determined to be outside of the 500 -year flood plains of the Castle Creek and Roaring Fork Rivers. The "Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen, Colorado" (SDMP) estimates the amount of expected surface runoff, its direction of flow, analyzes the existing drainage facilities to determine which facilities cannot convey the expected surface runoff without flooding and provides recommendations on which facilities to improve, in addition to how. According to this report there are three drainage systems that collect runoff and convey it through the City of Aspen to the Roaring Fork River. The report locates this Project in sub - watershed 18 of system 3 (shown on Figure ES -2 of the report). Storm water drainage associated with the north portion of this sub - watershed is directed toward the Roaring Fork River as overland flow. Stormwater associated with the south portion of this sub - watershed is collected in the City's storm water drainage system to be conveyed and discharged to the Roaring Fork River. According to the SDMP the existing system facilities associated with this sub - watershed do not have the capacity to convey the 10 -year return frequency flood. To improve the City's storm water drainage system in areas where it is undersized the report recommended three alternatives, which the City chose Alternative 3. For system 3, this alternative placed high priority on construction of an extended detention basin (A3B2) located at the southwest end of Puppy Smith, installing larger reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) along Garmisch Street from Hopkins Avenue to Francis Street, installing larger RCP along Francis Street to Garmisch Street and installing larger RCP from the intersection of Garmisch and Francis Streets to the proposed extended detention basin. As mentioned above in Section 2.1, discharge or overflow from proposed impervious areas will be to the City's storm water drainage system in the vicinity of the intersection at Francis and Garmisch Streets. However, as previously mentioned in this section the City's storm drain system serving this area is currently undersized. Until improvements to the City's drainage system in this area are complete, inclusion of additional drainage flows from the project may have adverse effects to either the Project's or City's drainage system. To prevent any possible adverse effects that may be caused with the inclusion of drainage flows from the project to the City's system an analysis to determine time to peak for the City's storm drain system in this area would be conducted. From this analysis it would be determined if storm drainage from the project should be discharged into the City's system before or after the peak flow passes the Garmisch /Francis Street intersection. It should be noted that this analysis is conditional on approval by the DRC and would be included as part of the "Grading and Drainage Plan for Major Design" should the project move forward. 5 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 3 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 3.2.3 Drainage Sub - basins The existing parcel has four main sub - basins, which are shown on sheet 2 of 3 and summarized in the following table. a s c �+�_'aia^�.rur ;a s. .�. r G F Y v "r S .eat I L f �i { - #�i°c' r .. m .,uc3u.l.ma'sY' P aw c;A According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service the hydrologic soil type classification for all sub - basins associated with this parcel is "B ". Ground cover is as described above in 3.2.1 and the main sub -basin drainage pattern associated with this parcel is that all drainage occurs as overland flow under sheet flow conditions. The only exception to this pattern is that sheet flow in sub -basin 4 is consolidated into channel flow at the south property boundary and routed to the City's storm system through inlets located in Garmisch and Francis Streets. Sub -basin 1 discharges to the west side of the parcel, but is redirected towards the Roaring Fork River at or near the parcel boundary. Sub - basins 2 and 3 discharge to the north and east, respectively, over the embankment towards Hallam Lake Nature Preserve. There is no "one" specific discharge point for sub - basins 2 and 3. Proposed sub - basins will be the same as existing sub - basins with the exception that discharge points for drainage flows associated with impervious areas in sub - basins 2 and 3 will be routed in a manner to eventually discharge into the City's storm drainage system. Post discharge rates will be maintained to, or less than, pre discharge rates for each sub - basin. However, the Engineering Department may allow a higher discharge rate for the sub - basin contributing to the City's storm water drainage system at a later date as the Project moves through the approval process and more detail will be provided. See the last paragraph in Section 3.2.2 above. Review of topographical maps and photographs, in addition to a site visit indicate that off site drainage does not impact the project parcel. It appears that off site drainage is either collected in the City's storm drainage system before reaching the project site or conveyed past the project site in the City's streets. 3.2.4 Low Impact Site Design In an effort to preserve the natural drainage and treatment system of the Project Parcel, proposed impervious areas are being kept to a minimum. The existing access drive and parking areas will be replaced with a porous pavement, PGP or equal. Proposed access drives will be constructed using porous pavement, also PGP or equal. Impervious areas will discharge to shallow grass -lined swales where infiltration can occur as the storm drainage is conveyed to the porous pavement. Detention cells beneath the porous pavement will be installed at select locations that will allow infiltration of the drainage to occur. The number of detention cells will be determined at a later date as they are dependant on the last paragraph of Section 3.2.2 above. Given Subdivision Engineer Report 3 -3 Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 3.2.5 Hydrologic Criteria According to the URMP this Project would be considered a sub -urban development and as such frequencies for the 10 and 100 year design storms were used to size storm water drainage structures. Design rainfall data found in Table 2.2, Chapter One of the URMP for these design storms was 1.2 inches for the 10 -year storm and 1.69 inches for the 100 -year storm. The time of concentration was computed and the rainfall intensity was individually calculated for each sub -basin for the 10 -year and 100 -year storms. Runoff coefficients were also individually determined for each sub -basin using Figure 3.2 of the URMP. The area of each sub - basin, both pre and post - development, is shown in Section 3.2.3 above. The calculated rainfall intensity variable, runoff coefficient and area were used in the Rational Method Equation to determine design runoff drainage flow rates associated with pre and post - development conditions. Credit was not taken for impervious areas in calculating pre - development flow rates for the minor event. Proposed detention is designed to maintain existing flow rates for all sub - basins. Calculations can be found in the appendices. Exact sizing for the residential structures will not be complete until the project moves forward. As such, the water quality capture volume (WQCV) has been approximated for each lot and is shown on calculation sheets included in the appendices. 3.2.6 Hydraulic Criteria The only hydrologic criteria required are the discharge structure and piping to connect to the City's storm drainage system. As previously discussed, modeling necessary to determine hydraulic capacities to connect to the City's storm drain system are dependent on whether or not the DRC approves the Project and the Developers decide to move the project forward. 3.2.7 Proposed Drainage Facilities The project will maintain a natural type of drainage and treatment system using grass lined channels, on site infiltration and porous pavement. Sizing calculations can be found in the appendices and on sheet 3 of 3. 3.3 Water Supply The Given Subdivision development site is located adjacent to a 12 -inch diameter cast iron water line in Francis Street and North Garmisch Street. The 12- inch main represents a minor trunk line interconnecting the smaller- diameter distribution lines in the West End neighborhood but does support service taps where the smaller mains are not accessible. Water service for the proposed residences in the Given Subdivision will be from individual service taps off a 6 -inch diameter fire hydrant line from the main in the Francis / North Garmisch intersection. As with other development within the downtown Aspen area, provision of water service is subject to the normal tap fees and connection requirements. This development will likely require three 2 -inch taps onto the hydrant line off the 12 -inch water main in the intersection. We would also anticipate reviewing the material and condition of the service to the Given 6Given Subdivision Engineering Report 3-4 Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 building and replace it if necessary. The Water Department has sufficient water supply to serve the additional residential structures and will require access to the water meter remotes and curb box valves for each service placed within the City right -of -way. 3.4 Fire Protection Fire protection is currently provided to the area by existing fire hydrants at the southwest corner of Block 64 at the intersection of North Garmisch and Hallam Street (approximately 290 feet from the site entry) and on the northwest corner of Block 56 at the intersection of West Francis Street and North First Street (approximately 345 feet from the site entry). y >" = £^, 'r€ k a4,0- Figure 2 Fire Hydrant SW Corner Block 64 (Red Brick) Fire protection provided by the existing hydrants in the vicinity is just outside the preferred spacing of 500 feet between hydrants (measured along the street frontages) or a maximum of 250 feet from a hydrant to any building site. Based on my conversation with Aspen Fire District Fire Marshal Ed VanWalraven, we have shown a new fire hydrant on the utility plan at the site entrance. This would provide a hydrant within 250 feet of all of the homes within the Given Subdivision and also provides a neighborhood benefit of additional fire protection coverage for other existing homes in the vicinity of the intersection. From a fire access standpoint, the site plan for the Given Subdivision currently anticipates gravel driveways with a surface width of 12 feet and a reinforced clear width of 16 feet to accommodate fire access. In the event the driveways are paved, they would have 12 feet of pervious pavers and 2 feet on each side of grasscrete or other pervious support structure. In addition to the fire protection provided by the additional fire hydrant, the proposed buildings will be protected by residential fire sprinklers and alarm systems, pursuant to current Fire Codes. 5Given Subdivision Engineering Report 3 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 3.5 Sanitary Sewer I spoke with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD, the District) Superintendent Tom Bracewell on November 18, 2010. Tom indicated that there are two potential options for connection of sanitary sewer services from the homes on the Given Subdivision site. There is a 15 -inch diameter collection trunk in the Francis / Garmisch intersection that flows east down the trail corridor on the south frontage of the site. The main disadvantage to the trunk line is that portions of it may be in the range of 18 to 20 feet deep and a service or short main extension connection may represent difficult construction. The second option is an existing 8 -inch VCP line in part of the platted alley in Block 55 directly west of the property. The VCP line is an older main that is probably much shallower and may represent an easier connection from a construction standpoint than the 15 -inch line south of the site. The disadvantages to this option include the fact that Tom indicated, if we tied into it, we may need to replace all of it over to North First Street since VCP sewer lines are typically older lines in poor condition. The other disadvantage that we see is that the alignment to the west, even if it may be in a platted alley, is not a developed or paved alley for much of its distance and may be perceived by adjacent landowners as part of their landscaped yards. We may have the legal right to go into that corridor but I would anticipate some resistance, right or wrong, to that alternative. Our recommendation is to connect to the 15 -inch main in the intersection of Francis and North Garmisch. While this may entail some deeper construction, we feel that it remains a better option than some of the potential constraints that may be associated with heading across the landscape areas to the west. Our internal configuration currently anticipates constructing a combined service connection with a single tap to the main. This will require a Shared Service Agreement among the lots within the subdivision. Mr. Bracewell noted that treatment capacity is available from the ACSD to serve the additional demand associated with the proposed development of the Given Subdivision subject to compliance with ACSD Rules, Regulations and Specifications. All improvements must be completed and accepted by ACSD before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for any of the buildings. 3.6 Electric Service Electric service to the Given Subdivision parcels is from the City of Aspen's distribution system. There is an existing transformer on the property just southeast of the Given building (approximately the south end of the parcel boundary between proposed Lots 1 and 4). There are also major switchgear cabinets on the northwest corner of the Red Brick School property (Block 64) just south of the Given entry. The existing transformer appears to be for single -phase service. In the event three -phase service were required or additional capacity were required to serve the additional homes, increased primary capacity is available from a very short distance away. 6 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 3 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 }3 . 'far. C {#3P� ✓ - - y x � -t`i d� '� p. • F l r t+, eu r, . E ttrki it a , Figure 3 Transformer and Gas Meter, South Frontage 3.7 Gas Service Gas service to the property is currently entering at the south frontage adjacent to the electric transformer with a single meter serving the existing buildings. Gas service for the proposed residences will require an extension of the service line with individual meters at each residence. The current meter would be re- located to the Given building in a suitable location. 3.8 Miscellaneous Utilities Buried telephone and cable television lines are currently located in the trail corridor with an existing phone system pedestal at the entry to the Given property. Line capacity for cable television and additional phone service should be available in proximity to the site. 5 Given Subdivision Engineering Report 3 - Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 Appendix A Drawings Sheet Description C1/1 Schematic Utility Plan 1 of 3 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Vicinity Map 2 of 3 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Existing Conditions 3 of 3 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Proposed Conditions 5 Given Subdivision Engineering Report Appendix A [This page was left blank intentionally.] Given Subdivision Engineering Report December 2010 Appendix B Drainage Calculations Sub -Basin 1 Pre - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 1 Post - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 1 WQCV Sub -Basin 2 Pre - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 2 Post - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 2 WQCV Sub -Basin 3 Pre- Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 3 Post - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 3 WQCV Sub -Basin 4 Pre - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 4 Post - Improvement Conditions Sub -Basin 4 WQCV 6 Given Subdivision Engineering Report Appendix B This page was left blank intentionally.] a a a 2 ii N of mm 0 N O 2 A W LL LL r N u m E E m E N O O y G O IL IL .t' 0 0O 10." l0. 0 a) O N W 1 O 0 O C Z O O N c O O O N !w P _ N G O Uc r z g 0, 0 t >. o 4 ~ ' E c Z N d C C y C W y d C N V b II = II y o O W a • W 1E C C 1 0.' !C C O 3 • a o 0 0- E c 0 O 0) c m o V V 3 c d u d K o O t u E '.0 `.c o II n d' o W c o 0 r C c O 8 — 0 11 II o. f r . m E K 5 d 5 y en a i° CO y L 0 o r' m> II c c W O 'S] E ; N 0 6 = C y 0 c J o O y y • o rn,°t c° > Y O H d o 11 U ry m IU d o d E i a �' i a m rn II 11 2 c a ' c ' c m m 0 m LT_ LL a m a _ o 0) Y > 3 5 E E Z o o o d y II II m c d N 3 o O o p E o a Q E. 0 N 9 J O U N LL LL 3 c O ` IS J II _ ° II 11 I I Y 0 W 0 0 1- N DS c 2 5 F U U_, 0 F i> g Z E = o O 0 ° 'U a. < r O N • at N w w U v v a 0 0 E 4- -u 0 5 5 55 E 5 'c N a C C C C y C m _ O w 3 a £ J d n c'� O n th ' co h 11 11 9 0 N f0 0 N t0 O a. X 12 2 E 1 g N N O N N D ry E n 4 y y v E reii > d OD O II c c CO E S o 0 c r E E Y y I O O O �. a V C 1 0 I I y W + X N c 0 r c j ° , E E 5 . o d d O + II I 0 I I I I r O m o U j� r r C o E S m II a n 4 { la . c � '' 1 2 -6 £ v E °o E y a y w 5 'N ? C u m • O 0 S O1 m L C y C ° 0 3 N m • m m •J a c c c a y a v y 0 o) n rn �cw U > y 0 c m 17 r. m e a O 0 O � - ,- z N O N r i0 12" 0 U y a.a + M 11 11 O + II 11 C 0 0 E O n V 0 0 m t0 0 Si m U L c W O E t_ I1 H a o> 0 0 a-- • II I1 11 6 a 0 E 0 r r I- 1- I- I- r r r'0 0 W 2 7 _1 O 1 LL LL O 2 7 • CC N 2 O F a a O ce ce v 2 r > O L O e‘i N d U N N 2 I- v v W I- I- c 2 o rn O w N W N O N K a a f E a LLl c II m 7 y y c a s r u c c ; 2 N N L U m N V 0) CJ I"- CO O C 0 )O N 0 CO V) c U o o o o v n a == L O j N o CO V U m 0) d y m ' .., v ` v ) m ii LL V a, 2 w D N. H <9 O 8 N ' Y . I- O g 1 11 N II II N n o co o n o o 8 c M d ' a d . d CO N it O N C .c05. O O a v r p t+) N 2 N a � II > N L j o C C cc U it II it a 11 11 a` o a o c7 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 11 11 11 II II S ' v U . - Y O O To To O O . o _ ° > I-1-2 Z o a ` ° • N Z O 11 C O ad a m c E E o C K a Z a v rn a N E 11 `c 8 w a cc 7 Of cfi CO \ c2 c 01 z d ui °° // co NI ye § e , ^` ° a) ;{ ƒ LLI \ ){ _ o )/ k in- I !{ - — � ,f ! ! - $\ ! ) i , - t| ; ix o &af§ ®! » # _ \! : _ e: 2 ( f] r 2 2 ] ) _ li g ZEj _\ /t 0 0 _ - E {)k \\\\\ % Z ) co - ! 1 a 11 11 11 11 Ct CO To � e2: z:, 0 ( \ \) 0 _ k , 7, ).z ) \ ( � \ \ \) \ � \ = ) -o ) � }) Fr ! / � ) + \ u Hn20 } )& && /} I- 0 W 2 7 — 0 LL LL 0 z 7 K N 2 0 F- O a a -p 2 2 2 0 C a' L 0 D D c d E F N N c O 2 N N a 0 0 W P_ C 2 m m 0 C W 1- H C O N l° 1Z C a d m F E N c m ,42 O 41 n c a 1° a a s o a D r o y y' e a> in O N U y m N N N C U N n h h N m 0 . N N ° O O �- O O o: a> m co" m 5 m °E to ° co aM 7 o. ` o a a Z ' a F c n y m m m co it LL m— O W CO V N O O) C) LO y To O O> IO 11 11 N 11 11 1� 10 0 C O a . p tt ¢ CO o ea nN 0 0 = • m o C) V le d: a d_ n co co V '° 75 N d ° V p ° E °> N o N m L U II H a 1 >> a a o CV CC II II II II > N ° ° 11 _ a le O a 11 11 11 11 11 11 II y 11 11 11 II 11 11 m m 10 m o ¢ a cc cc .= m K a' m m d m o d o g n E Y Y ¢`a` aa ` V< Li — — o c 6 To To > ; a = > oo2o '° 0 a m 11 - m c E a o C E a CI 11 E 3 c ` ° 8 11 a Y m m a m a > c \ | In Lo oa tic k 2 - o > co © 22 N. m i co § II / G ) E . _ G a § 03 II a co / co co To 5 | . . , 0 « [ - 0 q§ \ # mf CO k \ . 0. 0- 11 11 11 11 . f �� ) ) . \ )) ) \ 0 / - ! co 11 \ > ± / > o co j / r \ ° �etpma _em)nOM ■ 2 \\\\ 0 000 a ~ o R " @: ° !} n ! § ®- )¥ { \ ; ; / j \ /7 ¥ # t j \ II _ _ ; r! !! . , - Ii I f; E § }) } }j({ r: 11 c al _ _ 6 ° C \ # -- § \k \ } \ ! E § } 2 � > > 0> \ / 2 ii ! / } r •- - k , in ? z ii 11 n e it E D 12 2 ±k o LB ! « ° ; „ to \ ) f f f ff f f $ 1- 13 \ } \ 11 ;q : §q j/ }� 2 \\ 2E , II 11 _ -§ 0 !ƒ fa /- - \ { ) ( { am \) ) )) o / 0 \ \ ii 11 ® 1 / H e ,e 1 e I- I- 4 2 W 2 7 J 0 LL LL O Z D re 0 Z 0 H O 0 Z K K O > > y ✓ N N 5 1— N N Z N N N W n .o C 2 H H W > W N l0 Q! O 5 K C a E 2 C O rc N I I 11 a a : $ a N K L 8" D N N Z D D a U d 01 r ` ` c c Z Z ( N N L O C a h U co 0 V O Q . N O O O O O 0— M w E N 7 7 D o F O M T O p N N in N La_ LL C C 0 ` O = W ( n O N N O O Q^ C 0 N 11 11 N II II n o LO I.-- o a o v , 0 s A A. N i i a i > mo ° 0 0 0 a' T c i < 4 d p. 4 d a II II U II 11 t II > > n > I — a` o O a ti a n n n I I n 11 11 11 d 11 11 n n w o v w 1= 8 d ;c- `v rc ' a E Q Q Q Q .- M E -1 - _ m m 7 , z N z Q V U G o oo 0o — - A > � - o To 1- 1- z•z 23./ a E I - + rc ea c te c o N N ` 7 o d d E d E n r E 3 ii c — o U LL Y W a d a a a 2 2 it CC D D ivi N 0) N) 0 s .0 cn LL co di O E y U E N Z LL CC C 7YC LL O Y O) CO O O O O ~ .. N V O C N O O O N • N O i y p o A $ s • • C N c C r rn y d s c Z C C N a) N W'PII E it o d m 2-0E0 - w a g W o 02 11 d T w >.c u o d `a U N C co O ) u II c a O 3 a CO m CO CD .c E - O °p N cc CD 1-6 O 7 d W o .E 0 c O C M F I p r O N J O r J N E m,t c o LL E L T a a) •c a U a c .. u i m m « a co O to 0 p L N o $ N o 2 C E 0 a y a ` o � v t� E a c o >> o c d it U o 3 E c Z `� m O N v L d n O OJ o rc v d t Y J v r E S O A CD C CO O C a C LL LL U « L O N a C C L } « O d., ❑ w 0 p � E M rnr rn ).> N 3 °. Z Z w m.=_ o o E 3 o o LL 5 z F E = w O. U F. II II I �I II I I Y K = E 'c U) N ? w o O II w U co a`) a =r O v) , > > y E m ° E v a J °o N N N 2 N K p 0 E J N N W W II o_ 3 x o 5 5 5 O o 5 E o Q N U ` y c c C N `) c 11 - �'E g E .E E a E F " E 5 u) a o o a a - - - w . v 2 0. a) o d to t .t E to n d N J C -- - M ni d d II 11 co-- + 7 X EC 3 E H F o ° o E E c p 11 11 o n _ _ r r r ? W y a C .-_ E o W w a U fa C O° O 0 C O C C O ' •N N O W C C c m y -_,„ a O c ma N c not ` w U i m v a O L u u rn5 - 2 C t `o w E r rn > r w e N o a + O) O + p C o C L c O O c O U E 5 r r ` o E d y E cll N II II II p 11 II II a i n N v -c as > 0 r H r H r 0 E ❑ W 2 D J O LL LL O Z D d' N Z O F d Z 2 2 . 7 O Z U j j H N N Z N ,Ni 0 Q W w w 0 C W F F N 2 CC 0 '' m 0 O. 5 f c F CO o d co a I I II = 6 co M N d d S 2 ' of v m m c 8 o o ] • h ° Lo U O Z a' a' N N ' N >> s Ua`a` �'G Ti . < ca 4 N N Y O M M co N (O O GI M M 6 C 4.) t0 N 6 t0 10 0 O co ry E o 0 0 0 o In N o, CO v GI J J 0 V- N N c. V o N h '^ O O C_ C J cr 6 N O v, w N w N LL LL W E c. W M O 1- n C 1 Y e = - p 0 II 11 N I 0 IC CC _ I CO O m m N O O N Ii M V d d d _ ix K O O N N h = L J Q X o a $ e V Cn N M N U II 11 t o a U¢ a CD n O a' II II II II II M M 11 a "F 0 0 0 a j 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 y 11 11 11 11 11 11 N N N n O ¢ tt¢ .0 41 CC a' d v d m o b o o _ n E > Y ¢¢ y¢ K U - _ J o 0 ��'z ° °a w 2 c o O. a I F CO E J o re K 0 a a d 11 - m 3 N c o o U 11 LL Y a m a > a c v n N a I 0 O \\\\ :09 N E 7 o t 0 d > N r > d V N r N a E Z Iii to 0 C a a a N H 0 o o X 4) rn a 2 2 t N o C o o n E II II II II N a s C U 1 W Ln co N C Q Ta 30 o 2 0 co O E E N Lo 3 11 i C d 0 > M N N 10 6 0 0 U O O 0 O O O a (sayaui paysJa ;em) A3OM 3 co m ) 9 )!/ z d ¥ < P {| C) - 2 - \ -0 !! # { : E .E II co � ~ 5 k ) §t}" � / 0 } - § °)� }) ) , \ 0; ){ -J _ I— —1 E ;§r {! _ � !! , § , {) : �a� ® : = 7 { \ \ ! �- 33 ! § >tHIIL — 2 ~ — c > § '5 — \ 0 CO ®) 2 / !Q ! J E II — HOO z -J , ; 0 a & t E ▪ '5 i< k f] E S — 111 o ) ° } 11 11 ){ \& 101 )f 0 ▪ 0 co 11 & § # 11 0 \ \/ r )\ } c co \\ t)f / f - _ ,E / } ;' \ \ §] } \ § } } w } I- 0 W 2 7 J 0 LL LL 0 Z D Z N z 0 H o 2 2 0 z K K r o DD v 0 N N 2 F N N Z N N A W C ce 2 I- H C W 0 O rn W 1 j N 0 IX a E 2 o N c II II d « m t o_ o K Z a a Z >> ` , T a`a` • u u == c c t m o m r o In (n N N 2 d C t0 N W r-- O Q w w P 0 E _ 0 0 0 0 0 4 m _ a f0 > j v a on m ` o p N N co `N LL ILL - c c • W h c b M N O O = Y — I r ce r 11 11 co 11 11 A O K N en N O O O O ' t J M O g o a> d In O In r-: N M K II II U II II ~ _. a L II > a' ° a > I a H d a a a. ix II II a II it II n n Qj n n 11 11 co co „° a ;`- °' rc n E • u3 ui a c oa Si. F. n 0 a ) II - ' c to C E a E= a K C y U O a a a m a N E II n 3 o 8 u N Y a d a 0. m cc D ii co 0 cci co \t . t.- mr z o ` \ ° {$ Z !: o / \} : ! }� . , , � _ : ¥ ° k) o _ s ` - _ Q_ l ; k — - - - 0 _ f§ % §\\) \j g{ \( 11 ) w: — .. cc ! ! § — § E ! \ / \ a i - 2 \ ) k co \ \ % \ \ ( \ • 11 11 II In 1- « _j, 0 : ( 0 ws - d co }/} 5 \ \ \ k s a \ ( \ } cD �` \ \/ \ ` 11 H H \ Z \ WI a is |i§ \ \ 1-1-1-1- + \ a + \\ \ - } }2 } & \ j\ 0 k 0 > k re 0 k 7 1- - } 2 . # E -- c c w \ x k -r E 2 | 11 , 11 ; 7 ) ! } a 2 . _ -- - � 4 III \\\( }.07 t. G \ \ ` \} � \\ - ‘ , ! „ 0 , _ > ! 2! / i) a66 o » « < <%ci }{ ) - 0 / /{){ c f o 2 2 E - ; r. w ii ro a. > 0 0 c a> n N a I 0 - _-- ___ - - - -- - -- o u) rn 0 rn N CO r ., W c E ° k. O n ° > > 0 0 o a = ` m 3 0. in S M co ° to Z ( i co 11 Q r m II c 7 m' al N ( f+ a 0 it 0 To o N k v N in cc al V) o w c) C N O m m ° ° > Q d ON E E in y II II II II x N 7 co W co N 113 O ° in 0 N N Q a N C Q i W N To" ~ y a w O o a a v H m 11 n 3 r u > / ! 0 a d > M in N In to 0 N ° O U ° ° o o o a (sayaul paysJa;em) A3OM a a a 2 2 CC >> ci N N d M M N n or er n LL LL I- co U E E u E O O .t N .t O (q LL LL co 2 C 2 LO IL Z C O N ! N 10 10 Ip I0 O N n 0 a C O O co O O M 0 O O P. co O r O N 4 N C Z t Y O CU L ° U ? c t g m a p w Z C G II o E N W'ma 2 a C o N N 0 11 0 O To O al > £ o c 0 II c 0. a `I C o _ o E. O o w 7 o C E E o r . p ' O a' r. rn E U O n 5 w 0 o a T. o I o ' n 0 o C II 1 a 0 . O c c C 0 0 LL C O U 0 N II a Q 0." E co C 11 0 W o o E f ° E K K c s '0 3 o 0 0 J H J C[ d m ' u 3 v 9 ( 1' o c E d o A c 5 m m N N Z E I C L > a i> `o c CO c II O ' � E c_ c U U > N LL LL L CO . O C N (O Y O LL C - E E Q L O y II II C; C � o LL J .t. U m co RI O C °O S 9 g J O 0 LL CO Z Z U O O O B t E' N 11 Z w II 1I II II Y 5 z = E m._ o o a o N g as o F U U <n F> x 0 E N J > La U E co N i_ a ^ O N N ~ N N N N E II II p i 0 0 0 - 0 3 y O C C U C C c 2 C H o .z, K = ' E E E E E r33. ui . E 2 m E 0 > o rn N m - a w o m c II E E @ E L 0 J N W O N N a> 7 1- Vl 10 Q O ^ + Q X 'L N I m N a £ w F r m CO ° d E E N C 11 11 co 11 11 p p 0 7 E - 0 11 a o H F o rc w v CI- 7 -2 m E a 0 w a r m C O N O t C - C ' O ‘7) A O N 2 C a N J a C C C a 0 n d O Of n v w U . w m a . : Z c w U U P._ N U S 0 0 0 0 I- W 4-5 > H N C a s + co II II o + II 11 C o c E$tt o o v a m O F F 0 0 E a cv .. F - 3 I- - 1 0 0 N .N E W 0 0 p w II II II n E 0 x 0 Fn°o 0 F NI- I-I{15 HE 0 W 2 D J 0 > a a LL 2 2 LL K K p > > Z N N D N N Z m m N a a Z 0 1 m O 5 o m P c N ID 3 E r Z o 0 O L U 1O F w 1 1 2 a z a • 6 o " 5. io K W K K v U o o O m m 2 D D t ~ o a s G U C C C C > N N a m N M m W n n N O of of p m E K o O n n r m Ic m re m m 'm — _ 0 0 O O h CO 06 N O. j j y w O j N 2 m C C • 7 c N m N CO LL LL- 6 O C W 0 W . co O O O 7 N !` q N fo to b II 11 N II 11 IX a n o m rv° M o o . & poi v U 1, n 1 d o d d o W N R. CO 11 11 n o 8 11 a s 0 E to (7) 11 11 11 11 11 II 11 11 d 11 11 11 II Q N CO m CO u 0 ;r_ d ¢ L m Si m ` = o M v w • a Q 12 t d§ m 7 0 75 U 0 8 0 m m m 11 ° 0 c o. E11 E = o a Z E y J a a 2 m N 6 E 11 II c o u LL I ll Y a m m a D el- iii rl CI 42 co ca oi )t! a )! \ CI § 0 ` ° L. L. z ® 0 E6 € E g \/ 0 2 u c §f , ! CC ,!\ - !§ _ $t' _ & ! ; rmlr E% ƒ k ;[ 11 ! w: 2 {\ ! ` a .!) ) 2 \ � ' _ ! § ( Z \ _ \ / — u_ co 2 ® ~ ```r co - 5 E \ \\ \ } /\ ) 0 ! 0 0 co —=r1) ; ) . . ] / c7) co } > , , k \ \ \ - E 2 g cm co ii o . . \ k } \ \ \\ 0 \ $ 0 \\ co H n 2o \ }& } & / } H 0 k 0 > u. U. J CO 0 o o \ 2 | 1- tsi § - - > co co 0 X ) B _ &> o ,lm; §1 0 ' CO k {)// } «« __ —a. ] 7 ® _ LC 03 D --! \k _ 0 ) ; � we \ a_ QS 1; © - \ ° 0. Izz, /}§ 00 » -- \\/ ) 2] })k \ a cu 11 g �o o / ` o. Eil ; ) - \ a. > 0 d c a) n N Q 1 O \\\\'\ O O a n N W Y N c E O H O ^ •a > CO (.0 > O G V r L r m CO er Z I 7 os to F4 CC 02 , C co a v o. c o = o = N T Z • COOO o U Q 0 m a co N a) a E E ' a) N > II II II II x o V N N N N R N 0 a y N C a L W > 3 w H • E E L -.- O a) to O O. E d n c ro d 0 Mir) N � r o o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 u' (say3ui paysm:nem) AQoM • � \ /// j� �� ,-.1 C'" �� / .� I �I �� 4 /i Q. \-9-111 ' j " I N ° th 7 8gd at O / _ y -: - Lrt ___ __,,, \ (_,,/ ( - a cy o ( / ' / i 1 / ' _ : ///c_ . - : --- Ric e. 2 3 __ ,,, 1 [ _ . --_, I Li L5 tq _____H - A , - i i __________, ________, c .__._ i ----r i : 1._:_„.1..,:, , :1 : ,, _„„:: : , _:: , 1 — — — to , / _ .., __ u 1 .:// Li_ I , _ _ , _ ___ ___ _ / t .:___ t-_ _______ , _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ „ _ / _ _ ,„_______ _ zt_ E 0 — 1 , — I I , - / __ __- / / _ „ / 4 ' es • _ / , - / ..1) :-.)- i L - ._ - , ,_ , K-_- 1----- ' , 4 , , . ; 1 _ c , 3 4, 1 S : _______ ti://:_si c:,_,/,::/::,/ / 4: 7 , , / , \)i , \ :if i: K_______ iii n, � _ °�A ��� l C/- l l _A i / l � � 7 _ - 1 �Y- N _ l / _ ' / J rt.---17:- ; I l /� i l , � l l N , , r . 'iii ' / , t ' �y {s - � : - • l / / ` i ill ` 3 ( 9 - U CT � � l _ �-� ---__J - l l ' _ -�_ \� _ i 0 cz / � � / _ l -11 l _ 11 r l q o ,, , , l ) l l < - CCC � ^ cf ' I - l c t %✓ �� � � l � l�� � � � �. D W IA � I l: - - � � lam- � � � l � � / � / _ 0 _ � II � II \ / / l �l l �1 1 / III '/ i �_ � � � / / / ` / _ /, / �\ /: , \ L \ , , _ i / t)t 4) J i i : _ / / // , De fight :�`l / moo- a ovi P.0 o cr Lc) hl _ � \� , 11 l � � o U O 777777 _ _ &/ j _ / i _ / L —lc: /t -1 - l l _sN ( W l l l l l ' e r, l -l_ l� N :� /�, C f 0 1 a / � U - / ll_i _ 11 - w U 6 ' -11 1 h `_7 \\ • w.ow, • o,or..o so *■ ,rr, Nor w,o N, ,... a.w,- ..0.vso.,io,ot - ate ..V.r- o,or/o,or/, o,° o a h e, o c) c, c, e) tl p O h o a ti k x R kffi . a �- n ti M . € 1 8 a 8 1 o A co o v b 2 R' o 2 2 2 m � � w C. N �` 2 W . O - O O id \ ti i °s ` c w C 0 o a LA. ' 3 O U Op o o N o j t - N h a- h h. ti ry Q Z k N ro O 'ti Li L 002 1 8 8 0 0 8 8 8 ' c x 0 8 8 8 8 � e a a a In i e' f z ° X131 iii/ i Z ti� E9 m 509 52 10 BIB'Ip OO N' _ 103 i' > - - -` - �' ., g N Op / i ,hpp VJ c N shoe o,� ° \_i o m i y Co 1�I 6 6 \ . El * 1 ^ od CI C ♦ e re s E j _ k ,' s " ° �` t +•'`� V �' .. E 1! ® � h ' ¢1 Y ( .n a ,. doY�f�e,� � ♦ A m° W y a �& yR a J .y , ^ pp e1M ,. r - "u * "°4 - t r �ol 1,(4., � � p ` . j � e L ' Npo 9 1 °W 1 )° 4 eee€ . 1 1 / EE / h ^ / Y2QB 'z 88 a to I " o s i � o°� T• 4 � - R V QNUO M 5 f- i = -r -! ___ ,5 S t e R a _ - 0.. " En- 1 Y / r 5 �Nw A ' C p ? . — - -_ — da. ZW1O c , 20 : W ' l .ri to a 0 1 No , �.5 �4, pac .._ 0 P * z m 19'05'£ ° � m � ^ rg A o • N0T v em ° "\ O 8 o No- /9'E m _ Z b .y i / U i g (3n Sg p ° 1 u m yI I = ° ;I Z ° ; A 2.1 1 0 &II 1 2 b r D ]ZIL N I W Z a o • 1 1 1 • W 17 owe eeo eo „ u neuere wean,, awe.., ea Pe ee.. e..,e_Y00_.xb,al.eb„lewe,ee .wel.rbwelowe„ , i l W p P s y� (y 6 2.' l :".4 R 33 q W 0 h ry ry =,, ` J ` 3 W g ° ° 4 o W o �J I C i l` W"1 ,, Z ° y 444° h N ; F �� �`cik �,y� roro �g Ci °! V ° t y , O O O° ^ 8 („ gW (Wfy o C 0 o y t y ! ^ , g ` V U N W g li y IQ ITTp O A h h N S p S O n ~ O RS q ° J0 N0 py 41 Y , z W W Wk O O O' ° O O O 'V IQ Ne, p ,g NN i, 2 WW Z ; 2 ,i 2 1 . �2 1�� rcitiP �? W qrp §, `\ ° 'O ^m v v ♦ W 4 R R S ; R VI 11) @ §� P J� " ti ti ti v i W 4 b O 4 .gj % z� $ �,W N pR u O $ - w o o . _ o o ' � 5 1 hF 02; . j c� i ct € P c1 s Ct 9 C ;: l'' m e . Q 2 4 5',:k f E -E g a J a CC 5 ° & ' g 8 8 '' 8 1 15 x _ 2 2 8 8 8 8 • 7 Pn , d 518 12 00PW I ° ° ° ° J soy it 51'µ1 0 0 ee 768 zy — —_—� e Q W V ,ao Y / "n i0 /286 Te * '- -- \ roc° r 1 — n 6 . M1 . ,.w , ti °J ti 1 s j W �O 4N g 4 ' q Li �' J a i ��. "o m�i ♦.� F ; m y� L..' J 2 ^ V ^I y u �J^ p,r I,,. 4 �� m spry ♦... t� • CS J *. 1 o 7 ' a l � � �.. _. i t„ r O eel / 1 j : i t 1 a 1 1 p I f� V. r mo b , us) 4 O 4 9)6 tio _ !�. \ ' � / /951, 1,44.4415:' 4j- . IA a 'c� Norfeose 1_ r� _ ° I - 1 1 / _ _ 1 Edge .� P 1\ ( 0 I� _ � � ; ge m � � � o m y� s NOgz6 19 "E p' p g ° ca = T � 9g 2 4 / , , N I V F � i W I F o a t. W p o i l n _.. Z Li O c LbON ] Z I w Z O • I I I . ,.,0 . . 0101 ai.. NI a•,,,, .,..,o ro P3 •'l 0 . , M - 100-...- o10elm.0 - NI.,OC704 - -4t01T_o,0tt.,a y lei lij T S 1 3 .) O S . m O J Z w 3 Q �Z�� :,¢ 2 w t 51i222z N ; h 33 h� �'• s k ? O ,, •, �u�W \ r -_ i ?F �2 e S . s `C+ HeSSSSSS 3CCc N w 8 I 2yyy _ II ; . '1 n �, �% �� 2tz'tz'uw W88 N- 4 ) 2 O f N J I m� Z t�I � W [ �Nm OW GN ¢ 1 ,I1 q r °. R U q ¢ y. Sys ?II 2 O w ` Q o ti m 0 T9 Ct tip '� i 2 s U ti P Liu ti s N ui C S c 3 b N" �W G o� � a A S r,) G& 4 = 1 _ l d 0 - I _. / , /' /Li ? l 9 e m - Ih 0 10 1k/ I a \ IO -: _ € _ __ Lt-- 8 w I g I Q m rt N gilt * U >J3 z Q� Doll W / aO3N¢rn yp , / � @ m y, j N o � p y y y � ¢ yl i 4 12 T R t 1.1 p P V f l J s ca " e I 1 fi g, N 3 b Iw - w� -, ro V q L 4.‘ N Lt � �'''' ', , O2 WoC¢ y$ �GI a' p W e to e �; •� m I 2_ L ie W O r 4° Z V ^ You �l __ —__— -�- ;... _ _._ ti m % L\ NC- 3. m Wg r I , 2 i 3` o O 2 m 1` 2 W � ¢ � +� >IOUI I 1 L 4 o��s m V b ,c¢ Z O�u1rNi titfri 1 s zOm 4Ti l a w� � I / 3 �2 I ,, fi e c I _ , .. p n � � La > c 4 0-. Q Qjl � r � .I. W t n L LO mm rk .4 m o m A g +, Iq0 7 4168 i ' i U lm � I I\ k^ .. R / ,y � , = �� o \ m \ a � I ir r 3 '� �T 3 - - �b I "r' .•NOl•'v ' ro - s lrl /sa OS rely _ y a il_ EdSr ow` . � � \ _ . u of � V/ W: P _ 9T 6.35' c ep _. -.... _ i.,94,6_ Q i pjO '� F W i 0 114 c;, vifi J N 2 No 2g 1 ur u • L E N a� bN z�n CT F w33 we 3 oO 2 W I I mw+vr wars owe +•o 80 Pet wow recut 0101 no ro W rn0$ r en- m- +x'- oIrcl..a- ✓lmor'too wvin -0,0tlolnl+ , Rail mr g ..1' !Pi . lig!lig 101 - CS1 ' PO , ' ti A _I re . 901:0 - . ' ''"NHii!.' = n■ ilE I- lb , 7} 2 1 g ° 1 ! IL w ,- Z 0 7,-, 0 • _ z F ' .::EN,•..,:f' - !"..i.,- - . .o -0 Z cc g2 - N— lir iii + = a_ o $ . 0 a., :-I • , I. g- .zi o 6 . I ,,_ , 1 I u. . :6' 1110 :ill:4K ii 2 r, l' ''''' 1 E . , 111101.11111111.i.1!,,ii*l,..' —§ i ! , A 'i ' o ' I B g I ipil!i: ' ?!!:', 2 8 , t.. i,..5.; . I I I, A 0 - i, 2 I 0 A a u) 1-gi 1-1 loaf _ 6 g . 4 I 1 I 1 g v g g 0: a . . . g 1 1 i a O- 0 . 8 w F - 05 1 $ gr i. 5t] '1 N' L 1-(a..-/ 7 10 --44 ,_. : 7, :. , ,. ..._.__,__-------___.----•O A \ - --- _ . / i l l : , •?...,,,,, „ •., , 1 ,---4 • , .----;=,-,-2,-..--'---------- —--"---------.--_---.,,.. _____.---:::----------$. ' 'i,. // -::::.-----, . ':- • __________—, / / / -,:—----':'------------------------- .------ mv ,----- ---- — - — ,' fre / 1 / \/ . '' .i. 4, ■ ,:: /. i : 7.) / i " ,_, _Z•__ / , 1 _ "; . ii , :et. ch ,.4:0 _P>' / / / / ' 11,,I Ili / * el l ii If 1 g I: iiii ! 7;:t Y i l / / :P (../ " as': 7 4 .C: ---..-/::::/ ''' I / / .., fr I) El / , ■ ---- -----/ , ..... .0. 4.--- ---/ /Al litli • -„ &s- oft i P Iiii . -- .=-w,t, t1.1) _ _i - / / I All `: / • - / P19J r/i. / ..•,.',0/.. 4, 7" / / ,9 z s P iii Z " / --/ k." 91 z D 2 ,..!..11 ■ / r N 7 .. ,.. ,p \ iii /: ,/•• - i, --,-‘,_, ., --- ( / / o # IP.i. / /." / - ‘; = _ ge 1 / 1 / \ / ' ' N --- - -____ il i 11 ° 1 A : / i g . § ce I ( I( \ A t 1 1 / F --- -- 7---- gli° ---- / ) - - _ I - 4" --, ---- -___ 1 ... go / i I A \. fiiii. 00 ,..--- • - l ,, 'd \ - __ I \ t -----__ / .. , f I , mu - -. 0 / \ , _ --.•I --:,- -_ ,....:,.. , i .v ID , .6; .4: a I 4 , 1 ...._ 1 \ \ ,Igg, --, 08 L.1 \ i .•.? / / , \ --- `; \ ___,. /,'. - - 1 • --,„,..._ kilt 6 „ 0, 6 ,,--„:;t*! A•4 4 , .* l' 1 L\ , 1 '`..# 1 i , 1 ; i / 1 / I 1 / I / in / / r / / r I / I i r 1 / (.3 1 1 r / i I I , i I , ; • ...,,,,.......-....17..===::