Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20110315
AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, March 15, 2011 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities Room 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 — A. 217/219 S. Third, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map B. 404 Park/414 Park Circle, Final Planned Unit Development (continued from 2/15) VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 8 MEMORANk2 . t- - -_ -. - r _ ... _ - - . - and Zoning Commission- . - TO: Aspen Planning g :. _ FROM Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning. Director RE: 217/219 South Third- Street- Map Amendment- (Rez0m1ng : : - _ _ Resolution No. , Series 2011 - Public Hearing - : - MEETING _ . - - EETING - DATE: March 15, 2011 - .. - - - - • - - • - _ APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: - YLP West, Inc. The Applicant is requesting Amendment to the Official Zone District Suzanne Foster Map to rezone_the _subject lot fromR -15 to Medium Density _ .. - Residential (R -6) A duplex or two detached residences is the LOCATION: maximum residential density permitted under the R -6 zone district. 217/219 S. Third Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission USE CURRENT ZONING & recommend recommends ap roval of the Amendment to the Official Zone itrict U recnd ap Located in the Map request. Moderate - Residential (R -15) zone district. A ;;,,t duplex dwelling is located on the lot. Under R -15 zone district regulations a , -- \';'' ,f` duplex may replace the present structure if it is , J; -`'' i (with the _r _ -��` demolished (wi opowillpOrre-P floor area of a single '�`_ i family residence): -----` Ai ' ' 5�: ....1116,1111L1 ,: ....•••" ,." ' - - Figure 1: Existing duplex 1 Page 1 of 8 1 P2 -.: SPECIAL NOTE: On February 2, 2010 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (rezoning) application on the property commonly known 217 and 219 S. Third Street. The applicant requested the property be rezoned from Moderate Density Residential_(R- 15) to Medium Density. Residential (R -6). The Commission voted 6 -1 to recommend denial of the application; liowever; the Commission suggested in the resolution that the Applicant resubmit "for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns- of the public." (Exhibit J) The Applicant is asking the Commission to reconsider the request to rezone the subject property and has now provided schematics of two development scenarios:. development of the site with a duplex and carriage house (Exhibit G) and development of the site with two detached residences (Exhibit H). This staff report provides the information presented in the February 2, 2010 memo as well as discussion on the two schematics presented by the Applicant, a new staff recommendation and resolution. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Suzanne Foster has requested approval to rezone the subject property from Moderate - Residential (R -15) to Medium-Density Residential (R -6). The existing lot is 9,942 sq. ft. and currently contains a legally established duplex. The property is located in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood and is adjacent to the Midland Trail. The Applicant, according to her application, is requesting to rezone the subject property to permit redevelopment of the site with • two detached residences. This is in option that is not presently. available to her, due to the size of the lot, in the R -15 zone district. • Page 2 of 8 F3 ki esitti c l w ..^ r a •,...r.,,...„.......„.,‘,.. 17 „ ,.„;„....„ 44,„ , . , 4, ...., , I4 , Ii ... . 5 — 3-- i.....ci y 'wNeP C' \-ma y -7 : • 4:. ,, ,.+', .,.jj� �. i a "! „ +"+. tee, __� ... 14,41--___, ../ '- - , : .411'," " *; 2. ' A . ' ' ' i.:1 Y, .'',$_?)4,, l ib i s. t ra, ,• Y ! ti so.. -. f, . Subject : ' r w. ( .— 1, Site 4� . ��; T _'' i . >ii4 T t � + 2.; • ,+1 ' r• V li• ‘. ' ' • ' 4 Y - 1 ' i''NitPpq.' , ry,, ' 1 _ Y. Figure 2: Vicinity map Permitt and Co nditional Uses Permitted and conditional uses for both zone districts are quite similar, the within T e c being the R -15 zone district the and conditional uses of each zone district. ft Agricultural t The fo table outlines p Table 1. Permitted and Conditional Uses with the R-1 5 and R -6 zone districts posed: R -6 Existing: R -15 Pro Permitted Uses - Detached residential dwelling - Detached residential dwelling - Duplex - Duplex -Two detached residential dwellings o detached residential dwellings -Home occupations -Home occupations - Accessory buildings and uses - Accessory buildings and uses - Accessory dwelling units and - Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses carriage houses Conditional Uses -Arts, cultural and civic uses _Academic u al e and civic uses - Academic uses - Agricultural uses - Recreational uses - Recreational uses -Group home - Group home -Child care center -Child care center - Historic landmark properties: - Historic landmark properties: bo boarding and bed and breakfast and boarding house Staff Comments: As shown above, the permitted and conditional uses within the two zone districts are practically identical with the exception of agricultural uses which are not permitted in the R -6 zone district. Page 3 of 8 P4 - - Dimensional Standards - As noted in Table 1, permitted uses in both the R -15 and R -6 zone district are primarily residential, permitting for a detached residential dwelling (single- family residence), a duplex dwelling (two attached residences), or two detached residences on a lot. .The density, or number of dwelling units permitted, is based upon the lot size. Generally, the larger the lot the greater the permitted density. Shown below in Tables 2 and 3, are comparisons of the dimensional standards of both zone d istricts. Table 2. Existing and Proposed Dimensional Standards for a Single- Family Residence • Sin. le Family Residence Existing: R -15 Proposed: R -6 15,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot size Minimum lot area per 15,000 sq. ft. (detached • 4,500 sq. ft. (detached dwelling unit residence) residence) Minimum lot width 75 ft. 60 ft. - 10 ft. _ Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. � Minimum rear yard setback - - I. 0 ft. 10 ft. _ - - - 10 ft. . , Minimum side yard setback 10-ft. Minimum total side . yard Not Applicable 34.71 ft. setback 36.86% Maximum site coverage Not Applicable Maximum height 25 ft. 25 ft q 3,716.52 sq. ft. Allowable floor area (based 4,145.94 sq. ft. upon a 9,942 sq. ft.. lot) 2 787.39 sq. ft. - Allowable floor area with the 3,109.45 - sq. ft. q maximum deduction for steep _ - slopes Note: * Lot area is reduced with the presence of steep slopes greater than 20 %. In no instance can the total floor area for a property exceed 25 %. - - Ms. Foster's lot in the R -15 zone district is currently considered a non - conforming lot of record (with regard to lot size) and contains a non- conforming structure (with regard to density). The minimum lot size in the zone district presently required for either a single detached residence or a duplex is 15,000 sq. ft., whereas the existing lot is 9,942. sq. ft.. With regard to density, a duplex is required to be on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. If the da lot erlier since her duplex vacant duex today, only was legally residence would be permitted; however, as mention established with a valid building permit the land use code permits her to maintain a duplex density on the property l . 1 A legally established non - conforming duplex is permitted to be replaced at the same density, although the allowable floor area permitted is of a single detached residential dwelling ( §26.312.030 (F)(2), Purposeful destruction). page 4 of 8 • P5 Table 3. Existing and Proposed Dimensional Standards for a Duplex or two Detached Residences Duplex or two Detached Residences Existing (R -15) Proposed (R -6) Minimum lot size 15,000 sq. ft. (duplex) 9,000 sq. ft. 30,000 sq. ft. (two detached residences) Minimum lot area per 7,500 sq. ft.(duplex) 4,500 sq. ft. dwelling unit 15,000 (detached residential) Minimum lot width 75 ft. 60 ft. Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. 10 ft. Minimum rear yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum distance between 10 ft. 10 ft. detached buildings on a lot Not Applicable Minimum total side yard Not Applicable pp setback Maximum site coverage Not Applicable Maximum height 25 ft. 25 ft - Allowable floor area 4,145.94 sq. ft. 4,136.52 sq. ft. * Allowable floor area with the 3,109.45 sq. ft. 3,102.39 sq. ft. maximum deduction for steep slopes* Note: * Lot area is reduced with the presence of steep slopes greater than 20 %. In no instance can the total floor area for a property exceed 25 %. The presence of steep slopes does not reduce lot area when calculating the permitted density. Staff Comments: As shown above, many of the dimensional standards are similar in both zone districts. Since Ms. Foster has indicated that she would like to develop the property with two detached residences rather than a duplex, comments will focus on Table 2. Rezoning the subject property will permit the lot to be considered a conforming lot and permit two detached residences to be developed on the site or an attached duplex. Minimum required setbacks are the same except for the front yard setback:,10 feet in the R -6 zone district vs. 25 feet in the R -I5 zone district. Height, at a maximum of 25 feet, is the same in both zone districts. The overall allowable floor area will be less than currently permitted if the property is rezoned to R -6. Additionally, the R -6 zone district has a maximum site coverage restriction that is not applicable to the R -15 zone district. Neighborhood Character The subject property borders city owned land to the south and west that is zoned Park (P) and contains the Midland Trail. To the north, across the alley, are three properties that are also zoned R -15 and contain single family residences. All four of these lots, although designated R -15, do not meet the minimum required lot size of 15,000 sq. ft., instead ranging from 7,500 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft.. Additional lots that are zoned R -15 and are adjacent to Hyman Ave. and behind the Ice Garden also do not meet the minimum required lot size and are non- conforming. Across Third Street the properties are zoned R -6, containing a number of residences and the St. Moritz Lodge. In general the lots are smaller lots ranging from 3,000 to 7,500 sq. ft.; however, Page 5 of 8 i P6 5 , there are a number of larger lots in : the area that contain multi - family residential, a non- conforming use in the R -6 zone district. The neighborhood character includes single - family residences, duplexes as well as multi - family residences. k a ti ` : V 1r x [[ r _ r l � � M. ►iA. .' : RS •.- +A p p , . Ilk - ,�, > ['Ri' � fi ♦a ? Y . � i .4.. , yY+ r4� � - •� f W &'eq, r S, -' > . r, � 9 � � •i _ `mil -�.�Jk $ .44,-- � �(e . , � y . k R 4' � , {, ^ � Mixed Use ' • ` w ` i`+ k ' ; `" t, — Fi ' ei H r ,„ . _ , / , f F 5 -t ,�+� y •- 1 r t " R te , ° �� Y t 4 _ 'tit � /, f • 1 4 (1 ! ; i t ' Ma7r B.Na.2 !.f ?'�Y 6 .r.... , � 7 � , L • Ot t i .'ir --------,.../,''i 4('t '9 0 F - ioiN 0 4 li I . .k a ti Illt.: 141 . irs- ' i P3 " . -- ,-..-,.._,-,,,,,,, . . -! , iii, ■ . 1 ; r.. 1 j �F ` + � �,r � J � �a i V 3._4., h `,,,.._ .1 r:- '**? ry v7. '"' Figure 3: Existing Zone Districts In looking at the purpose statement of the R -15 zone district, the paragraph states that the zone district typically includes "additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district." With regard to the R -6 zone, the purpose statement notes that lands in the R -6 zone are "generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominately detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center of the City." Lastly, a parcel of land across from the Boomerang Lodge and adjacent to Hopkins Ave. was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 by City Council in 2006 as it was determined that the character of the neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses. Staff Comments: The proposed rezoning would change the property at 217/219 S. Third from R- 15 to R4 According to a staff examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses, Page 6 of 8 P7 the neighborhood contains a mix of residential dwelling types and uses. A zoning of R -6 would - be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the current R -15 zoning. This relatively high - density neighborhood includes R -6 and R -15 zoning and contains single-family, duplex. and . residential multi family housing as well as short term lodging in close proximity to the subject parcel. The property, although bordering Aspen Mountain, is part of the original Aspen Townsite. The property is within walking distance to the downtown core and is not really on the periphery of the city in a true sense. Additionally, land in the area has been recently rezoned from R -15 to R- 6, resulting in changed neighborhood conditions. With regard to zone district standards, permitted and conditional uses are essentially the same between the two zone districts. Zoning the subject property to R -6 will result in less floor area if the site is redeveloped. Setbacks are similar and the R -6 front yard setback is a pattern one sees in the neighborhood. Allowing two detached residences vs. an attached duplex will permit the mass on the site to be divided, potentially lessening the perceived mass on the site. SUMMARY OF SCHEMATICS: The Applicant has provided two sets of schematics showing two potential development scenarios: 1) development of the site with a duplex and carriage house under the R -15 zone district requirements and 2) development of the site with two detached residences under the R -6 zone district. Staff's analysis will focus on the uses proposed rather than verifying dimensional standards, as this is done at building permit submission. 1) Duplex and carriage house (Exhibit G). As described previously, the Applicant has the right to demolish the existing duplex and replace it with a new duplex because the Land Use Code permits a legally established non - conforming duplex to be replaced at the same density, although the allowable floor area permitted is of a single detached residential dwelling. Under the R -15 zone district regulations the potential maximum achievable floor area is 4,145 sq. ft. for the site (if there is no reduction in lot area by the presence of steep slopes); however, the Applicant is proposing to utilize a floor area bonus of 1,800 sq. ft which is allowed within the land use code. In addition to the duplex structure, the schematic shows a 1,200 sq. ft. carriage house that is proposed to be a for sale affordable housing unit. A carriage house is permitted on the lot as it is not considered a unit of density. The maximum allowed size of a carriage house, without Special Review approval, is 1,200 sq. ft. of net livable area. When offered for sale, a detached and permanently affordable housing unit qualifies the property for a floor area exemption and bonus. Section 26.575.020 D.10., Permanently Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, excludes up to 1,200 sq. ft. of floor area of the carriage house from the calculation of floor area and provides the site with up to a 600 sq. ft. bonus in floor area. Up to 1,800 sq. ft. of additional floor area may be permitted to be landed on the subject lot under this scenario. 21 Development of the site with two detached residences (Exhibit H). Under this scenario the Applicant redevelops the site with two detached residence. With the R- 6 zone district regulations the potential maximum achievable floor area is 4,136 sq. ft. for the site (if there is no reduction in lot area by the presence of steep slopes). With R -6 zoning the Applicant can still avail herself to the floor area exemption and bonus as outlined in scenario 1; however, the Applicant has stated a willingness to deed restrict the subject property to prohibit development of Page 7 of 8 P8 the carriage house. Staff does not support the offer of a deed restriction. If a deed restriction were recorded it would be the city's position that such deed restriction would be a private agreement that the city is not interested in being party to or enforcing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning - Commission find the ;application meets the review criteria for an Amendment of the Official Zone District Map and • ?make a recommendation of approval to rezone 217/219 S. Third Street to R =6. , PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution no. —, recommending the property commonly known as 217/219 S. Third be rezoned from R -15 to R -6." ATTACHMENTS: (BOLD EXHIBITS ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS STAFF MEMO) EXHIBIT A — Review criteria (provided 2/2/10 and 3/15/11) EXHIBIT B — Zone district standards (R -15 and R -6) (provided 2/2/10 and 3/15/11) EXHIBIT C - Application (provided 2/2/10) EXHIBIT D — Neighborhood lot sizes and density map (provided 2/2/1 EXHIBIT E — Public comment submitted at 2/2/10 public hearing (provided 2/2/10) EXHIBIT F — Applicant cover letter dated 12/2/10 EXHIBIT G - Applicant schematic: R -15, duplex with carriage house (10/18/10) EXHIBIT H - Applicant schematic: R -6, two detached residences (2/28/11) EXHIBIT I - Applicant schematic: R -15 vs. R -6 development comparison EXHIBIT J - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2010) EXHIBIT K - Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated 2/2/10 EXHIBIT L - Public Comment Page 8 of 8 P9 RESOLUTION NO. — - (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) FROM MODERATE- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -15) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -6) FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 217 AND 219 S. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO - Parcel ID: 2735- 124 -65 -005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from YLP West, Inc. represented by Suzanne Foster'requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Map Amendment to the Official Zone District Map from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium - Density Residential (R -6) for the property commonly described as .217 and 219 S. Third Street; and, • WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the official zone district map may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2010), recommending denial of the request but recommended the Applicant consider resubmission of the request with submission of a development plan that addresses the expressed concerns of the public; and, 'WHEREAS, the Applicant resubmitted the request for a map amendment with schematic development plans; WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 15, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the P10 recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the official zone district map with a vote of - -- to - - -- ( -- to - - -). Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve the zone district map amendment to rezone the following described property from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium- Density Residential (R -6). The subject property is legally described as Lots., P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots 0, P, and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 and commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street and recommends the applicant to consider resubmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns of the public. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March - - -, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P11 Exhibit A Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning.and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. • Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title and will change the status of the lot size from non - conforming to conforming. • B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. • Staff Finding: rezoning of a property is not directly addressed in the 200 AACP. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." • (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 181 • • C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. . • Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for a R -6 zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high - density neighborhood that includes a mix of single - family, duplex and multifamily residences on smaller lots. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the R -6 zone district. • • D. The effect of fhe proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not increase the permitted density of the lot as the property currently contains a duplex with two dwelling units and the property, if rezoned is permitted up two to dwelling units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed P12 amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: To the extent that the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, the applicant will offset those demands in the form of impact fees, upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage planning. Again, the proposed amendment does not increase the permitted density of the lot as the property currently contains a duplex with two dwelling units and the property, if rezoned is permitted up two to dwelling units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a conforming lot (with regard to lot size and density) within the city. The density permitted on site is compatible with community character in the city. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A parcel of land across from the Boomerang Lodge and adjacent to Hopkins was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 by City Council in 2006 as it was determined that the character of the neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses. This property is within the neighborhood of the subject parcel. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a conforming lot (with regard to lot size and density) within the city and is not in conflict with the public interest is is in harmony with the intent of the land use code. 243E) P 13 26.710.050 Moderate - Density Residential (R -15). • A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod- erate- Density Residential (R -15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings 4. Home occupations; - 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and . 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uges are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2.. Academic Uses. • 3. Agricultural Uses. 4. Recreational Uses. 5. Group home. 6. Child care center. 7. For historic landmark properties: bed.and breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000) 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet: a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy -five (75). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential dwellings: Twenty -five (25). Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30). 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): Ten (10). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 11 P14 • 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty -five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- (Square Feet) Single- Family Residence* _ tached Dwellings or one Duplex* 0- -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000 - -9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor maximum of 4,080 square feet area. of floor area. 9,000 -- 15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor maximum of4,500sgnatefeet area. of floor area. 15,000 -- 4,500 square feet of floor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet of floor maximum of 6,600 square feet area. of floor area. 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area. feet in lot area. *Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwell- City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 12 ( P15. ings on a lot less than twenty- thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in- crease. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56 -2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25 -2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7; Ord No. 50 -2005, §2) • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 13 P16 '... 26.710.040 Medium - Density Residential (R -6). • A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Me- dium- Density Residential (R -6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, con- tain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center of the City. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings; 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of Chapter 26.520. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2. Academic Uses. 3. Recreational Uses. 4. Group home. 5. Child care center. 6. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Medium- Density Residential (R -6) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Six thousand. (6,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000). 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a) Detached residential dwelling: 4,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. b) Duplex: 4,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. For properties subdivided as of April 28, 1975: 4,000. For properties annexed subsequent to January 1, 1989: 3,750. c) Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Sixty (60). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front vard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. Accessory buildings: 15. 5. Minimum rear yard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. For the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage: 5. Accessory buildings: 5. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 5 ( P17 . 6. Minimum side yard: Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards* Feet) each Side Yard 0 -4,500 5 feet. 10 feet. 4,500- -6,000 5 feet. 10 feet, phis 1 foot for each additional 300 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 15 feet of total side yard. 6,000 - -8,000 5 feet. 15 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 25 feet of total side yard. 8,000 -- 10,000 10 feet. 25 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 35 feet of total side yard. 10,000+ 15 feet. 35 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50 feet of total side yard. • The following requirements shall apply on a lot annexed subsequent to January 1, 1989. Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards* Feet) each Side Yard 0- -7,500 10 feet. 20 feet. 7,500 -- 10,000 10 feet. 20 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 32.5 feet of total side yard. 10,000+ 15 feet. 32.5 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50 feet of total side yard. * Two detached residential dwellings located on one lot shall not be subject to the combined side yard setback requirements, provided that the minimum setback between the two detached dwell- ings on the lot shall be ten (1.0) feet. For purposes of calculating the minimum side yard setback for lots within the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), the area below the top of slope shall be subtracted from lot size. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 6 P18 7. Maximum site coverage: Lot Size Maximum Site Coverage ( %) (Square Feet) 0- -5,999 No limitation 6,000- -9,000 50 %, minus 1% for each additional 300 square feet of lot area, to a maximum site coverage of 40% 9,000 -- 12,000 40 %, minus 1% for each additional 300 square feet of lot area, to a maximum site coverage of 30% 12,000 -- 18,000 30 %, minus 1% for each additional 1,200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum site coverage of 25% 18,000+ 25 % 8. Maximum height (feet): 25 9. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 5. 10. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. • 11. Floor Area Ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two Detached (Square Single- Family Residence* Dwellings or one Duplex* Feet) 0- -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of maximum of 2,400 square feet 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000- -6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor maximum of 3,240 square feet area. of floor area. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 7 • P19 . Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two Detached (Square Single -Family Residence* Dwellings or one Duplex* Feet) 6,000 - -9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 plus 14 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor maximum of 3,660 square feet area. of floor area. 9,000 -- 3,660 square feet of floor area, 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 6 15,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor mum of 4,020 square feet of area. floor area.. 15,000 -- 4,020 square feet of floor area, 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5 50,000 plus 5 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor mum of 5,770 square feet of area. floor area. 50,000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area. feet in lot area. *Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not ex- ceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total extemal floor area for multiple detached resi- dential dwellings on a lot less than nine- thousand (9,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the following exception: Properties within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development as a sending site may be specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence pursuant - tWflre Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approval._ The properties to be speci- fied as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence shall be located within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development so as to enhance preservation of the historic City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 8 • P20 resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, shall not • be located adjacent to the sending site, and shall be described and depicted in the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approvals granted by City Council. The total number of Floor Area increases permitted within the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development shall not exceed an aggregate total of one (1) per non - historic residence within the entire Subdivision or Planned Unit Development. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligi- ble for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56 -2000 §§ 1, 7 (part), 10; Ord. No. 25 -2001, §§ 1, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 - §6; Ord. No. 48 -2004 §1; Ord. No. 50 -2005, §1) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 9 P6C1 E P21 Jennifer Phelan From: suzanne@tfosterjewelers.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:45 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: R -6 Attachments: Foster - Schematic Design Packet - 10.18.2010.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged December 2, 2010 Dear Jennifer, Please accept this letter as our request to re -open our zoning change to R -6 for 219 S. 3` Street. At the P & Z meeting, recommendation was denied clue to the inability of the commission to visualize the building mass and scale of development under both R -15 and R -6 zoning. You may recall that under R -15 zoning, we plan to build a 1200 SF affordable housing carriage house and will receive a 6005F FAR bonus for the free market units. We have hired architects and have created the plans that show both the carriage house and the new reconstructed duplex as you can see from the attached architectural plans. The addition of the carriage house accomplishes three important goals under R -15 zoning. 1. Mitigation for affordable housing. 2. Fulfillment of 10% detached mass requirement 3. 600 SF free market FAR bonus Please note that the above information stays the same whether or not an FAR reduction for slope is determined to be applicable at a later date. You may recall that if R -6 zoning is achieved , there will be a net reduction of 10' of FAR based on the 9942 SF land mass. In addition, we have stipulated that the land would carry a deed restriction for no carriage house, and a deed restriction to limit building height in the rear 25' of the parcel to 30" above grade. Our plan is two build a detached duplex with a minimum of 10' between the structures. This accomplishes the following goals: 1. A reduction of 1810 SF of FAR for the parcel (10 SF less for zoning change, 1200 SF for removed carriage house, 600 SF removal of FAR carriage house bonus). 2. 1 less unit of density 3. 25' of open space between the neighbor's upstairs bedroom view and shadow mountain. 4. Fulfillment of 10% detached mass requirement. 5. Brings parcel permanently into conformity Please note that the above changes stay the same whether or not an FAR reduction for slope is determined to be applicable at a later date. We feel the reduced density and detached duplex will have far less an impact on this mountain site and is worth the added expense of affordable housing cash in lieu and the decreased value of 600 less SF of free market FAR. I believe our attached plans will give P & Z the visualization that they require for R- 15, and that with a bit of imagination, they can envision what we will build under R -6. Just remove the carriage house, slide the duplex 15 ` closer to 3rd street split the buildings in two and trim about 600 SF off the foot print of unit two. Our architectural plans were designed to fit under both R -15 and R -6 zoning districts. 1 P22 Please send me a confirmation tl 'ur application is moving forward and let me know if you need any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Suzanne Foster 2 r. . . ,, . P23 _ _ - N (J) © v N n ✓ -I 1 - CD Iv D 3 c � .r - . �' CD CD CU • CD ( _' / 1 no Iy� O j , V p /• I p 0 • N 11I II 3 U M p L. CD i ' - ,:ct\imUls !� �II I ;• I t.\\\/ 1`-'•1 , N I ∎, I ■ \ — O 11 1 :. - - _ idI 1 Z,•P ill I t-1111111 .-- --- c ir - ' lir - 41141 1 ' `.. 1 ... _ _ .4 ; I II ii_____'Vfli\IIML: - lilt -II- '117? 1 . - - '■, .... iN ''' ''''''' -Er' AFIN• I r l y...::, .UW 1 N. -1511ill ■ i ICI? : .. ! 1 ! " „ fr. ' 1 MEM . A I . , : jr ..._. / . \\ 1 I. • I r Vi k7 Oil/ I , r t, � 1 r ,,.� , .. • V I i- awe, 2 I �� I ""� ... . ' � . x I 7C I _ °"''_"""'""' wassmaina A' i z = P24 T Z7 O p 4.11 co (D CI- N Q a a, b ;k n. f 1 . _ q a , /;//// / . . p .■ ,,, / LJ k+: L/ - r 1 s,; i ./- r • . �j � i r / 4 obv ..it'./ [T7 'S ti r.f 1 L. / A � ff II, / Q fl':,7 n ..1.: c . . , J J Y J • II 1 SO u th T �� ; � 1 1 hi r d St eel V , { �� r r i 1 C r __ Al o 0..a. \ _ T n Q 1 S m r30 P25 - r- 0 0 co - 0 0 • ( D • • O / n m Q F.nlu n N mC P26 T (i 0 CD (n r• r+ S a) n is N .////;://------- / f--4 . / / 1 / I I • / 1P(: o rl I I N / _ I Ur 1 - / i ----- ` I ! r J 1 n rn 7s T 0 C I _ I liu f i r Ir73 P27 -P1 p O CD co n -z N C r+ Cr CU n ___ _'" r J , . / e / ' /---1 ( ' . / / / ,../ i / _-_, v - -J _________ r o c 4 P f 7 y� P28 T 0 cn no - 11 1 \ `1 • - 1 I1 s 1. ,„ \\,::. \ ' \ , ,. \ . : \ 81 \\\\ • `\ t \ , 7" I . . \ i_ O \ V ',. ... . ' r 2 C7 f,r. o° a) r- • T NN P29 O N CD p /r Ey • di CD I X cn� CIQ i t : ti • o m 1 r- :�.i? P30 / r,... sit l ye A l i o n f 1 c (4 i 0 N s D . U + t. z / o cy ul O — . VI io F • 0 o cn O N N O 0 CU a . , (,. 1 , .i V V a a 11 e o ' rn ^ ry c u, u , al - N o0 0 + , al o T (D - N > (D C ro + O al O O N fi oia o OJ - CD / \\..__ , • ' \ n r31 1 rt 'S f "J• T i O O f a ;'k,1 o o % N /.� ....1 M C r 73 \ . - - -,... _ ) / ./-/ • i II( . 91 1 l ■ P31 1 1 II j ' I4 %G tV R1 1+4 1 tI r co 14 , 1 Q • '. - - - - -. i 1 cu 0 / ( 1 / f i i ` , E. ' I Oil _ 1 —j �i 1 r) •J :. .. i ...• -- -" - - -- - - • — , ' t ■ m 1 n - .' % 1 j i 1 CD ■ _ ‘,,:,, -- / / J .,. .. -- l 1 Ar 07 il r 1 1 ' r' / i f • r • L:L'il 1 1 .1 11 / , , 'g 1 ;nos t • ' 1 b + — 10 i • i t 1 i ' . 1 1.44/ - k ... rc; I 1:7 - , , , , :. ,, .... ,„.... .., i t PI v - ■ OO „9 ,ZT y4 I' 1 ,4 1 0 i ■ . ; fr' " • ' M 1 ,• ill I s a r 1 r l I t /1/ . s , I _ i 1 _ _ r 1 + .. .r l 0 • }.....i • ' • f A g .. 4 t - troor ._. k 1/4.L s 0—° yy , ! . . ar 1 i f s r• .r .� r ... — ••• 1 . 1 • " +il c.1).'0 + _ . ilaa _ i i r- X . 11111/ 4 1 . 1K 71 1 P32 5 i t‘ tr i 11114 t $ 1 — n c ea 4 I I 0 = I ul I I (D cn t 11 — , s.> • . ' . t It vo 1 , I a) 1 I -P .4 4 1 ■ 1 I " - • - Alk_____, . . . _ / ■ ' .._ ._ • -- - 1 r.) --- L. t t t " co 0 / ,, I AIIIIIIIIIII I 1 -,.-1 . 1 . • ,...., j , I al 0 ok / .. .. 1__._ 01:1 , 1 , t --'',' ii . ,. _ 2,4 1 1 1 .... . % • CD It • _ _ % .' % 1 = / . 7P... 1 I i' A i- ,is flu % i • c ''.. - 01 .....,Ailli ..rwm 1- , % v, i % - .. at ' % am ItifirirrA ■ k : in r i i (D. • ., !: "r, r• 1 t < L 1 -- a i tfa i •,' / - — 1 ' . • ;)-)., o o .% . I ET 11.1 D I = i i ' LA H I FT 'I i I 7.-__, , , I f • ? % .,. , .•.,; , . ! . Pi i !II I • t IT" / / l ' f ,, 4 i/ • ... I r / f 1 : . ;•-, , • % ', -LI • rt . •:. s• 0, 1•• t ., , • .. 1 ___ - - all n $ $ co' - . ' . : • . , . i 'I' ' '-' --'''. .. .. '' - 14 r - ■ , .] ' I I f - I • i I ..." • , ' _ 3 ' ;- -171 . .1 A V t I I L_-_:. i -- 1 ., 7p., 1 __ft-- 1 , , 1 " r II .,,,.,.. , ____ i . 1 . i . I V • ti-i '. AV -- t r.- t #4•41 : % 4 , I . • 6 , . .,c. ::) . . ,. - . - ' ■ m' P • . • e A Pk 00 - " ■ r .,, ...........*„..............d..^...................................„........... , • - A 7: —I v117 4, I ' 0 vii - w r I -- .. - M C ' i - - • .. .. a+ • ••• fl 4 .4 _.„, . r 7, v. — - --- kil - do, Ilk vi . .:1.41 4 Ilk 1111.f.° . + %.4i 1 411.‘ 1 _ sp ; P33 04 1 • cj a� , . r r Tdr, • ` 1 I co OJ t i 1 1 n l : f i t , V ■ 1 -t I r 1 r i i, • • -7 , d o t 1 ‘ a i r 1 i 0 1 .-0 It I 1 1 a) i 17 t + i . • • . + 1 1 r ` / ./' _ `- • t• 1 - 1 -- — : 1 f t '• r • 1 r 1 1 f • % IA 0 ` l I ` r1 1 ?It 1 , • 1 +r1 " 1 • 1 , , g iii • yA r , ■ / ■ -- i f 1 1 II I 1 0 • i l ' 1 1 t — 1 1 ---...111-1111:Irse 1 1 -i k Ott ~ 'r over 1 rn S .� 1 Q • st . !• ,1 J f 1 rn ! 7; --1 ' ■„ *, ' *1 1 . ail .0 . , r Il, • r t om ` ; — —re, ..illn..101■04EING60.1" 41/1 di. ...4"...4.110%00--a.-....—ird. P34 T C O = N e-• r-F CD D m r+ • (D CD v o 0 ID Vn 0 0 1 c _. r H. -r. j .. _ _ 1 F. 5 P g i rM WI A tij A tii • . - -- - MIMI V m \ T. S . cil m m C P35 c 0 = e 1 > rn r+ ...< r fD CD V 0 0 V5 rt 17' -7" 22' -g" CU t ) ( 1 0.) � D'ti rD ul 1:3 00 0 .71 N oi 0 x CD N N r cm i ❑ ❑ g co, N S 4, I R. .? • A at t C O _ N r --- - - - -- -- O o A X C . LID 0_ '• O --. i. O F-. O ` l.1 H N S rti 0 r co ru Pill 1 i--: i P . I I-% yam- 1-1 <> „b - ,L ,A t - ,9 „Ot - ,£t Ot ,Z h a` o 0 r X CU C o � ° l-a VI o fr 0 N Hi- o v m 1�--1 0 3 CJ 5. 0 D 'Y 77 0 Fll N • i n - -1 IT , . . P36 T C CD r+ > K v r CD 1 . F' N O O a CD C7 N W O O v) F^ `"T -ti �: II I4 _ 1sLh1 Cr 1,.......\ jf CD �w I„ 1 \......_.) �� jrz til1 E r ' • 1 : ; i C 9111 �I;s iJ/ I jjj oo ■ I r „• I1 • ii.... n 9 f.d• x CI O m C r- ;v . P37 c o = v) r• CD D K r CD CD N N O O r, 0 CD A ^ _. UJ O 6 1. - ' .__. _ N A A _- -- N_ — _.— __..__ ,. W d N CT O ; O CD `` .1 rt X 0,15 —. 1 X S X • (D c . !' li !';,,..1t:.. O 7,..-------j n t ` O u': 7 i y - . • Milii. - - I - r A — MP I ' ' . . . .. t ' y X N 1 1 1 Mil y .l • ,,b - ,81 "8 - AZ dt m o X (D O it. C? . O co FD m U }.d• co O CO j- 70 P38 • T c 0 a N D CO v cn 0 3 (D r (D 0 0 0 0 0— ul 0 3 . fl) n F- Cr ' . cr , F , ; r N rD. 0) x -i _, -' x 1 x • 0 N °N N . + o 3 I o .' 1 -To _ .... - -- o - U1� L" ; `� 1-) o s 1" x x 3 C N, a ' 1D — - wt V) T__ ° n T :103 f D _ r. CD . . . ;I. J r) M O O i P39 O T C 2 N CD IT r CD CD 00 1.11 O ars G) DJ co i' id� co 4 _ o vl Ka) i =,,. Aiiiiiiii _, , „,, • en +u. . = H , o 1L% ., a � r 1 i l r . -� �J _- i i __Fla" (R• .1 ' --,,...4 1 =Al 1 \ ---j 1 cn gi "= 4-4 1 m I 7 O m Ci 7 imC !r7J P40 - n c O = N -I 4' 6" ' 4 '_ 8 " 23' -2 MI Me (D - (D C C D , �' Oti • . � x y CM N CO ra Y VI 0 . V1 GI Cu N CU CD ° rt. 1 O CI c. ( ui o ti N O tU O < • —4 , ..{1 O • W . • A rn 3 - II x C 00 Q O . cl 0 X S I--' Cr �� L I • i /,rrwno-s. V • c • LP I 00 ■ 0 ■ A x l 0 . E' O 0 3 `4.. 1--• �.� F-` x! f M 4 i i imit j i - imm i __. Pt: Y n m S 141 ) i-4-1.- •EG 0 ✓ - ,'-('. rr Z - rs rro✓ - rG C m i to M C P41 -n c o • ,n ro W E F - CD.� , 0 1 w �. L O rm to r ‹. mi ci,„ . ..• r ! t � - . ,_ r 1 ) frlInn T1 11 1� (1 I ,_ i , , L:=._•., . . II -_ I-- .......›....„ . . i . • ... . __ • • I Nor 10 0 C I -. l iallil t ._ - _ _ - ftel J , Q --- _ -- ar'_ l i n, �� ni r11 I I P42 T O (DD rt t E 2' - 8" i) 32' - 4" H < r - CD t N ffl . , - ,. , ; 1 1111 A .." _ L _ r 1 CI X QO ` Q ' W N co r I'' i -- - A —, ? N ' . _32IN i I= ,.: �� _ v . __ °'!° :., , ...:._ 0 _. _ . .,)- '. ... ._.. - 1 : < 7- 7 1a.'.. ;. . 04, . _. . 11 W 7 • -- -- - T. , r - - - '� , A X J rt w t ..+ 00 0 3 el . . .--. - i r W o t V r\- ?. A _ ____. ._ a T al m P „8 ,Z „9 ,ZZ „i7 - ,6 „9 ,OZ v , �4 m C P43 T O = N ei r1 CO CD W (.01 CD 3 CD rt CD < J 0 0 V) CD Q- ( 1 f7 I CD . 3 d c-) I `< 1 O --!� I 1"4• EE O � ,... ...� ., 11 CTQ , 1 i i O " w �.S I -- 1 • et 0 _, „x. C la d t N _ .4 1 _ . , t Si x ,S I - - aa. Jeq /a pauaLpli>1 t x i N — o r es � ~ r�r n C 3 - x 0? frt O tammi p e rn (n _` r 73 P44 -n v • cn �• C 0 c N rD 5 rD rD • • O -t, 1.44 L. Y ICI III 1 4.44.■ rt e w � m C r .. P45 T () O co N e-t -s 'I a] (D , t = 0 . • C CD K v r (D . C ' (D - v CU N 0 cu .111 ° a, ___ va x s Q1 <, A X ra L fI - , -cam lD 2 X N 1 1161411/ LI li, I i , VI a • • N Q • Ot- ,,,, >.,„ . 0 rn P46 T () o v, - (D cu UQ CD 0 C CD CD r CD fD v U1 03 O —h _ - x C W I N a CL aa�s ,2a sRia • • x - ox Q ■ ri b ~� O � m rC r- P47 T O ct) v CD — cu C!:1 2 0 CD CD r CD CD a� Cn CO 0 • , M11111 .1 11. MI p, r x O Ql O ' y W C X A Q CT � F : v O R X rt X - r p O Ln X ci c O / 11114' rl t7 wale T � m m I I- xi P48 T c O 2 I VI r r+ I A 0 TN c ♦� A A Q. Lel rt fD M r+ F, M m � Cl.) 0 e i t '� -- w M.- ' la , - ? t f ` w i Y t om• \ \ 1 , ,..„, ,_ .. l _ J O i ■ .1 A i , . s N r" Xi A t „8 - ,Lt 00 0 P50 D.) 25' - height limitation T c O = r CD 1 -s D 1 : :z it.. 15 __ 1.1 l A Q 1 (!) —5 CD I CD li i m co v O O. —1-, r(- C) A 1 • V N ul O [ T\ : i 1 i � I i 1 , ' 1 ,.., -■ ' . A 1 H o 0 � ' •� a 3 .-1- ar �, u 1.-1 1 ay >Z O CD O a — — 4 rn 1MC i rov < , .. AZ «9 -,E I P51 -s D 3. o 4 IL il ' - i - + co oo o A 0 0 W = Z I 1 1 I i CD - ? ' C CO 1 -r I ..< l v n CO �_ I r + n 7-1: O a1 , ,i3} A w a D r) - - 0 0 3 �, m X' i 1:: o ul . 4 .i,.,..1t1 i , IIIIIII -. - .. /1 tiot alit .- . ,-, "4. L ^ I � , � A Q7 7.-o* + d r+ _ v W a W �. 0 3 t f r 2. r...1 1-:.: to • ;: r'. I i i 1 I . }. i Mil r H O r N A ^I l'l t+-4 : 1 O m c., _ i c 1 m p Q 1 O r CD � r- * ......... _j * CD .� ` .� lumina{ P52 ' T C O 0 27' - 4„ rr < > . 03 a) 2 ' - height restriction - Units A &B O < 1 Q- (7 7' -6" a) 63' .' _sr c D .44,- (D = O 1 O k ` • A rD a� y O 3 - - li-4 -14 I - .■ . Y O 'Mid ! , 13 A: c) t I . I N I ' 1 � ' - L. ' 4 • , 1,::::1\, -Mil , t Oist 2 I ' O rri CA uoLD!)saJ 01.aq - ,sz P53 -n 0 0 (6 0 I-t. --t1 CL D=-11111 (1) O'q CD ©—) 0.) P k • IP I -A I j 1-1 1 rn 0 m rn C EnilliIMMINIMINNImamr. drab aim a P54 • REM o - fulttr►,iiu' F,'UucU — h 1 U:1111 P11 F _ 0 ', R i I S 1 1 n S • • - • 1 � ii m IF , a 6 . . mik. r \ . LUPIN' il i Iv : „ 4# /MI f -- 4 +r .. , , : ,,, ,`i7 I ` i� ' . 3 i ZI _ / 1 f I 1' 1 n o i . r. p t ' .,_ .,, . _ 0 .,. . _____ - --- ,,, ., Mil .. , i r ;7 1 . , . , P.35 -n < O — cn (D 1 1 (t) . ,., .-1 --1, '-‘ 0 B , 1 1 , , .__.,„ rcs ...< ._ F a ...- --x. , .,.- - Wil■Blitit if UJ . (.0 I, ' i 17 ! i.. - • ,-;\ i . _ • \ • , ••,. • • , -,„„.., 4,, i 1 / / :■., % II } /' ..-. / . , ,• ,,; , • r , - __ ,... I ii ' 't 7 1. ' . .. V,,. I 1 1 1 ' ' t I il • IF t , . i ,. ., i 4;.iffi ■; - 1 I . , , ,.. . '1 , \ , 1 , .. i i \ ..1 . • :' I ! 1 tr! I 1 . 0000 . 1 7. r ' '' * • •. 4 - . I ' ' ' • ' ' 1 . • t1 ' t 1 ; Sys' Ill :1 j• 1. I 1 '1 1 1 1-1 1 1 . i . 1 • 1 ii 1 i ' • \ ••• h 1t t . . . 1 1 . . . . . , . ..._ , — .....- ISIIIIII ' 11M4 4 \ N \ i' 11 .-----, • . ----,--,...-.,.,.........\\. 1 ', , '" ' ' \ , 'fl \II ' r ---4 , ;; I I----, i - ,. - ,•' 1 h \ I t 1 11 1 1 / • -'''1 7 ' -- / 1.er , 1 • ; -.:-• ./•• ,• • ' ' I 7 p• ' __ t,•.1 . • , 1 . i \ _J L . • ,- — - -, , ii_p___ ,,_•••• ,. • ,., ., , . .. . . i 1 -.=_-_ _ • • _ •• • ...... • .. . 1 • -7 ___ \ L' 1--1 '• : -- __ i j 1_. _ ___:,..... . - . ________ ...L___ ,.,. _ L „..j ..,...7.2 't • lili=r n . Ili t.."4 , , ‘r, ...TI•e■N- , l . C imoll . . I 7c > . , . i CI 0 -._ ' I :.'-4 ....1 4, M - . - - CO I • ' m C , 1- ---- , r- X . t..;.• ', I r -:, .__ . - - • . ii P5 6 , o ' .. 2 1I I' rD D . CO w1 E a , i - /. . II I _' f' • MIME II 11 immimmimr.:7 _ 11.11 11 Ui li MAW // ' lnl }; '� 1 ing . ./ • it 1 / ,1 III ' > r 1 I 1 I "I E _ ..„; i [ i ./ ..m_ , P`i7 O X'11 ■ • -1-, 1 , o CD < • Imo, . . — �.�. + p { I '' 1. II T • ` I - 'f7 ' ..1..F: . - ..s I aiiiii tom' ; A r V igil ' . r IA ci ,111111 ' w, 1 , . • 1� k� • :_ , C-' I t "_ �' ;1 Ir _ tl �} / / i i L_____ _ 1 ...i ki , f . . ., , .,,,,,,,.,. , 1 •, 0.1 .T.. .: 1 1 .. i... ! . I/ _1 • It LA rcc 2 -4 v ' / .a ..10 •_ ...- e. ,3, . 1 r i • ° n r o m tri 1 n4..,'I P58 0 ;/ cn rt , I \ . In----1----.; 1. . TS 14.... a --- / 1 : , : $; . :,,i . . - ;" L , ' , ea - - 1 111 \1 - - --. . - g i a - I - ` .no - l ∎ 1111 w - , , i; I !i . • -, � 1 5 _ !1 ,� .w;l� r - ti it's i - �` . EN • - == W , 1' . R tlll ni j a � tntd - �lif ntd l 0 14'. - .-..■_ . t ii gao I I I . 2 I I I I " " T ,. -: a- „ , t - 1 n --1 \ 1 C 1 � ,,.., �r, pr r 1; ,/ T P5 9 - __ - , C. - n _ '- _ -- \ .1 +\Vii^ ! �' �i \ _ I 1 I!lii ;1 ` ��� ' �Illll . ..n . „: �". I \ .. 1 111 1 -� I �� i1 ; Ii = -� . f � . .� . �f j� i ;+ \ i . - - f I ,7_____,fl, r f fI� i . I :I 1 ....., , k . 1 ‘ , ill I ..,..,.. - .. I 1 . 7 : : ii i) I ! I I b lk ViI? I \ ir! .w Viii:HET I it .?.'N. .7 i - 111 ' 1 __ \ / 1 f I hit f 1 . - :A: f I , 1 . 1 „ I 1 � I � � ► i f ; � A diffr'T:_ i _ . ..... ,. - 4,...'y V 1 / 1 � Z i��.�.v.• xr . Nj 1 : -',_----.-- , of .• :..,,......•,...,_ ,,,,, _ . • / 1 ,__ 0 ra. . ' r- 415 ..��' , , rte m C - P 6 0 © K N v) a , can Z-- v ro 0 n o CD 0 CD m mow - - DJ -. ' = d �- n n 3 a ' 1 + t l ; 0 � � � \ c d . • - + CD N 7I ` .. 00 'Kw.. tot ■ 0 II �\ as ! - _ : _ 1 . v ('/ ' Y k � t 1 III 11111 � l� f r ` /. \'\ �_ rat J t \ \ ' if!it: • \ `vii \ \ Ili \ \v /1 I. t. .. \ 4:.'r i -" 7: . "1::: 1 :- / ‘---: i ) IL rn ' • r P II 1 I iHwil. miq \, 71 11)■,,, , 0 W V) ,--1- s.4,.....j CD -- s \ 76'.7:114 -71 ' `... ......,, ,.. .... ! ,,,, - . . , al i:1 ;, i ill r I , rtiii, ,,,.. , ,.... .... J.,. .. A= Ni `k0 I'l n4 ' \ V ' VIII Hi : ■ . 1 ' :. . - --- ; • ' ' 0 ;:Nir...-Alrg II r .1 . • i! IP I INNOIM Mos..... • . . l • ..;,1, __ ... i ■ , .. ... ` , • . I ■ -‘ . ,..... ■ fi 111 1111 1 IC IP 1 .7* :-4 i t i 11 il 7 i A 0'.. . , A t A c , _ , li ■ +Li I .--• p ..,- , . . 7C -I m C : 1 4f, !1 . 111,r1 p if ' • i: :Ili. p 90111 -).,- i/ . ,, Jaw .'• /111 - ...•'''' • ! / _ , i- P 6 2 - 71 0 rD . E \ ' . - ' -.. • . ., 11111 ., I NN \ . , . ' Ill 1 . i . , -... . , gr ii , . .._...___ ‘ -\\ _ . ... .„ i ..... , . I vi \*. ••••. ,...,. , OMMI . ....A . , .• , 1 ' • iil .• . - • \ . t . L i . • I MW t 1 II .. 1 :40...t......ti ■ - Illivitifilk. ., ■ ■ 1 i i 1 1011 AY( . " • OS 1 I .. '41.1111•111 I \ . . , .3.••= . ..*-,-, Aill, , kc 5 5 II - MIIIIIIIIIET Balliet. . A il It 1 1 6 ‘‘ 1 ,1 ll 046. \ A II II I A II II ;1 / 1 1 .- ' .;-- C• 1 rn ......1 7 111111 '' 11 AEI r- xi P63 -n 0 CD (J lri ynf l� 111I' 1 1. ..;' ,':.:-:,..- .. toll , :r "' a ', 1 ' 1 tif ^, tit 1 _ ��r' e t N ag -I , i ; \ . , . ____: :/ // ii iiii \\ \I\ \ .., .111 � i h --_, _i , , _ v , . ..___.. , , ,, ,,,4 :,,,--i. — Ato,,.•• -,- , ,,../ 1 ,„ ' pr., 1 ''' ' S I I ! L T7111--V ill/ 1 ': ; :i '' 1 f' .S i AR 4 � ll s oil. si se MUM D. A '� -Q„, o� , ,r aL IT "" // r- -s dlik TI 6 4 0 0 i ______ -Nom, e-l• lo - CD ai I !' .11 , _ NI ..r,, . ,, ,„„:„. ,---------,, ....„ ..,, - ..N.7.:Fi. • .,. •.,. • . u _ , --...,.. t , - - :-..:__ .:. _ .T 0 F „;_--,-_L ....,.. _•_,, • 1 1 '7 1111 1 . • .11 , ' 11 1 L 1 1 1 1 • i • . . ‘ .;,' 1111111111 . • — — -- i 1 1 1 11 . t , 11 ' —_ r ,— r, 1 / ' 1 11 1 1 , N 1 1 1 1 1 — • '. I 1,1 A: 1. ` - • 11 , .._ . 111 . 1I L ,., • 1 _ ___ _— — 1 " ' 1 _ ip • . , _ . 1 . , • 11 . , . 1,•;'1 6 V - ... .:1' , \:. rr r4 , _11 1 ::: 7 jenia • / 1 i V . It - F ,., • _ ,... ... ,,, H / illni I / --17 NI \ Y 4' ch Illr ...,„ v : ...-1 / t ;` 1{ P65 T - Q (/t - . L A 1 r i ti ( 1 1 ;- - 3 . i 1 1 Mil i .�t. -1! I t . 7 � 1� . ra i El j i!I! MIMI ei fr EMIIIIIIE /®® �r _ r.). , Mla , n )...°{ n -1 NIMBI 'Au P66 ,' a . 1 , ! l ik. (/) . •_r• Al. r sr r.. i r - - .0 .,1 ro / ` I f r ,... 0 . •. ■ 1 k % I .. i • ►r , • _ �� • •• - 1 - - ik \ 'A 1 A ill \ �� 1 ./ 111 6 11:till 1 1 1 `i ' 1 ' . . 4. i A i a 4 / . \ 4 1441 r 4 t i 11 IV- I .w-.. k / . t f J / / :rr — __ �� _ - - - 1 - . - -.. _ 4., 104 . • ., r . i . \,i ..4., i i. t , ,. ... -0 _ .. 3 / . . 01.....• 1 1 1 , . ... , .., > , ......,..c.__..._ • ■ t .„, 0........t 1 .S' N . ` q : j•• ' i .. . Y ..•...a'.. i ....... ", * \`` 111 ,......460. 4- ;,.., ....- -.4 , V ^40 . ...,. 1 , .1 I I, T Fr. T.. P67 0 r+ (D C 2 _ aiiiii e /All N � O O O j l ill Cu C p� N , -• O C n co D 7o N O Allr\ 0 O • P, _ n D 2 o 0 P6s — -�( IT Not it, .. � O a ;! o . ii . 1 i, z , •'.Lc r& 1 . • • al /. ix�' 4 iT • , /�{-b y ' r j� S M1. IttlR :� r ! '~.1 ;4,;'• y . r: • ,. , .,a : 3 a Y jgo,_ a yA 1 '__ I t. � r r` y 1 i # , qtr p1-'< --�t-v " 1y „•.* . -x R r 9 pi 4 j '� 1 r- � • gt yy 1 .. y ,{ 1, , • e ...____;_..„,....„........m, g.,....._...„,,,. _ __.:_:.....44,,,,,..._,. s„..., r. _.,. av it . _ - -..,‘ - • --iya.l.„...,t.z.474,4,...,. ......v.o..i, :...;,_,__ :......, , .,_ ,•..„, ..., .. , ..„..,.„..0,x...„e.,..„,,r.... ‘„,...,.,....„...,........ • , war.► : .s�. ,SrtP III : Hr 'Pr ' ) .,.., iv' A ,� ii, s E t " ue .v ., s..._, a . A 4 � ct ...,„.,.........:,..„:„._.,,..,..::.....,....,.; , 4 ,. . . .,. . . .A....: 0,II •s - . � �f '.,: r . t 1 • .. - 41- . -t-, joitf ' , '-`{ei* '; t _ c '" { L t " " f ' s ti r ~ ( -wy a ,i riY J S r 3 Y u laR. " .. " �. a ' III T +-; ri cer s I . 1 ' � _ t y yy • ti fv p Y r .•.,� . : . L ° i' F 'Y '''''''—`1'457.- P 1' % � ,',;, - s : I a � s } ''.'i:4; - r . 0 I? - . y } r I y ■ . ° , a 1 n p 7I r 4._.,.-,-. 1 3 a h ( ' - t uA }s v3 y i. 41 �� ' 1. a '1 j r I i • 4.. 1.., fW.:....- 1 Ii if s : 'Sly + m • _-S •,-. S ' � i i r ,�. ! FY I . :. � � I r. .. _ A•-, - '-;Z a I ' t 1: .- 1; r le 0 f t Z 4 1 I I I r I .f . 1 k,:e -,,,..,, -..i. z 1 ' , II* 4 1111666 ' t -.....:;,••=,.... ::- i, P. • I I i - � _ �r� s � u,..,q+y r' �`1w ""` • r r t to r _�Sa. 1 1 r c1r � ik�r'' 4 .. MM .: I y r s t' -,-... i — ..��'.�.l .�,. F es_ "a.'r�,: '...�� .. r, :m,es._�� ` : ... "kSk�ara:� , t ir-A P 6 9 t „a 4 .,..x % 2D 1 77 C 0 = 4 . r-4- 1--!-• 1 CD Lc) . — • - ' - ''''' . .4. -- 1. 14 ' -" , --, . . .,,t,....., ..,,, ---7.' - t , =- • • ,., • ' •• - ,...-- ic-116 - i ,-,, .. „. / : -- 4 , ' ; .11. - .7 ,, : -, 00 4.- - ,,,,, , i' i • . ., iA . • ee,' 1 - ir ' i I'm C) 1 4 . r" ir g7 ,T v - _ _ - . g - 41111EMZEUSEEIRSik : .. n . ' . ,,r • i 4'0 ;FIP.,_. , -,7 , . ,.--,-,-' . • - I I al 4 ., • . ,..,,, ,- . _ .. ,,,, ---, -,..,,,,I. „ - , I ., 4 . J ' ''' • „q ir /' '' • Cl ' -''' ' ' - ..:Cilli -- - w 4 ' • ' # RE A." :1 M.: ' - . -•!..4. - _ ,' ::,. 'II': ' . & 1 i q • CD #. .• , Jr-I . s'' '4 - - -• 1:7 7: 1) .. -,"- •;-: ' ; ''.. 4-- . „.,,..,4t.. , I = • . 1 .-?:-. 7 :- 1-- - - •. _... . • 0 • t4 ., . • `.'4 . .- . ... ,.._ .._,- ,..... 1.. 1 • I t • • :, • ,-.._ '...'-,:;, ''-...; . ,' . , 4 k • • , ..r) . , V % I ........, . .., , -7,., ‘, 1 , ir •,:. ...; .• • - •• _,„--.,-,.....,.;.....: 0 . - ...,...,.=. ,. , L ale...A - — • • ' . l k 0 '71 • ' -'' ' ; • / ,01 ,....04 ,.....-,'-. - ..: . • 7..-4.:.k..-„..:= , --,-, . r1,14V‘ • — •--- it- %n, • .. i C.) , ' • f , - - -1. , ...6:„-:-. 4.1. - ..:- .:. • . - - 1. , ----43: • - L. 1 ri Sig kV' I ' ,e . - -,, ,,.; ,--=-;;• 1::;f-- ,:, ',,....:„...,,,,, ''..i,5i ....._, ..,,,_ .. . ,.. 1 r . .... .." 4.y - -,;„.., , ,.:: i ,,,,,,..... ,H.- • . -...-.._. r... -- :,! — , ' : i . - - : ' .11 \:',. i 4 • ‘; ; ;;;•-■-ne..; --- ..0' • ',' . ' r ,,...., ..41.,..,..„..,g. ' ' ' • L. , -:;' -' ''''''_'. ,,.." : ' i 4: ' , - -^•'‘, !, q '''..- ' : , , , ' 1 - Mil - : i .7' -; vialr-..,4 -.•:. ;, . ... ,...„ - , :.,.. -• 'ii--: • ,, , 1. ..„ : , '. 4,--;i:',4,te:INCTIR-',. ,.-, • , ' - :' - 4,4, 1- , e'• '':,', " ,'-''' .': ."'•-•;',..,,,%,-,' ' --,,,,-;,-', • - 1, e. ' il .; - -.-: • . -.....• ....i - ..-7, ' - . ..;.....;::.,....,...., - . . • . -- .,... -,:. :. I ,.• 4 .. '''. -.•,;-, V - ****4# z i - ': 7- ' , '' " ' - ' , . . .P ' * SO -- -- ,_ -,-- IL.: Ap : f ,;'''''''...' i ;•-• & :: :,-7,17 ;%- - ';''''''' C ... ;.:- . - - .' .'"■ ''' ' — 7'''' I: -• ' .. . ' , P.C''% A ‘ „. 4 .. - V. ''''''''''' ''' '‘...' ' : 7 - 11 W,17'. , ‘,, • : :',.;'' ' [.:•..,:fY;',1 ,,:- .A t 4 A 1 A - ,--,. - _=.3.7: ...:', _. , - '-,•*, --,!: • :: - ' - - if -,..-,•;,,,,- Lt :;, ,, - .' . ft, , i v i t -i ;;: ', F ' if ,, -v-i -' :: .: 1 ' 7 ' ;.,....:::t - : r : ; "7,1---, !'" • • 4; . '' ' ; ', ;t .' ?I:i.- - -:- . '"S " ; - ,' ': '-',: ' . . ,, ..; L ;;';' ,7 ; '. . 7 ' ' : T''..';' , ,"' • %;:' 0 , 0 -• . . p. , 1.4,... R.__ - .-- - : . .:::. . ';-:-.),..,-,„,-!■. ,, 1 ;';,,:::•,,,...,-;•.•... • i • A. i , gi A . ... ,... .,,, • 1 . 7 .„:„.. -. - „.,4fi ,: -. „-.. ,-,--,- :. . . • - . ., #71' . • ... ..." • • ......... • . 9..p.. . , -.,,, . 1 _ ...:___ ---..1.., 12 , .... 4 I i '' - ' ' '• ' -7•,;V - .-- - I:. --- . .-:,,:,. 1 .• ti ,-:•,.• '.‘. ' -.• -. - ■ ; - r.v ,, - •-.",..-- .L. . h ..) ..:1.-- -,. ,..._ . .. , , 16 I ,r I . 1 e 4 *. , . - - :i-- --......:., -,, -„, _. ...4 . _ -. . .. ..- - , : • ., . - 1 -i v. 7/ - • ,-- ' ''. - • 2' ' .- • i34::r. l'' ------'"'' . v"... :I; - „..„'":. .f.-- .. - • ■ 1 ' V' lir Api , 445.' ( ' 0 14 rn ! • ' 0 10=1• ' 7: • 4 p r40119 .- :, . - it.C - ., 10 I : 1.- 0 • ...AA' ■ i ',' _....¢.■__ • _ .._. 40 -r i ,..t - - - it'.3r-;:aet.:41'T.■41P"::_.#-ftWO-!:wiiirWaltrife...g3raliiMigto L..._ . • - - cri • ' ' 4 , - • 3 / 5 I - 1 M C i i- 1 , .4....... ; 41t , 0000 ' $ 9.16°* "" 5114 1 iff " 0' fAVi• ..., 4.t. iNR v . i _ . , . P 7 0 . .„ • - ,._-- .--.-77 .,.. , f1L• 7- -f*-'1.'- ,- -- Y`• . 4:.- •-:, .- .4.1",•A-......; .su s,„1.4f,„ 4 „, ,,,,.:,..›. 4 , .....:: , . .,..,.., .. i .....,1„. ..z. ,,,..:‘,...„ . 4 ... , :...,;•'!,$, ‘ 'l • .. - -. .,,. s-- .-. .,....-r. • ..,:-,:- , -.1..:. , .--,. 1: • i.`;' -, `?r,:' , .. - ., , , - LAtF.;.-1 . ,,,,.,, . , , ,...... 4 7:- . - , K4, - : , v4- ...t.;,...‘ . ,,..—P,r,...,-K-- -....--;- -•:'A ---_ ' •,.,•i';q-,•, • 1- . • '..'• ••'' • t 4'3. ' • •: - '`•'".-: ..... .. . ';',; , t..!, ,:. ,.. .t.41, ,:,t,1...-,..?,,-.,- :■•■.. ,,::, :.,-‘,',' •'.7..; :.•;,, :'•_ .: -•7- • . ;),.., , n A t-..k...-..,.:.: : • • •••-,.0 '...: ,•••• ::......, -.•••••• • ...,-:;4 -fe- ,• . .:‘,..'....._ :••••. ,... : ,.• -• .-..!nr •,. „...,-, • • ',.4. .. •.'-i ,,, . ,,. , 1! • ... .Y, , '' ' • .. • -,:'''', ,- ••• ." ,L 'al ;`• - ...‘-:' '• ••••••..., t.: .. '' - 7 :: :' • ...-' '" =7 0 i v -,•''' t • 4.1rOr, .-.,' , :4-. 4 - . • " .,...-.,),.!.- 4 .! v."! , ..... , . - r :$-.. ,-,,- ••••.' ■ L'. •:'• r. :,•'. • : • • .-•'''': ; . - .. - ,; - " • ••s ' - - - :".rilgr..A , ): ,- ..- - VF, r - ,'• '-' ;•-,-,.. 'Au ..- 4,A. ''',‘,,,-•,- (1) .;.. • ... •:, - e. -.:. r". .. • ..'... -'. '}', • *•- • -. :" '-`.- "?.;.- -1 -' r's.(1.- '. . ',.•,..^.: •••;-m``'it;kr . - .'," -. •-•••• , ';k".., . ;.--. • ' •i • . ......: - • • . :. . • --- p• - • ,0 ;-V - . , .; --_•■%, -,' . 't,? "; ..•••••: - .' • IL ,••--- • :'` • •-_"- ' -. • .': ,.. • •_';4%':.• ,7 40- - • -, -z - ,.!.■••••ci .•••• _ • • - ••. ` - -*• ,-• . .-1- .- 4.....%••=%t•fe--f,A,, •"' ,,..•.,.. .,..„.,, 0 -....' - -;---- . .. , , ...,,, • .-,........ ' ....-1';'' .4•1•A--- ',..,•:- -• ...t.. ...•,:' • : :•-, ,. - ••. ' ''',4,1,....,,T ''' . - • -- ...A..;;-'''''-'!'• 4.44;: •.. :A ..W ..... ze •:!:-=:...s. " "A -.•.-: -,-,t1 . '''.-:-:•-...-, , . '• - 1 , .."•• . -.:,' •.. . • '2 3. 7- • .;-„...,:• - ----• .=::::,...',., ... , , -:%;-4:3_: ... . , ....-.N : , .-j- 3 -,i4 . ,_:.*...,-...,.., • ... :-..A- , i, .- ..".:r... -- ' -, -7,..', ... -. ....-...-1 .. ••• - --, - . . • r.;•:• - .t:•!A' ' -i5 • • • • ' ' ' . ' •.--': • : ' ' ' - • ' • '. • .. • f-:- *- • - ,! - 17 . • • ' ••• • ;.: ,71 - ' • .1-,-; ' - -•:. . . . --..• • • - ,.-• . .' ... ...,,v.: .."' ...:• ., • ..• ;.•-, • •.-:. .' t , • .• • ..'• • .": , -.; ;I:. 0 . • ,4 • ' • .. ,..,,,••,.• ,...i '''"" ,•• ..:. % t..;:5 ,.• '. • a . ' - - .,..;. ' _. ' • i.' • •'; • :;;"4;:' , ....-;,;;') ' =, ....: , ' '' c s.:4,::..! •:•.' .rt'.. ^ ....*-Al. . -..-.C• - .."•.-,;, • - . , • ' - • •• ; • .• r • ' ' ' 4 • . .' . • ei• ,,-....,;. . • ...;,,- :••1.e.41 ' •,;:;•''.:4,,,-.; " • ' '' ' • ; :-..-i- -,i' ' . ' . • 4• • ...- - .....- ,-•• .• -...-,=-:..,--..• ,,,, .4..,..rt-•;:•,-4,-.. - „ • • :, ; ... ..' ...1: • %6. ' , .;' .' . . -•\'-''.. -', - '' •• • > • 44; .. .9' s • - • ' . '''''''-' '.. ' ''.• - '',.,. z ' - V4 114 !'' .--...- ••• - 4 ' --..-• •-..- . • - -.11;1_ _ .. 1:- - ; i . • • ' ' - • - ' -..:'.- ''''' '-` - X:4%4.0'1- /, , _., • • ii•r.: . • •.',':.- : , -`•'- - ' . ,. i... ..,-'4, . •.:" ' •'; --..':-.- - '7'..... ,'"•i'.::••••`, . . .,4- ..... , ...... ... A illialf r. ' ••. ,,'" '', • ' • .-,,,,v ...,..;1„.. -1,..\.„.. - * / .r. • Lior i . . - .: - .... . ,..- ,,_-..• -,.,—.: _ r• :-.• ... t ,_ i■-) -:.-- - --r - •,-,-- - • : • -- - .,-:' '.• : ....;;,..r.AvE - -'-:- • CILIW4 ' .' . , • - - -..."...',.. 2 Y 3 [ • - . • , ,. ir , , ,.......,,,,,.. --- --:,::,:,.::::_,-,,,,,..' :„:.:........-:„.--,-,,,,-,:-....,--4...,...,-,,,,, --,,-,..,,::;•ft:t,'.1ti,,-; '''' , ,.. • ,....,• . .•,:•-• • .: •,-• •••• ...., -.- - -. ,.. , .k .f T-=•...-:1 • • ...!•• • • •• ... •„.•...,.;• ,.),- „ , ''' .,_-. ':c ."- ---' =t .tr•e - '& , 4.'" - - ---- • -wr • • ••••s,z 1- ,..!,-, • , .44 1 . r. -••••: •-•-- ..!---• - "."'.'''''f • A'Y' , •'4'_::-;ir , f , -..,,N,•:.-•:•. _•;,-....:,... - - _ •.• - , Av • • • ...:• .F••,- • .:1-:;- . • • _ ... -.• :;\ _-•••4 , 7.-?,.'. . • . . , ..,er.„•.. •-...,..,.4.i3 - ,„,,,, ,• _ .•: -•.: .t.......;_ - :•••- .. . :••••••• .. . .'... -;•,---,.-....-..,..,---• - -..f..., ,, :1: ...0. %-..."3..- . ,..:.. . ;1•:% • . - • • . - ir+i - " -- _, Z .i. ', I , V-.. " 7.Ar.n, "...'!`;; .1- ." " 7: : - =--• :.. ' - ' , ..-.7-.:--- - - . •: - , ," ... A ".•• • agraffillry .1 - - •. ..,.. •.,.., . , „ ,, . . . ......- • • •••.• .- - • ,........ ",*;;.'..-': • ': • .7-;C -.. - - ' • • - - ''' . • • ' • • . " • 1 T ' ,„. . ,-,-,...*.■ •• 1 '•---.,!• '.' •. i , ,•!•'• ',- ii,,..,,,, 7..:,;"! :-•••' ' ..--' - --. •• "' • , , - " "- ,* ---- -, • ,,.• - •.• it .',.',....... ° :: •• : - ;- , • ...-:,, :•.,.'•• •'" . - ". . :,,:- • ; . ',; . ' . ?.. ' . • ",. "! '2 ',..i ,. .1 ' 1 . .,..1 1 . - , • : .:,..T.i,? , :i. 7. ,.... ' • ,_..i.':":' ' 21 ;,,- ' .. ..." -'' ';' . ' ' ' , : i.. "" ' : ' ' > 7'.. 1 .' • > , J • : - f,- , ]..,...„.:,•-• 7 • - •'• '1 ,..Le.4-4 r.„... ....2•:rjj; ; ; r ' .'' . • •. ' , • ' „, • 1 . .:•= . ' •- ' - " -,, ,i, „ ;."„,,,..... . 1 :. . -7 ...,,,,,--„,.. ,, i...., --r:01'...:41,4,7i-1%1".'•• ; S:7: -,. .:' - ,.. •,, :: - . ,,, ...,-' *. •.--; %. 1:1.."':'*:.;;;...''.....::.4t-• -.• ''''''-.- . "'1-.3. ''''' '''. ' Cl \ . • r ..' , " - --..7 - ;;;;(4: . • ...„ 7;:" . ..,. •, • ''.,.....;-.\_-; .--.., ..:. .......,'..... ti...7•-•".: • •:-J"` . : • - .:,.' -- .- --,_;...,-. :, v , , . ( '' . ' .,.; . C - -=•-•--:- .. • -- --t , , , . • „•. \ ' - ; . -;••';' , 1 ' ,' . ' 7. '' \ •.• • ' '1 .. -KW ',L • - - 4- • :■3'.'„? , 3 ,"r • ' ' i4. ;'--*- ., ...7 .,,,P..,1,,,, f.,..... _,,_,,,,__ - .0t7;141.:, \ • .1S i ' ,1-',,e41.t.:.•:7;21A...:446"........-+7 \ ' - ' \ •' ' . \ ;! ,: •N :1 0 .-AP. ;. ! Ii7 , j,„it a iiir,::t-7,'f,, • 1 . .41/j s_.. ' '' , IA- r • . 't. ' ?.!,1 I' ' . , rAt %,.. ,ZiV.I. : •••24-PrIFP'. - , •-• • --- ;..,•s t on!:vt - - , ..c.-,-1-44014 , \' ,• , -...••,...t.., , ,.. ,, .' • • c-1 .,. ri, 14 • - ,---,•''' 3A1'"Fi',"1.!„*IVA'W- -..‘-' ' ' ' " a ! • )- co i.v..f", .:..-,t ..., ,.., f ..*„.......... - ; . "Ls - - • , .,...'..v , > ' : to'le--“ .- tt-... 7 ,-, :4, , -o, • • - . - . ' : -.....;1 - 4,t - -,,,...„ AP ,4 . 4 • %,,'"4./.- . ,--,,..' . : . = ; r) . ' : ,Ir.:14.- -1- • -^ ..- ',- ‘. - P*112 , . ".- 4 •••••,;',..- s,,, ,l'1 - '' . * " V'''' 4, ''''.' • • : • ....,..1' < , - 4.:±k-zo ... . ,... . . ge -,- - •••. . ...: .. •,,,,,,- • ' - ...%. •....-....r„.._.,;t:.; . . . .. „,, , . „: .,....„.._ ..i, ,... • .i.- - ----__ 7 ---1 • 1 r - n C : it. , ,, ,..,1, , •-• . _Vi ,I, ._.:.•4 - .14". I r ... ' . ••.: ......k._,...„,_•.....C.2 .. ,.....- .•,•-- ., . Irz "'.; - •I• -i•.?•,„L'ir _A-.:-- -.“-• • ‘.›,,,4"-.7..:• -'"'■" .• t.! .• - • • • ,- . _.: 7 ,. 7 n . .4 . . 1 77 . - - ,,.. , , - .-', " s- , ----'.- ‘ -.-tif,.,-,y 1 . , • - ..V4 i -..' ' • - ' • --- ...''• i • ...5 , ' ▪ '- " : .' "r. - --- ' - -`,..; ., . . ., -.' ." - ', L ...::::. V - ',: .: `... ,. ki •,. r-.. ,, , : , : --' ' ', . .;-'-,.. -:- ''.. - --1 ' - -- l i,-:::-f,z.r., T.' - ; ,..'.='-- I: 4!:..: ,--,-..- ,_. • .."-.,__ :,... -. :::-:-. :,-,...-,.:-. -, . . -, i. 3 , ,, ,. , ,„, , •- ;.-,.=,- - ,- .Ts.•• 2. • -, i .,,. . . •,,- _ . . , _ '::: ': . • ' . .::-,.:-1.•,_' ., : ..'....,:i.'•:0:; 7,;-- . y _;,,, - 4. ; ■,„ . -,„ , ....r(=-,... r ., ... ••_, ,..,,:.„.....,,,.. - ki '1. • ', ....4:1'.; ' ' -- xVelritivi. 5 4-',Ii-i.• 4 '.• ..'-'' i 0 = e -, :-.1, ' .,:::,,. .:. " •-, - - -.-.,' --- -`',...,,.. ,_, - ..f..,.. 7. : :;.' .;!..1',.,-W-. ,. ,,, ■ 0 v 1: ' ::''.........-.'"..- -,• ... : ,..".7-u '. / + ,... '-'-':: .^Iii7i:A ,'.-4*:":3'...1:,:l - 4,. '.,'';- '''': .*:', • ,: i.` ,./.1 • .■:. --•,;:.■'''' ' ------*e VI ..._ i 1 ... ' ..; ..;f ' '', . 51 * -1 : 3 . .., ,...--,,--;;;- . "` '" (X j :: . er , .! -, -•••• , ...;;T ',:. ' - ;„, . • 1 .` ---"' : .'4 ---- •'-''' -.. - i.: • :., .,,.. -. cz ..,<, .....g. -,;,......, -:.; -''''..0 _ ...:...,"; ''',:# ....1 •zz • ., ''''''''''' ,' .,-- c' Cr <A ..,-.4 -?..):.• ■ -," ----: - !II -141:: -4-, -.'-'-='• . .' -f -: cu ...+:- • , --..21-- --,,,,,' .- - - L. 4...4. -I'''' ' - - , - -. ' -• •1 - ' .,..` ,'27P.F'.c-7. 4. . -'._,• . • • • - : *NW ---.. .,.,_ , + .. -. 1 : . ''i • ;i11.10* ' .- .• ' ;'''.. ' • - - - . , :iiAiil . ..' - .;;;,: ' - . ''`Z ' CR 11 0',,.' - '4 ,.. .7 ' ...;..Le ... ,:... L. ....T. " '''' -- ... -......'. ...-: ' ..:,!.".,"3T7 , ,,„ --,-, : • '''. on..L. ' • a) 01 ;;; -- ; ' ..-- ,.. . ' . '.• • ." - . . .: ,,. r.!!,.- 0 - -. - i., - e_u -1 -- .. I, ,-,t • ,,,-.-;, _ ....;,:- . : . ---:. • , ,...... , ., .-,.. - . .- CrQ -1-i -ri 7 t .:: ..,.. . ' . • ' `.-- ' : '''''. ''.: CD h '''''' '.'.."•" . .' j • • ; `.:!"..:. ''i i 011 07 : , - * --. ••• 1-..: .,- - .:- ....... ... t •.- • 1 .,"'":"- .; - _,;: ,,,,,,.,7 ----.. 0 N) :- ..:r::: ,,, ,, , .'i:. r - _. . . .....c ''.':' '"..'..,:' • . ...., • ... • :‘. ^ :...1• - %,, ' 7 , ..-." - . t ... '" ',,,f,. ,< '.::,..i,:iy:i.. . , • r 0 T . •-:' * ',' - - -‘*"- c''' ; ' • • *'-'"- - " - - • '-':-: i '. ' •;;• •• •".•1••••'''''• ' t.i. , , --,,,.. • . .:•:. -,,... - :. . ....::......, = ...... .-,.0 ,-... .....,..,„,.., - •••,, .. -...,:::: Ln , . • -. ::•• . .. -6.:6 ___(,-. 1 0 _-.7.-..,..-,...--.:- - - .:'- - - - t;02.:i.l.c,..: • • • c •.-:: ::::.--,-.-- .4 -,. .4,_.:-.,--. _ _ - . ..: „.,"....7 . ...i . .' ' .-....'.. "' ' ---" . ':':". ......',1 ' . ,..::.;••,.: :' • . CA 1 ■ , ,'. - •,,N ..': "-; ' ..... ..1„,,:. ' ' . .. : .. .,,.. ... . . 0 ' ... 'r '''',: . ' ' '.',...'; • ' • ' 1 : . ' .. .. ... '• 1 ,.' -- , 1 , .. ' .c.'....... ',:' . , , ..,, '' ' ' ; ' • ...".'"....: : ........ . . . .,.: ' ---; -,...,!.•.;' , • ,-,......:4:-..!;; 4, . • ! 'ii - ;":." . .. : '....,-..',: ' • ''' • „,,, .;..,. .1..1 .. ......:,, -, . -,. . . ... ...-,,q,-,,, -..- 1 ,.,-:.,-,. -- . '-', .:_ ' , - 1 - -;i1F-::-... ' .- =`-'`. • l f 1 ',',:i. !:•1;Y. S:)... i„:':.•V•.',1„.. :-.........„,....,.. - : : ....,..-,..-:.: •.? ...* ...... k,...', --7- . ' . .;:':...7„.t•t'' .. ..,...,,iiif. ....., ,S 1 ,.. ,,..,. ...,... .. ,,,,,., ., . , .. - •f , . • • . ‘ ..-kr.-... .... - I -'..• .-•';'...,..:-... ,, Tt* -- ; - .1............ ' : - „,.,," ...,..,.....- -.. -., '.. :....,,. , : - r i ': '-.. - . , - . ' ^: Y ;'4 ..! ' ' - . , ''''''''':' '' - • ' • • ,---• -.u..,,-A .:-.7,, ....,.. : . .--3-4.. . :::-...,..:•:. 1 :4- , "It''''.'t • - • -- " - \ ' -, ...f1: 7 1 - .:-.,'•: s ,'...:. , ':It'-' ,.-- - '''''''' S. '''''' n - . .'' :-. : ... -:--- .,'__-.•!::: i • • - .....5.• - -rx.., .:7!.• - - - . ''. . ' VI ' • .-. ' .: •4::....,,,,! •• .....• . '.. . : = . ; • . . .:. ...;-:::: 7 '.: - - - . . . :.- ' '' ,4"i:3:1;i4 . . - : ' - • =4".,: - ':::::::. , _ . . ;::, •;• - . - , . ••• - ''. r '''■ - ' . ".. ' ...- - ':,1•"ff • 7 , iiie ;.-. • ..' • ",.- - ` i ; ' 11 ' % '. ' . .. -, ... :: i;" .. • ' g i ,,,, ' .,.;'' ; k ' • ' ' . . . :1(. .. 01 . 1 41, 7 .T',.."'■% .. .. ' ' .■.- -.•'. '7' '''-'._-.. , ---• -::. - 7:',''... ,''''-', "_.',...= Ls,' ' :, ' -.,., ;,1"-' ..." ••'.. . .. . . . ikj: 1 .: 1 •1:` , ."&tC . - •" . -':,, .". - : ... .-:-,:: .-- ' - . , .' . .- -. ''.-, ' : , P Nri , 1 , . I' -..':." • \ ' , I . r• o•-■ IN6) :.: 1 .:"' .. :'. .., .... ...• .•,;; ....... , • ..• a lisi.' , ... :,''.''',"•ii...t.1..-.4-1.;... - ----. -'. -, ...1.>- • ' ' I 1 -, •' I.." . , . - • -.- ' ,,._*._ ,....,,_',; ,, ...•:". :_:-.--_,..,.. :, ,. 4 tOrk.; : ..,_.. ..,...,:.,- C13 ,1. Nk.. '.----,: 1. ''' - ;:i . :::: . :::.::. • :.. : .. - r . - - . ,.,.. -.% ' ...' .- L .:: `.; i, . C s' ' til 4-t• • .. ' : . .:•-•......;:::'!'• . -,- - . . i. __ ', : ' - ,. r - ■ _ ( 33 _ 4.....-vi ... - • • "...::,:. :,... .--.- ,:- Al ; '7 •••••:.:. ' ''. ' ' . . - . $-P --' C° ---... .' ':-....! , ; ..; '. • ..-.. •: •• .. !%' % - ,,5 ▪ ', ';',...'.-'..:: - ; - - aa Cy i '' :'..',-.,;.'. :. ' • . ' " ' -' : ' i..',' r ' :-.';..:•,',.''''''..," .. : '.: ` ...mk, ' ' " - ... ''''':-.. .-‘' 1, .'/ al , - • -':,,;.; ' ...• • - . • ' -t •,1 • t, .: - _ ' ...1.....;',, ... ,.... _ ,; -::',',:.,, ' -. .'.: •,,'!,..7 ; ' _ ... ,.... Ct. , . .94.. . (. > , .,, i: ' : 7• • . '... '7, . 5 .” , , -- ...Z. ' ,;•:• . • -: - . _" • ( D 0. It .;•-„,., : :,' t ' ' • • . ,-; `1.. • 'L' .- -; ' ,"'.•-, .,' r's - ` .. • - • '.-.■-* i.frki:• ' " ,. . - ..."-.''....t.:?'7'..ii'.- - ....--.,. ,. • ., . .. •!!..."..:" 4 -"i " ;:t`-;.- ;''''-`.-- • , '- • ' 3• " - ' ''!' • ',. ' t,,t'...." ' . - • -n < .... :-;:;.' .4,- - ';'--.- > (D CI .., .-., . ':'. --:. ,:. ....-,14 -vs)..3.. - 7 "...:. --:-.' ""; 1.. 1. :.;:*; :: . _. L - - • - ;..' ...- .„.1,-.i . --,,......-... -',.- -'---.- -I- 0 r. '""; ., • - i"': ' . • : • i 1 -'," '' ' : i••••.;', **.'" ..7 7 .• ".:r. IL ‘ :.."..,, ;' .. ' ' ' .' • -;', . c'''.: . • - . • ' ', ; . , - .3- ;''....;.:,..:, - ',, ":•!,•-• ''', .. .*::•'••• V1 i•'-'f.'.''';' 2 . " "..- 7 . : - , *.'•• ..- , - : r'• . -* - • •Y ' - S41 ...",',..' ".•,ki.., . . ' .:, , ...4. :•,- . .. ,.._:,-. :,- . ,.,.....;,:: ......, . :.........:::: .,... . • .....;.,,,, A -....,-„,e;-:.4,.......,r,-,,:,,,', '',z,,:;".7•.";•' 'fA;,........ ...,::-A. ' . - .--.:.:1_ ' , • : -. ,.. .R . ..,:, i , - - "... :7 ' „ ' • ,.'..". 'Pk: 7,,, .'• • ' .. , : . 7 ,....% ....'::.4.: ....... - ..,:,....,,,,,..'... .. 7 , , :r • - . , . _. ......... -::" .. - , ---'. 1 ; ., '.. i ." 0 - ,„: '' , _ • ',..'-'.:' ....,.. ' ." ...' 1.- 0 . ,- ..:. ; \ :.; :. _ , ' ' Crct • • •• .1 ':-,.":-._ ..:: 2 - '... ,, ,---,. f.'-' '':- k.L - T .: - ' . ..Vglkii• .......' ; ( - - , , •••- • .a, ,.,,,......: ::. .. • ..,!.?; .,....,. A fii, • , 1 . 77.. , ;,.-•,,,,,• - f • : .4" 'A - .*---, : , ,i - ''''t- f S'A'' ..!;t.Li_. - • Citi ; , "..' . .. ... • -. ... .. - . • ' ' '.,) .,, . .:."';`:' ".: ' ......,. ' ''.1 . :'; :s .:•' . ..." • . - , .... ' • • ' • - - . .. ' ',..:"."- ':::.:' . • , \ '..( ' :7-7: .- .1k. i. :.1' ' 4 3 '::',,.: ,.'7",...:0,,. ' 1 : ' ' - 'q.'...e. (D . ' \ .. - ' - ..' ' ' ' i ' ' ' '''''' ''''' Itt'...,,-....'.... ' - - ;:i.H ' •. "r, - .,. : - ' 1 .„,: - ?;,.....' t i :2!... - .., ;-1 I '5.P.,'-'-',.:.-1, ' ■' ' ' '' '&,P 1 . , ," -, 1., ' .... .CP" ' ' ' ' r : .2 •! - : - ' 1 : 7•'-- . ‘ , ,:. • .._.--,..„,-: ,..L..... .., ' -t.• ...,:;..,, ,.. ._. =. -,-,.},, -__.. - ■■7 ;., ...... ...11 r, : -. .1 , . .-., ...,:.. 2 ".. `'" , :,-,y- 1- ,, , ..:... , _;.! i... , c.,..,..,...,. k • , „....„:„,•-• ,._ ....z..:..„-, :\,..,;..:„.. . ....,,,, . \ .... ',.. i. ... ..• ..i':'.,fr-li , . • " :. ' . ▪ \ ..„ .: • ...... ,A4:::'.5 - --.', • ? ' . • ‘• . • .::, - . -W'''.:L. >',1 I I P,..1. • .' .-.. ilki ,-. ". . , ,. \. ...:171 ''-'._: I • i ... .;.. ' - - 2 '''' - ' '- .": -.1.4-.1 . -- -,-.,...., - 7 - ' 17% " , -1 ' .., ' :',..; '-' .--- -' . '. .... • ' ''''''. ,-,....'......'..;'- '-'..^-.......'-''''''.--' , •••' '- titil;riligri r•:::...' .-- • . - • - ,\,.._, ... :c.',;,„,''- • ..- - - - . :,.:: -,•:Z..:::.Zt.17-_-:-.-`;4.---2.--"IC.:!-, •=x . ....:''': : -.. . . • , .. ,.., ,,,,-......, • • , ... - ' • ,....,,, . ,,, , .., ,;,:, • ... ,-v„pi,.. ..:::,- ..,44' •L'`....`::.'.ii.,4..114..,...,..,..t, •,:,..4,;;%,....,.. '- , ....X •-d • ■IS-' ,.:.1..s. '; .'t.r. : . . '''' - '':'-...... •. . \ ., r t '‘..i' ,, '''.: '''- .3',...:,7t:f .. , ' V.Aii,,-, " " '4 '.‘ Oft*- 4 - 0.1110 , ' ' ..... ' '--''• -."....'' . - ''. ....- • o . • . ,..,..,_ .. . 7- , ,.,- ., -, ...:';.ii ..... " • .e !,' '• ... • • • ' Xt ''. : '. \ .. ' 3 i., -.. .', :- . 1 . - • '. .. 1 / i . .,-= 4 rtkil4 .,... ""': • 1, . v•:' , r,r , '', ---- ._. ..ti - -.. -,...-.., .4- * ;, • ': " • , '. ....,':',!.tEt';' ` '........ '.- -'_,...'''''-•;;,;, , c,,...i." - ir".';. :. .;. - .7; r1 ',,,i.X. :- ..- _,Ii.' W..4:1 - • , ,, , k,:',' - :-:. - -' -"'!""."..- . .. _2. ' •-r-) . . . ,. _ v ,..... =i0 ,. „.)-,,„. •. 1 . 0 t ------- i m c , . ......._... .. ,. • ...:„, ,........„... _!,,•:,..,,,„„....,..,,,,„...,,,,..,..s....„.. ' . • .- '4^'-' - - - ' • • • r .'' s -- • 's . - , " ''''' ' ' ' 1 - . ' ' '' - ' . . .". ••• - .4. , 4•,...,,a,v3, 44e.,-.-...2.. - . . .,.- ,.... -,.• ...7- .*-. -.!it..:. •.'" ` . . ' •. ' .. +2 • . . • . : : ■ - , .:_, -_ ;..:._ ..., , 7 _,.. _ .. 1 ,.. ,7 ,... : ..i ., ,,,„,,,,,, ,. ... 4 . -. ‘,.... _..., . , _. ' , . .. .‘ --. , P72 - cn cn • 6 d N (-1 C _ N Q1 z CD d fl) ° et ter { CU Q1 rD d W .S • • '/, 7r = d 3 { V7 v� t -n Lel CD �^ te r; t . { ,, 3 0 ti II x, l > " T,.. y t om, $ ' b ' tom 1 7! 4' ' a' L R'i � '2d W. , ; - "` 4 14::...: S� - Y Sd. v 9 3 py y i 4 ..W ; ; k f .3 'g ; ,- " '•41— F . � _• ' T t � � � i/ r! � . _�'' ` II ' � c� ' ,N - d ��_. ,i iv -s L�" . '` � t ♦''y �'f4 "J .i Q • ry e r rr v rfa �a t E' a -- f ` .� . • Y `f g 1 S1 ,�j4�yf f A� /�i ,% +1 . .3t N • f a ^,� h 00 L 'c1. . „. ,, i, :'.7 j' .. ! a : •5,• "� 6 x5 0 y eti . "'� ., - n is omit. r `a } ` . r .- F 4,-_:,, -.,-,..-,.,,:....5-_,;:r. ..7 ,......: ? y •� L -0 . • b t � - /L � _ sce "ii t f k � � _ _).:„.4.?„......./.:.•,„?..,„.....2...„.„,,..,., ...;,•3 :1...:.:,...,..,. }' H E i J Y t • y uy i +. - t• .• 0 "o-tA7' y �e r , • t ` anTMC. h a at ..'. 4 i`' y z � „ � r '" Z 4• v -3 L� f '. r 8 ' , t /, "+ , 'M'4' + •z y r. ' „.....3..--;:.,....-:' S -•=-.-Y"Jayft 'd��l0a � {• "` t` a, -- - z r Z, s ti. -' � ' y � to a Y Ravi ♦ „� I .. ` �€. -= n m ar y i y .' WillOrr. ....' .v. r-,, " � ' : ,. ; .r : s E t O 'f�P-' } � 5 4 r . �.. ti . , ...,.. 144k. P 7 3 ---,.-- , ff:- • t- - ' lial 71 ,•-, :,,:......, ,,,,,..., ' _....,.:,•••••••-•: 1, -,•-4', k.;,..--: . _.••• - m... .," .-•'-' ,---, twer,-----r -.;•4., •:•„•••-•., 4.k rD ; . 7*.1,-74- ;7: ,-,- t:3; . '.. - , ; c:F.' - . . 7 . - • ,-. • i:. WeL-Z-Lik-.. r..\<::: •• ';',.. IC ' kl, 1 1 7 ' Ai......:•‘ ' 41. . , 7'. f . , __—z- - "- : .: ''' " • -.::;-4:..' ' . i -7.4.:4_ ;,,, co.,: ..---• --. • - t ..! - ' • . --, w.ati ..:: ■Tth! - - 7 7 — — • , • T'e i.;•;,11;,. ;. :::: I, '. ,•.:..., , ":„ II Z.. : 7.4g mr . . , ...„„-..:...: 7 :• . ,:* ii __,.. • _;-_....±:.J ,,., volvev ; ' -.1 • :.,..-_--_, - , •:., 1 . • • ... ,, „ „,..„0.14...,.......... ... .,. r.:. ._ ... ,... L .. - . .. ; •.:::.. ,:!...,..., ,,,_......- 00 -. 2 %' W - ... -•rr2 9a ' ''1,c,"••. : ." ''' •• . , .S -.-- %*- :. .. ; - .: , - II :'.il . ,4...,.-......,..„, , 4 '. ,-... ..,;;..i.■_ A. tit :-.: i , .7 _ . ; I :. 1 ;''' ' , • --- ' - ar-4 — : , • ' ."' " 1 .. 1Wri M IL1 W 4. . ' ' --; • --- ' =---,. - 1T 41':41, mgr.:',. ', - --s•- z . , • 1 -',. : • ii . - ',., 1 , .,, ;.,. c - : -.--mq !, :,,,:r . • .- , ,;:- I 15:- _t---:".4*-13t fi--;:- ' '-' • .' [ .-", --"-.-:•::: ::„:•.111 , 1 ,4' :ti, :71,..,.: - ::,..... i• , . - ., ; , ff --: .----_...... . — • - .::' ., ; '-y . • •.. ,: ., 2 , „..,,roz-,..r.-- .:,.,- • . • .,,..,. . . . __.- • • . - _ :. . ••• ! !:-'. :'.,-,, ..,,:.-" ::.. ! ' . - • -;.. "..-. ''.. •-• --...,- - ••• -- .--- .., : . • ,,, ...,,, , . ' ." - •-• - ..;'-;r;:r ; -,r,• --I, ':1 • . ' ;;;;W".. :;,,,;:-., \ - — - :'i, - MI : , - •-----. .'-.:•:-. - 1/ if 1 • -- sr.: . 1 .. I. 1 ..,.,1 ; .. • .•:-'..."'''''' 1 ' . .... _ , 7 ' Al- pL. Jr.•: ! • :•... • . I f.i ' :_. . • - i, ;av .\‘::.: . ' . .„.„..:.:, , . ,.,.. , ?I • • - .. . . , . • • .:.• ....,--- . - • .. ;I i ii itP. : :. , - 4 . , - ,N ".....'....,,..... •,,..,‘ ...,-. ,.. ..,„ . • ..,....i....• ?,, ii.`-':-7.;''' ...: 3 4, • .z ,.• ' ' . • • ... -.. ..,:i .... .. ••• I.:. ,'-'; it -- ' ...• L#111, • '4-911 ■ •Vezttts... '''''''''' ' i •:;;;' ', • '. - ' .." V • .... • . 'f,..7 „- 4 ,, , -- 4 7 • ' '••-.; :., ,... , \ . 1 :, .• • ! - - • " -•--;*• ___. • .., ., • :- 77- :, • ' ' • l'-.1..k•-: ...... . • ...: " . ; ,. 'i lf : . .,,. . -....; ...; • T, • : '' - IIIINSk • ..: .5 • • .- .. ..... . • 7••• • i. ' • .O ' 7 • ',. • -• .:.4.1 . ',•;•:. It • :'•.tv' .' 4"I. -..,..•: I ;,: • :1 .:! iP '' • ! ... • :-. ,.• . ...: •7....,1:::.,• , .• ...-..-..• .,44.,..•:.,......-:- - • ,,,,,.., • ....-,.--• •,:f .-. ;'.: , ; 4 • : : p • - . ...:.•,;,..:. ...„.:-• i,_:-.y::;-,-,,, #.11 " . -.-- 4 : R-'1. -..-:' - - -'..:.: ..";. .-......". ---- - ...).1 .,•• -- • -, .- - : ,,,.. ,,, ... ) 47' • •i e'-.•• s ' - •••,..-•'•-•-tt".1.ItT.I•r*".r•-''' ''. :4 • R ..:•c. ' • I{ . . ‘'`.•.".-. •,.'s..i.., ::: • :t - : .. . • :la ;‘'..r::'.. ..._i..'. 7 1- _ - _ . • -,. st.,...',... ,.-.,, --.,, i f ..- 4...,,.... ) A.:, • . ' - :!+ -., . ..:-. ., .:. 7 7" • ...- .;;; ,..,l'O.J.,..,...,"`:".7.; '‘ V I.- - ,-, . ).;-• ; , .- ,.„....,!....; -:-..••••;,:."-,'-••• - . i ' i. - '.,-...,.. ..4 • ' - ..-.-. - . ----. -. r ''. -',PI„':' ,. .. ,.,. . . A • . fr • --- - -: - '•r- . ' - ... '..., ',.! : 0 1 • • • .g .. • • I • . . I "• •, . . , 1.1 .- •• ' • . ' t •et . . ti . I i . . : ' :,.• :work • , .. _________ .e , • :-, : ',.. • .:',?..'.! . , rn . - I - ' . , •••••-, ' '•• ''. "...1 . . ........ .. -, -• • ki . . -• . : ti --•- • '' •. : . ' ' ' ' ' ''.7- . . , '., ■ M G • •+•:,Z,"5;1•''''-i •, ,; , .-.::7 , -;•... , • i . ...... .... ' Z 44-•••••. ..... , Ni.,•.o.,.., •:, 1 • ....-. -. ■ • •-•- •-••• • - . ,..___ • P74 r to rf �, [U - . . • • i _ ■ 0 . i w : s :i • `,.c t • • 3 , t : '.1� 771* [ ,11.477-7.17.a • I ,.� ME INIX '1.4' ., ` 4. i4, w .1 :_ ;- - rn ,J n ky I •1t ` .J C 3 rn '3 P75 - =� T rvs -e k rh GG �a t ! :k (1) v. y a� >. hh , Ti CD s. l 7 ! i. I � , id`t µ 't.�a r F. 4 I . - ;synt r �� ',' : -__ —_try T _._ s - ,r, ..1.1.4._ ftit- r L.- at IC"•t.,• t e _ . f { .• r ,. Y 3 fiery I rl•F 'a S ewe•+ , _..1......... ,.._. •.,_,..,i.-„,,,, ., r91iRf „,.... ie ,k A 4 r _ gla is ”" -5. 4 4- d' q � • . • p�yy�.�g� k lib ' .. . . - 11. f r x :: ' 11 �i w 9 "_ I 4 .`" t F I I.:d • e•4 • i ' S3 I _ ? y� j l .. ^j Tit ti: rn i +'I 0: O • �ao F.,,,,,,.: ` . . .r -a fi 1 > 1y ,. . i I r5 t b'C� �. A _. ,____ :.,." , „,_,PA:v.. -, .6,_ P76 i'`�' y 'Stl 4 J ' f,..,ilit .1 - 7 , 7 -.. 0 rD j • k 7Jt v fi 4`J _ ■.p 1 t �7 � q' M, • AI' . - '4 ''■ • ' • :•: 14 - ,- , . v . -:.„- • , ,i.4. 1 ... . -., -4 - .:,..,.,, , Z , 4 d is ` tl; + e: n + n _'t, • v .. 4 w � t4.a . 1 .:,._:. '-'4' I f 4 i � lT C •4 .. I r y , s f , vq ' tiC'v D i '�' , .4:.rP 1. �F n Y R l ;� } S .:, ! -1 k • ti'� r � Y k • �{ T , :'1 i 61' r k t �� «+ w R a. r i .. :4:75:, i ,t v 11,,1 ,9 6 a i A. 'A I� '� y a. "p�,w�.t • '+ F ' • a ,, Pis k` ^ t y u I r .� �` pE f `Ct - .. ��lS ` vl . t tsfia ~ er. - > a R , . te e L ._ - ... '` - - =� :.. -ski � � ' f1 ' ��'�`- • ax {+ l - M :4?'",, '4.4 i tiaz . :1 ir . I w '.;•“.,v$1,64.,0_, - 1;4, t ; e. . : r. .. n t-4 ! c sr Y :a.,c., I m r ti gT i( e & ll ti �' 1- ? lit = Yh.la..J �- . , . . P 7 7 m < 1 , .-.. - 0 — vl rD ,-1.• i * i • - . - '•,- , . - i - •• - . -I, --N r. _ - ,. .• r•;_ .- ' .:. . • • -, -.1.Y.: . - • _ _ - \ f,.. • 0 1 - .. : - . It/ !,-;.'•• ' . - • If: ' - . ' ,- , • * !,. -';,;,,,-,.„ , .•,-;:__, ! :.._:„., - ' 4 00,_ • 1:: • .7 ., , • ',''. .i ,"&_ ' .. ::: ■ , . . ,, ...1 . ; *- Nil i.:,•,%•01V1:'• Fr :. . _ . '- .7;:', • .=--"' , '. .: 1 :-:;''41111W,M --- ' A ..< :.. . •,: 4 i - - . . .....i .. ---2 - - :.. -• ,' 1 .,,•;',44',..-e ! :- , • , - 7! .;;•;•,::': ' • --• - • 00 ri!``R,.:E ''-' 4.- Ar: i ' ' ''''Y ' ' ' ' : .NI: I ; I- N ' r - - , :': I '''. - - ....,.. —.',........ ', ....,, i,.. -- 0 ,,.'' ( Nf ..-', f. . '''- ,.',' "' ---,..-j ' 'I: - ,.4 1 ,', * iilt '‘' ''':::',' - n : " 4 -ff: , • - z - :••J •-• -;•• tz-f. .-=:,- - • - r ..... - ., . ■ . - •'.• _ . 1 . . • ....- . •.x_e•,.. --..-.- . . - ,:1,. -, , r , r- I mmo . a . 1 -•,\,„ ...;,. Nk ,.. s UJ i , - T'V . ; '.'t • = ...,-''. - .- . '''',. '' '-- - • ..i -, LID '' .;" 4 ---.' • ?-. , , L 4 -•:•-• .-- - ;. '-i- -- - - -- -' ' ,!' 3 ' . , .1 A '„, 7' 1 ''' . '' . ;(..; ' )'.. ■• '' ''' •. ': ' ,...t • .:..- 't ' :Ai_ ;,‘ --. .. 'Att l':' .:. -.-s... :.: .. --s., .' - . 1 t' , -' • - L _ _..,...•:-.., - - ---,..,.:72..... • )". : ' ---.'" 1 '-. 1 . 4 4. ., ' '--....- ' .. — D 11 i - ...,...........- TV • *1 .,..,..,,,! .. s ,,- .., , 1 1 • • ,/' ti '.' ' .%;:: -;•''':1',/ ..1.1 I .!•;„::: -. • „ I'vk. , , ., • '' ' ' ,;'- ; '-,111RMEr: 4 -ti ..„•., Ar . ,,,. L F l'a '" - i': ' 'Ii '.. , ' '. * 0 1_.,:4..J.0.. ,. ,f..: y " .1 34 11 - .‘-' L . --- _ -- ' -'4:-" • --41.- •:•• • ; f = , '.=' ' '''''':. I ,;' •• *-=.* .--,' - . . ,. , ":'. - • „■-,-.,:, fi,:t: ,. ,ti ., ,'. . f.iv,, ..!D =‘, •• " r.- - , r ' ,, ' ' ... : . ••• 1,.. .... rty -, !.1 , - - , I `.-." 'I ' -•• ';'. '. ' : I. - reix...:■ ' -.• • • E,Ii ' ....1. ';....4, ' ''''. ' .;..--,,,-...1.67,,:-4os-.-...-FIC.:,.7..,..tav , masie,F.,em I.. 4.,t`._,.,;,.‘ .,,, - ' '.. •:. , ....-.4.- - =,, , ,, .: , I'.7 le ftram •,,,.- •• I i _ ,..,... ; 3-....-.....,. :. .- ._. . . v.-A: .,,s 'sgrif :..•. ''. . :;. -..4 .:. - - ,p,.:, • , F . i ..,,, .7.4 - i '• • t. - -.'':•..' ' •••• 11.;',1-; 1 1 . . ,. tr.t. ■• ..g . .-. ci - t '' ' '1*.- ''' 1. . '' '' 1:'47'''''''. ' ..%' . ' I '''- ..' . ' . -::: .. r'''' 1 : ... . . .. ''. ' . ' ; ,I 1 . .. . ,, I . . I.! 1 ' . .. '''. " '1 1 . LAI . 4:F '..1 __. r_ _ :._.. , . - • , 4 1 . I r t ' . ''' ' '';,.. ' 'I , r r kt.,: r # ,. r . ':.. ... 1 ' - , .- . . , 1 .• - 77 ....". ■. ' i i .. -.,i • •••, I- .: > I , -' -:...;:• ! '• :- ' '1., ' ■ '-'• --;:---- 1 ■••',' r 'IA 3. 4;1:. !L. :1. .__.:. , ,„,„ . .-...,-„go 1;i,--- -- ----. .-- .. ,..•-•:t . ....., . : _ :,- : -. ..••., - , _:. , ,,t; , li....v.............. 1 .. 1 -..,-....,-,.) - 1...---. - .- , " • • - ..: : .., ,,--.7:-T,E5...7. i , _...,::.,,.., ,. ........._............._ ... _............„............„...t.,-.... .. , I . - -.._ ,-,.:.,,, .,,.,7'.....'• •.:•:.;._•' 1 ; ' ' % :ME. , •':• • ' • ,. ' ' • .. • - - :7,-..=,--..-r—. -- : -. ..:7 - '-....--•.-- - ""7-77 . 7-7. - 's ;',' • .• , ' , :, • ... ‘ . _,,-.2,-...t....------ .;,11. • . , I. ; •.• •,.•.. ; ..;', , .- -r . .:' , 1/4: ., L , ' .4.,1•• 1 - 4 ,. '., '. .; ..:---..••••=zr.,- ... . . . •-•,A.. , . • • ".• " 3 ; ' ''' • ;, •':' 14... c;'' ',..),., ..,, '1.'•,.•,' 1 - ' - . . . - .r 7. ' - --- ''- i, 1... , 1,.:,:i • ' , . .9-ji,.,,. - - .,...;,i , • , ., .' • •• ••Al." '- -• , C. , :gT7,:r i ,' ' • 7477 - - ,', , •:-..,,,;:: ---:----. --.1.... .11 .,, •:;.1r. f 1 . . , . ; '''.' ' '• , , .._. -- k,.. . •,-.. . .. . •'','"... .: • "-.'-' '. . • Ifi P ' 7 4: •'?• ,g,.•,e,, ....6. -.--.4._ L. :__ -,-....- ......... . :-.-,,... ..„....i....i.-..„...,---„,„„ .,..„...• . . . . ., ,. .. ..„..,. , ..5.i .' . ' _ . aieratti.i . 4 . 1,1 1 . "11 L'' 5 ' ' .,.. .' • - - ' . ' ! ',. ! .', - - • *!'.1 . , - ..,- C. -. gEou. ::...„...4.- % F.s,?0,1'-v..-relV .N.- ' -, 1111WIr r Al& -, _. 1 ' - • ' ' 7- • ..-- - " ',. ,,giatita ,-.-1--g, to .'„, k:ar"N2 - . • .., .: .. - =,' .', ' L.- et rf w., - ;,7,7. 1 1,-;_ 7.--i-zi •- - - - --7 - 7:',. , ; - -,.,---_; . :. ,. .,'.• . '‘-!:: ;1 4....,-, . ., - I: -, 2.:.-.,,-,1_,... .- .-, — -....-.A ! , . ,i.• __ , , ....e.-„,,,..-,_.. ; , ....,.i.if..5.„...-.m.„„: ,....-::JA,..., -..-, ,.... ,.. : .. ,.... . .:„..„1,4,,,,....,....... , .,...„,..: „...,.......1., ........ :........,..4.,..„.., ,,,,,.„,.,..,,,,.- ...A • ' i - , '. e ! r.- ,. ...• .-..,,,..,--....', ..4_ .-4 - ,i -i% , .:3.;. , ,ix ..,.-1 fl '."--Z7 Ir ,lf 1 w:,■:,',- ....,,v .........' I = r,' • I,. . , - - I., .:, , ' (,:4 '' !...": •,. ' '• ,,-. .„, . '4 ' ,LL•, ;' t ,„,, •-•..?'" • ,, ...,„ !,,- -: --,, - .,- __V. , 1 ',..-.•,€ IN.v. - _ , , , .4 .. .0 - r1,-..iii. , ..yr..aktp.:,.-: , ,... , :.:-4 .. -,...i 7 40-- ,,,-' . .. • ' '• .. -,• '',- • ...-:, . rz...... ....-....111:111tWI,..--=',- ', . ' ' •.- c :. 1 .:• . , -1`z ..' ...., 1 ,_. , .. , . , ■ - 4. , , •; ;:„ ::. 1.z.r.•-•-•• d.-311;' '1* 1. - ; . , • • - - : .: ' ■ .. '",;,:, •••,- ; --. : 1 . 4:1'.."': A - 14.: i . t, -:::.,:.: -, Y _ . - :4I • • •''',"'",-- ' - 7. „.; • , , . - --_ • - • ' , - . '''AX 4 .,• 'ft• , 5 * ,,. - 1 1,e1 '•' 1 .. 1 1 7. .'' - ' - ;K . .''' . - fe . A . - .. ' . .. .,:,...,, — -',: 274.--MilWr' p :,. . — • — -- .. ___. _ . 07 • - si. • • ' I -..,,,- 4.,, ' ' ,,,- : L. ' a ''• .,.;-:,:•• .., ?I.' ,,•:-,:r.'..... ,irmiiiii ..., t- 0 \ - ''.."' ' . - "-', a . k it 1.r .,,, ' ". 1 ' • ,;" A . ' " - " ' -:" ' . 1 .. 1 . .i. .':: ' r'-4 : • ..'f.'"'.4y f . r - '':'•'i 1 1' - ' '. - - ' ' '; . ' 'M'qileaTIRICK' • ' ' '': 1 ' ;.'. Yf'f '1' • ,...-; ".• .1: ri 'L-. --,.:,.. _ ,,... ._ . 1- 1, '-‘, - . -- izr;,..„•• ---._. ': ;:-. 1 . . .. , ..„..-- :. N., . •,,, - ..r.,; : ........i.,-..,„„,.- I .,,. . "•:*" 2: '', • •x-- , .1 ,, • ,-., ' *hrik.,.. • _ '., . •.• L :7 'a .7, --- - 7.= tit4 : '''''' V . - 'r i , ' -= ' . . .. r r: ; , tk*S'.. '.: .-. 1 11 , ,I' 4- '4 . ' ' i I 7K ..'1 7 ".1 4' ' ' ' ' •- - ' r ' -,:r r ''.. •• ' ' - • ' ', ,le 2. ,'- • 7 . '- ' --- - r- - .•-•,- I M C . ,.. -. t --.:;', • ',.' •, . ..,•-!. : '''51iIiL.,, , -, .: i -_-_----.7 -, --- ".■'k.:-.4: I ' " 'r'/I P _ k--41?) RECEPTION#: 567702, 03/16/2010 at 10:28:00 AM, 1 OF 2, R $11.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO tESOLUTION NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) FROM MODERATE- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -15) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -6) FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 217 AND 219 S. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel I : 2735-124-65-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from YLP West, Inc. represented by Suzanne Foster requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Map Amendment to the Official Zone District Map from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium- Density Residential (R -6) for the property commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the official zone district map may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the amendment to the official zone district map with a vote of six to one (6 to 1). Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council deny the zone district map amendment to rezone the following described property from Moderate - Density Residential (R- 15) to Medium- Density Residential (R -6) and recommends the applicant to considerresu'bmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns of the public. The subject property is legally described as Lots , P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots 0, P, and Q that lies south Page 1 of 2 P79 of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and reap recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 and commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shalt not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 2, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZO�COMMISSION: ies R. True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: G. u j -,` (C7.� cw L. ' Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 of 2 E—Xftc\ \� City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING: 217/219 S Third St — Rezoning Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan stated that the request before P &Z was submitted by YLP West Inc represented by Suzanne Foster. Phelan said the request is with regard to the property commonly known as 217 and 219 South Third Street to rezone the property from moderate density residential R -15 to medium density residential R -6. Phelan said that currently the 9, 942 square foot lot contains a chalet style duplex. Phelan said the staff presentational covered permitted uses, dimensional standards, neighborhood character. Permitted and conditional uses of the R -15 and the R -6 zone districts permit the same permitted uses, which are uses by right and also almost the same conditional uses, which are uses that have to go through a public hearing process to be approved in the zone district. Phelan said the only difference in the two zone districts is that the R -15 zone allows for agricultural uses as a conditional use; that is the only difference in uses in the two zone districts. Permitted uses in both zone districts are primarily residential allowing for single family dwellings, duplex dwellings and also two detached residential dwellings. Phelan said with regards to dimensional standards, the applicant is wishing to develop the property with two detached residences. The existing R -15 lot is considered a non - conforming lot with regard to size because the minimum lot size in this zone is 15,000 square feet and this is just about 9500 square feet. The property is developed with a legally established duplex. Phelan said if the property is redeveloped in this zone district the applicant is allowed to keep that density on the lot; they just need to meet the minimum setback standards, heights and floor area allowances for a single family home but the density is allowed to remain. Phelan said the rezoning to R -6 the minimum lot size is 9000 square feet so this would create a conforming lot and the zoning with the minimum lot size would allow for a single family home, a duplex or two detached residences, which is what the applicant is interested in. • Phelan said with regards to setbacks and height; height in both zone districts is the same, 25 feet. The minimum setbacks for the rear and side for developing a duplex or two detached residences on this lot are the same at 10 feet. The front yard setback in the R -6 zone district is a minimum of 10 foot verses 25 feet in the R -15 zone, Floor area is very similar also currently the allowable floor area in the R -15 zone district whether a single family house is developed on this property or a duplex is redeveloped on this property is 4,145 square feet is the maximum that 10 P81 City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes — February 02, 2010 could be allowed on this site. Phelan said with the R -6 zone for a duplex or two detached residences are developed it's about 9 square feet less at 4,136 square feet. If in the R -6 zone district a single family home was developed it's actually quite a bit lower and that is shown in the memo. Phelan said there were very similar development allowances; the biggest difference was whether a duplex is allowed on the lot or two detached residences; attached versus detached. Phelan said with regard to neighborhood character and the subject property to the south and to the west the property is surrounded by city owned property that's zoned Public. The Midland Trail is on the south side of this property; to the east you have R -6 zoning, which includes a number of single family homes and the St. Moritz Lodge; to the north across the alley you have 3 properties that are zoned R- 15. Phelan said in the neighborhood the lot range from 3,000 to approximately 18,000 square feet; in general the neighborhood contains single family, duplex, multifamily units and lodging. Phelan noted that other properties are also non- conforming because none of them meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in the neighborhood and it tends to be a denser neighborhood. Phelan said that if the property is rezoned to R -6 staff feels that it is more compatible; it meets the minimum lot size requirements of the R -6 zone district rather than the R -15. This property is part of the original town site and is within walking distance of the Core. Phelan said that staff feels that this complies with the land use code, it meets the elements of the AACP, it's compatible with the surrounding land uses, it will not make a traffic generation issues since a duplex is already there and that's the maximum density permitted on that site and it would not adversely affect the natural environment. Staff recommends the application be permitted in a recommendation from R -15 to R -6 be granted. Phelan entered a map into the record as Exhibit D and goes over lot sizes and what's on the property. Jasmine Tygre said the P &Z in the past away stand an would be a good thing but these n- conformities were likely to eventually go y and there is no official policy. Tygre asked if there was an official policy on the benefits of eliminating non - conformities. Phelan replied no; there is a big difference between having a grandfathered something versus a lot that has a non- conforming with regard to density; if you look at the neighborhood pattern where you have smaller tots and density the R -6 would actually fit for this property. 11 Po City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 Tygre asked if this would actually lift the non - conformity. Phelan replied yes it would create a conforming lot. LJ Erspamer asked Jennifer to point out the other R-6 lots in the neighborhood. Phelan replied that the staff memo page 5 the color zone district map showed anything in the darker yellow. Cliff Weiss asked about specific lot sizes in relation to house sizes. Phelan replied they varied by the lot size. Michael Wampler asked if the applicant came with the zoning change or did community development suggest it. Phelan replied the applicant came and requested it. Stan Gibbs asked the square footage of the current duplex. Phelan replied that she didn't know what the current duplex was. Bert Myrin asked if the Third Street side would be the front. Phelan replied the Third Street side would be the front. Gibbs asked if the alleyway has not been vacated at all. Phelan replied that it has not and she would check on the unimproved portion of that alleyway. Gibbs asked if anything that was built closer to the alleyway would have an alleyway address. Phelan answered no it would have a Third Street Address. Weiss asked the lot width difference between R -15 and R -6. Phelan responded that it currently doesn't matter because for R -15 it would be considered part of the non - conformity. Wampler said whether we approve the lot rezone or not she can still do a duplex or single family whichever way P &Z goes. Phelan replied that was right if it stayed as R -15, the allowable floor area, whether you do a duplex or a single family is 4,145 square feet. Phelan said the only change is if you rezone as R -6 the floor area a single home would have 3, 716 square feet and if you do either a duplex or 2 detached on the lot in R -6 it would go down about 9 square feet to 4,136 square feet. Gibbs said they were not asking for a lot split it was a simply a rezoning. Weiss asked the motivation was from going from one zone to another. Suzanne Foster, applicant, stated that the motivation was they have a little boy that is going to be 6 on Friday and when he was born they decided that they wanted to leave the east coast and move out somewhere to have more nature. Foster said pretty much right away they started coming out to Aspen and had been here several years before and they love everything about Aspen. Foster said that they looked at properties and identified this property because it had historic designation potential, which meant that you could possibly lot split it and make two smaller masses of the structure, one of which they would like to live in. The motivation is to have 2 smaller structures instead of having one large structure; they want a small house and want to raise their son here. Foster said that she was okay with a half of a duplex and if they don't get the rezoning they will build a duplex and keep half of it and somebody else will live in the other half Forster said it seemed more consistent with the neighborhood since it was basically the same amount of 12 P83 Ci Plannint & Zonint Meetin. — Minutes — Februa 02 2010 building footprint; you only have so much square footage so you are just separating it out instead of having it have to be connected. Forster said that Jennifer was pretty clear. Foster said there was not a determination of FAR for this property yet because there were some manmade slope questions. Foster said if they get the maximum it's going to be about 2200 square feet per structure. Foster said that with the R -15 zone the front yard setback was 25 feet and 10 feet rear yard and that would impact the neighbors across the alley; so she would like to line up with that 10 foot front yard setback to get a nice streetscape for the existing Third Street setbacks. Cliff Weiss asked if the 2200 square feet was FAR that included basement, decks and garage. Foster replied that the FAR for this property was about 4140 square feet total that would be divided between the 2 structures. Forster said the little models were pretty much to scale of what a structure might look like; either it would be 2 separate or 1 attached. Gibbs reminded the commission that P &Z had a very narrow scope of rezoning and it wasn't really germane at this point and P &Z needs to decide whether this property 'is being rezoned according to the code. Gibbs asked the commission to focus on the rezoning. Stan Gibbs opened the public testimony. Jennifer Phelan said that the letters received were Exhibit E. Public Comments: 1. Mita Barton called Jennifer Phelan opposing the rezoning. 2. Jake Vickery, architect and consultant with the neighbors, stated that he added a rebuttal statement that was the reason for creating the R -15 and not undermining it for changing zoning to R -6. Vickery said it was on the periphery of the urban growth boundary and the base of Shadow Mountain and the R -15 was meant to be a mitigating lower density transition zone from the higher density. Vickery said that he didn't see any compelling reason from the public's interest to rezone this whatsoever. Vickery said that you have to look at the ramifications in zoning of what a person can or cannot do on that property because they are going to have different potential irnpacts then what they would have had if the zoning remained the same. Vickery said what was being proposed there is in direct conflict with section 26.410.040, which is the residential design standards; this section requires that each house have a relationship to the street, a principal window, porch and a one story mass. 13 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 3. Jordie Gerber, public, said this rezoning was only self - serving for one person; he said the parameters of the building were the same and it doesn't benefit the public. Gerber opposed this rezoning. 4. Paul Young, public, handed out a packet and asked that P &Z take a minute to look it over. Stan Gibbs replied that if the City had received this ahead of time it would have been part of the packet; he asked Paul Young to give his testimony on it. Young said that Suzanne Foster bought this parcel of land knowing it was zoned R -15; the opposing neighbors and he was one of them asked only for Foster to go forward under R -15 zoning and build what is allowable without variances, rezoning, exc. Young said that Mr. Vickery in his 3 minutes provided that this application as it pertains to the standards of review and the Aspen Design Standards that this application has shortcomings and is inconsistent with those two documents. Young reiterated that the R -15 zone is a buffer of low density between the Midland Trail and there was a letter from the Midland Trail Board that opposes this within that path. Young said that he supports only one structure with the front entrance facing Third Street. Young said that simply stated 2 detached dwellings on this small lot calls for denial of an up zone R -6. 5. David Bentley, public, lives across the alley from this proposed project and said that there was a lot of traffic congestion. 6. Cheryl Goldenberg, public, stated she lived at 430 West Hopkins that they have an R -6 lot with a duplex on it and it went through the Historic Preservation which Mrs. Foster wanted a lot of things that the rest of the neighborhood didn't have and Goldenberg wanted a guarantee that all the exceptions that go with this property would go with all the other R -6 properties. 7. Steve Goldenberg, public, stated that they live in a duplex and it has been lived in by locals for 25 years. Goldenberg said he didn't like the way the process was working and said the closest neighbors that were most impacted were against this rezoning; he was opposed to the up- zoning. 8. Angela Young, public, stated that she lived at 413 West Hopkins and the community development department with HPC has worked with Mrs. Foster tirelessly for over a year for a menu of options and special considerations. Young said at the end of that process it is still was not enough and despite the pleas of all of the neighbors and City Council for her to compromise; she chose not to. Young said she is now back asking for a rezone to get the same special considerations; this rezone absolutely benefits no one but Mrs. Foster. Mrs. Young asked that P &Z deny this application for an up -zone. 14 P85 Cit Plannin• & Zonin• Meetin_ — Minutes — Febru• 02 2010 Stan Gibbs closed the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan ferenceed this property is allowed to have 2 dwelling units on it; the biggest attached or whether it's detached. Phelan said the density is not being up -zoned to do a high density and if you are technical about it the floor area is less in R -6 than in R -I5. Jennifer Phelan said that with regards to special considerations for an applicant if Ms. Foster was developing this property at R -15 or R -6 and did not want to meet the required yard setbacks her option is to go to a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment and request a dimensional variance in the minimum setbacks that's available to any property in the City of Aspen. Jim DeFrancia said that he hears what Jennifer is saying that you can build 2 dwelling units and the rest of the neighborhood is R -15 he asked what's the public benefit in changing to R -6. Phelan responded that right across the street is R -6; across from the applicant on Third Street. DeFrancia asked if the R -6 zone gave more ched flexibility. nits and the setback wasa rather 10 feet between the two buildings so you could atta actually break up the mass. Chaff Weiss the minimum rear yard and confused etback was 10 foot, no change between the 2 zones so that the applicant was not asking for a variance when it comes against the Midland Trail or that buffer. Phelan said that she spoke to the Parks Department because of the rezoning and because of the Midland Trail; when she explained that the setbacks were the same Parks had no com ents less square feet; said t i th e FAR ly all really doesn't change and if anything there about giving her a little flexibility to have 2 detached units. Phelan said they were similar zone districts so staff didn't have strong feelings of recormnending denial and the break- up of the mass was a better option. Weiss said there were just a and couple one meet the minimum lot size for couple of pockets for being an R -15 zoned lot. Bert Myrin asked if the green space on the map on page 5 was parks. Phelan responded that it was City owned property. Jim DeFrancia asked if this was just a rezoning request; he asked could the owner of the property not submit a rezoning request concurrent with a specific development plan. Phelan said they were not required to. DeFrancia said that they 15 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 could, which would address in detail some of the concerns that have been expressed. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting to 7:15pm; Brian Speck seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mike Wampler thanked the public for coming and it shows that you are passionate about your neighborhood; he said the fact that you got signatures speaks volumes. Wampler said that every time P &Z get hit with something like this there is some kind of motive by the applicant and he said he was going to listen to the public and this just doesn't pass the test for him. Jasmine Tygre asked if the rezoning went through would the applicant then have to go through any other further review processes to develop the property. Phelan said that they would need to submit a building permit application; there has been some discussion on the site if there are natural steep slopes or manmade slopes on the property there could be a reduction in floor area but the setbacks would be the same. DeFrancia said that he was somewhere in Mike's camp and he didn't care to speculate on either the applicant's motivations or what might occur in the rezoning but there has been ample expression of concern about the character of the development that might occur and it seems that all parties would be better satisfied if a rezoning request were accompanied with a specific development plan. Bert Myrin said the resolution required code standards and the final whereas was that it was consistent with the AACP. Myrin says the current AACP says the government needs some improvement and that seems pretty clear that the relationship is not there and he probably will not vote for the approval. LJ Erspamer asked if duplexes could be split up. Phelan replied that duplexes were required to have a common wall of a certain Length above grade. Erspamer thanked the applicant and respected the neighbors for coming forth. Erspamer said as Stan said this was only one thing to look at which was a zoning review and he wasn't sure of the character of the neighborhood. Erspamer asked if this is denied and recommended by community development do we have to site a specific ruling why we vote against it. Jim True replied no, it was discretionary action on your part. True said that it was non - conforming property and she's asking that it be rezoned to the conforming zone district. Erspamer asked if there were other non- conforming lots. Phelan replied there were non- confoi wing. 16 P87 Cit Plannin• & Zonin• Meetin• — Minutes — Februa 02 2010 Jasmine Tygre said that she didn't know why the density kept coming up when the density did not change. Weiss asked what was going on with the manmade versus natural slope. Jennifer Phelan said the allowable floor area would b reduced steep f slep slopes od and if they The determination of whether the property contains are natural or manmade has not been determined; so included in the packet is the maximum allowable floor area if it was a completely flat property and the 25% reduction if there were lots of steep slopes on it. Cliff Weiss said it was odd to him that this has come to P &Z and there's this major grey area if it's manmade or not and exactly what can be developed and yet P &Z has to determine whether or not it can be rezoned. Weiss said that this is a whole new element that he is perplexed by that that determination hasn't been specific to this particular lot and here P &Z was looking at a rezoning; he said that the cart and the horse got a little mixed. Phelan replied that determination of steep slopes was submitted and handled at building permit; that's when staff looks at the surveying information, maybe geotechnical information; so what you are looking at is what can be the maximum density on this property, which whether it is R -15 or R -6 are two dwelling units and then again the maximum floor area that would be permitted on this property. Phelan said you know the maximum and it could potentially be less. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to recommend to City Council that the application for 217/219 S Third Street be denied with direction to the applicant to consider resubmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Erspamer, yes; Wampler, yes; Speck, yes; Weiss, y e Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, no. Motion to deny the recommendation to City Council was approved 6 -1. Discussion of the above motion prior to vote: Cliff Weiss said that a rejection means that they cannot reapply. Jennifer Phelan said that this was a recommendation to City Council. Bert Myrin said that R -15 was sort of the periphery of the city limits and why not zone all these properties R -6. Jennifer Phelan replied sure but the periphery 100 years ago and 2010 still make the argument that this is in walking distance to the urban core and the original town site and the lots may not have been appropriately zoned at the time they were zoned. Bert Myrin asked if there should be one zone. Jennifer Phelan replied that 17 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 R -15 on Cemetery Lane with 15,000 square foot lots was quite appropriate but when you are talking about no minimum lot size in an R -15 zone district and look at the surrounding density there might have been a problem when they originally zoned this property. LJ Erspamer asked a procedural question you would link this with a building application. Jim DeFrancia said a development application. LJ Erspamer asked if that was appropriate for P &Z to do. Jim True responded that it was a recommendation. Cliff Weiss said the neighborhood was organized up in arms and it was the unknown that everyone is afraid of and he would weigh in behind Jim on his motion. Suzanne Foster asked if there was a plan then P &Z would approve the R -6 zone. Cliff Weiss replied that there would be less neighborhood objection; it is the unknown that's bothering everyone. Jim DeFrancia said that Cliff has stated it correctly; he thought it was the issue of the unknown. Bert Myrin asked if there was a process to track things that there were issues like this and set a calendar to address them. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. Is NJ ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 1 8 L P89 Jennifer Phelan 11 ' From: Chris Bendon Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:56 PM To: Jen nifer Phelan Subject: FW: Foster Re- zoning at 219 S. Third Street Cheers, Chris From: Jennifer Sherwin [mailto:Jennifer.Sherwin @self help.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:44 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Foster Re- zoning at 219 S. Third Street Dear Mr. Bendon and P and Z Members. I'm writing this e-mail to address the re- zoning request made by Ms. Foster at 219 S. Third street property. I amj the member manager of Sherwin Enterprises, LLC which owns the historic properties located at 205 and 211 S. Third Street. The 211 S. Third property is a small historic building at the edge of the alley and closest to the property in question. Ms. Foster's request concerns me unless the following issues are addressed: 1 :.There should be one dedicated parking space per bedroom. The applicant Foster's plans call for a total of 9 bedrooms for Unit A & Unit B & this does NOT include bedroom count if she also builds a carriage house! While City Code only requires 2 onsite parking spaces per unit, in light of our alley congestion, and the recent damage to the roof of my property at 211 S. Third Street, we feel applicant should have one dedicated parking space per bedroom. • Note: just this past December, significant damage was caused to the roof of 211 S. Third Street and the City of Aspen paid for the repairs as they determined the roof damage was most likely caused by a City snow plow, plowing in a very tight alley. 2. Applicant should be required to have a 20' setback from alley as opposed to 10'- -again because of alley congestion, parking problems. 3. Building height of proposed development should be kept lower on alley side. Thank you for your consideration. Jennifer Sherwin Mernber Manager, Sherwin Enterprises, LLC 1714 Vista Street Durham, NC 27701 919 =308 -1145 1 Page l of 1 P90 David Bentley e To: David Bentley IE CE /frE Subject: RE: About: Foster Re- zoning 217 -219 S. 3rd St M a IT Q Cl Ty 2 p11 Original Message C ' /JN '`1 Sp , From: David Bently Sent: Tuesday, Ma 08, 9:56 AM ey @comcast.net] �E10 0, To: jenniferp @ci.aspen.co.us Cc: Jennifer DavidMilkereit Sherwin; Mark home Sherwin; Kitty Sherwin; Angela Young Subject: About: Foster Re zoning 217 - 219 S. 3rd St To: Jennifer Phelan Community Development — (and P and Z members) From: David E Bentley, occupant of 211 So. 3 St, next door to 219 So. 3rd Jennifer and Mark Sherwin own 205 and 211 South 3rd St.) Date: Tuesday 08 march 2011 Re: the request for re- zoning from the Foster family at 219 South 3rd St Claud Delivered to 3rd Floor - City Hall - Tues 10:30 am)) Dear MS Phelan, I have lived across the alley from MS Foster's duplex for 39 years. I've said to the full council and perhaps, also, to the P & Z, Historical Preservation, whatever, that there will never be less than one car per bedroom. It's very easy when someone is tired and has an armload of groceries to forego parking on the street by parking in the alley "illegally." The South 200 block of Third has the St Moritz taking up one whole quadrant. The snowplows have to make a blind sharp curve as they pass the corner of the Third St side of the Foster property. The St Moritz has head -in parking and sometimes big pickups and even trucks are parked askew in the corner spaces, extending into curve of 3rd and W. Hyman. About 5 years ago, one renter of the 219 half, a New Zealander, used his carport to rebuild the engine of his muscle car while parking his little pickup in the alley against the house. His fellow - Kiwi housemate had two vehicles of his own . They was subletting it from "Sandy," who stored her little jeep in the sunken courtyard on the uphill side of the house while she was back in Chicago helping her mother die slowly. The vacant lot the Fosters want to build on looked like a field that had been used for a county fair. The 217 half of the duplex was occupied in an uninterrupted (apostolic ?) succession of Jehovah's Witnesses from about 1975 to about the mid -90s, when the owner, Tom Cleary died. They never threw loud parties but there were often many cars there. Property management of the two units (217 - 219) in the interregnum between Tom Cleary's death and the Fosters acquiring it, wasn't as strict. The Fosters surely investigate the backgrounds of potential renters. Of course, I wouldn't mind if there were a 20' setback to provide garage apron that would be on -site parking for the renters. Snow will be a probem if Aspen receives as little as 3 " /each day many days in succession with continuously cloudy weather. Each new layer protects the one below from sublimating, as it does in full sunlight. A couple spells like that and the snowpack settled depth can be 3x or 4x normal, even though the "ski area totals" of snow are just average. You see crews all over downtown shoveling roofs. From my window, I have seen snowpack on the roof of 217 -219 South Third St. become over 48" deep. If it had fallen over in my direction, it would crush my house. Any engineering specs for a parking structure have to take into account relatively rare snow accumulations and where will they put it if they can't put it in the alley, even temporarily? People will live there and need to park their cars there, too. Thank you, David E Bentley, (home fax = 925 -4443) (e -mail = PO Box 3024 Aspen CO 81612 c en ' h P.S. �.., oppos �I 4 .„, � nc•zun;h �S wgat. DES ° STD • P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planne RE: Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle): Subdivision, Final PUD Review, Growth Management for multifamily replacement (for free market multi - family units and for deed restricted affordable housing units) and for the development of affordable housing, Residential Design Standard Variances. Public hearing continued from February 15, 2011. MEETING DATE: March 15, 2011 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the February 15 hearing and addresses the changes to the proposal. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant • Staff comments on the main issues • Staff recommendation & proposed motion • A revised draft resolution. Also attached is the original staff report of February 15, 2011. This memo provides the Commission with the development proposal, background and dimensional standards associated with the development so that you have this information at hand. Minutes from the February 15 meeting are attached as Exhibit J. SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2011: At the February 15 public hearing on Aspen Walk, the Planning and Zoning Commission raised a number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail. The Applicant has amended the design of the project and a summary of the changes are provided below. Comments from Staff follow in a separate, italicized paragraph when applicable. The Applicant's representative has provided a memo on the changes in the attached Exhibit "H ". PROPOSED CHANGES: • Redesign of the architecture: The Applicant has completely redesigned the skin of the building to better relate to the pedestrian scale by adding flat roofs and undulating facades. A flat roof is proposed for the entire project and more glazing has been added to lighten up the architecture. A new street oriented entrance was added to the free market building for a total of 4 entrances (where 7 are required by Code), and two projecting front porch elements were added to the free market building. A one story projecting element is proposed on the side of the affordable housing building to indicate the Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 03.15.11 Page 1 of 6 P2 entrance to the affordable units, which is accessed off of the interior courtyard. The applicant represents that the project is compliant with the height requirement of 32' with the exception of the elevator shafts and facade above the parking ramp. Staff has confirmed that building meets the 32' height limitation with the exception of the elevator towers and stairway access to the rooftop and the elevation of the affordable housing building above the parking ramp entrance. The applicant provided an explanation included as Exhibit I to address the Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns about the location of the elevators. According to the Aspen Building Department an elevator overrun is required to be 4 ft. - 5 ft. above the ceiling of the top floor when there is no rooftop access. • Street facing entrance: One street facing entrance was added to the free market component of the building and one story projecting front porch elements were added to the entrances on the free market building. Residential Design Standard variances are still required for street oriented entrances and first story elements as discussed below. • Parking: One additional stacked parking space was added for the affordable housing units. Parking for the free market units is unchanged. There are a total of 53 parking spaces proposed — 29 for the free market residential units and 24 for the affordable housing units. The additional parking space for the affordable housing unit amounts to a total of 24 spaces for 17 housing units, including 4 stacked spaces. The proposed number of parking spaces meets Land Use Code requirements. The project is required to provide accessible parking spaces for this project to comply with the Building Code, none of which are delineated on the plans. As accessible parking spaces require larger dimensioned spaces then what is provided, it will result in fewer parking spaces in the garage, which needs to be resolved prior to the City Council hearing'. • Affordable housing units: French balconies were added to affordable housing units. A detailed landscape plan with tables, chairs, a fireplace and a grill to the outdoor patio for the housing residents is proposed. Out of 17 affordable housing units, 9 were previously proposed to be Category 2 units. The Housing Board is rethinking the Category 2 designation and may propose a mix of Category 3 and 4 rather than the previous proposal of Category 2 and 4. The Housing Board voiced concern about the ability of Category 2 qualified residents to purchase the units and to afford the HOA dues. According to the Building Department, the project requ 2 accessible spaces — 1 van accessible space that is a total of 16' wide (8' wide space and 8' wide access way) and 1 accessible space that is 13' wide each (8' wide space and 5' wide access way). 2 A memo from the Housing Department is included as Exhibit K. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 03.15.11 Page 2 of 6 P3 There is no change to the proposed amount of net livable area allotted to the affordable housing component of the project. Category 2 units have a lower minimum unit size than Category 3 or 4 units. The square footage of the units proposed on February 15, 2011 is unchanged; however the decision to raise Category level requires approval from the Housing Board to reduce the minimum size of the units. Reducing the minimum unit size may conflict with pending code amendment language that allows a variation of the amount that the garden level units are below grade, as explained in more detail in Section 3 of this memo. The Commission asked staff to calculate the cash in lieu payment amount for the proposed bond required during construction before the required 17.5 housing credits are extinguished — at Category 4 mitigation rates = $2,376,780 or Category 1 mitigation rates (414 Park Circle currently contains Cat. 1 which is proposed to be mitigated by the credits) = $4,822,930. STAFF RESPONSE: 1) Architectural Character/ Residential Design Standard Variances. Final PUD review addresses specific criteria regarding site design and architectural character. Visual interest, engagement of pedestrian movement, compatibility with the neighborhood and representations of the intended use are some of the criteria for Final PUD review. In addition, the Residential Design Standards, which also focuses on pedestrian scale and compatibility with the neighborhood, are applicable to this project. Both reviews generally work together toward the same solution: positive pedestrian experience, visual interest and architecture that contributes to neighborhood character. Staff commends the applicant for redesigning the skin of the building and adding pedestrian scale elements to the design, all of which better aligns with the goals of the AACP and the Residential Design Standards. The neighborhood represents an eclectic mix of architecture from a variety of decades which creates a challenging context. Overall, Staff finds that the changes are moving in the right direction for the neighborhood. Pursuant to architectural character criteria in the PUD review, Staff is concerned that the perceived mass and the treatment of the building continues to read as a lodge use, rather than multi - family residential use and does not relate to pedestrian scale. An architectural strategy to convey a residential use is to add pathways from the sidewalk to street facing entrances. This type of treatment relates to the pedestrian, adds visual interest and creates a more inviting experience. The Residential Design Standards recognize the importance of street facing entrances and one story elements by requiring multi - family projects to provide 1 street oriented entrance per 4 units and 20% of the buildings overall width is a street facing first story element (that must be 6 feet from the street facing building facade and a maximum height of 10 feet). According to the purpose statement of the Design Standards it is "important not to close off views of the front Lawn and house...front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence." Aspen Waik — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 03.15.11 Page 3 of 6 P4 The first story element Standard is not met on either the free market or the affordable housing buildings. Staff is concerned about the impact of the proposed building mass on the neighborhood and streetscape without one story elements to break up the 3 story facade. The affordable housing building does not have a one story element that meets the criteria or a street facing entrance, both of which cause the building to appear more massive, taller and unapproachable. The garden level housing unit that faces the street has windows and a sliding glass door; however, there is no walkway to the unit. The applicant is looking into creating an outdoor patio space for this unit, which Staff finds is a positive addition to the project. Adding a walkway from the sidewalk and a covered porch to the potential patio space creates a pedestrian scale and breaks up the 3 story mass of the affordable housing building. The Code requirement is for the project to provide 7 street oriented entrances; there are currently 4 proposed entrances that are all on the free market building. Staff finds that the applicant could reasonably provide 2 more entrances (1 more for the free market and 1 for the housing) for a total of 6 street oriented entrances to be as close to compliance with the Standard as possible without redesigning the interior spaces. Overall, Staff recommends that the project be brought into closer compliance with the Residential Design Standards, which will likely also bring the project into compliance with the PUD criteria for site design and architectural character. 2) Parking. The proposed number of parking spaces exceeds Code requirements. Staff finds that the addition of one parking space for the affordable housing units provides the lesser of 1 space per bedroom not to exceed 2 spaces per unit, as required by the Land Use Code for the RMF zone district outside of the infill area. The current proposal does not include any accessible parking spaces. The International Building Code requires 2 parking spaces that are accessible with 1 of the 2 spaces meeting van accessibility requirements. The addition of accessible spaces may reduce the number of overall parking spaces in the garage. The Code requires the project to have a total of 27 spaces by maintaining an existing deficit of parking. City Council included the condition that 2 electric cars are provided for use by the affordable housing residents in the garage. The Housing Board, as part applicant, is rethinking the original intent of the electric cars and associated costs to the residents over time. The Board may request that the project simply provide 2 charging stations for electric cars, rather than provide the actual cars. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to City Council regarding the elimination of electric cars from the project. In addition, Staff included a condition of approval in the draft resolution that the required accessible parking spaces are shown on the garage plan set and the actual number of parking spaces provided onsite for the project for review by City Council. 3) Affordable Housing. Design: The applicant has updated the affordable housing units by adding French balconies to all 17 proposed units. French balconies are about 6" deep and allow larger, operable windows for the units. Staff finds that adding French balconies to all of the units increases Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 03.15.11 Page 4 of 6 P5 the amount of light and natural air provided to the residents. The applicant further developed the design of the outdoor patio space above the parking garage entrance to include amenities such as a grill, fireplace and tables and chairs. Staff is still concerned that the combination of substandard unit sizes and limited private outdoor space for the residents does not meet the statement in the AACP that housing "should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily increases costs and lessens production" and the AACP policy to "promote a high quality of site planning and architecture in affordable housing to enhance the character and charm of Aspen." Garden Level Variance: The proposed code amendment language to vary the dimensional requirement that an affordable housing unit's net livable area is below grade received a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 1, 2011 to the City Council. Planning and Zoning changed some of the proposed language to focus the criteria for granting a variation on significant storage, above average window area, larger units than the minimum requirement, and specific unit amenities such as access to outdoor space and private patios. The code amendment is not yet scheduled for Council review. Aspen Walk requests a variation for the partially sub -grade garden level units pursuant to a proposed Code amendment. Under the present Code partially sub -grade garden level units are prohibited when more than 50% of finished floor is below natural or finished grade. The proposed French balconies provide above average window areas for the units. However, Staff is concerned that the lack of private outdoor space and the proposal to vary the minimum unit size requirement do not exceed the expectations of the Housing Guidelines as stated in the proposed code amendment and therefore do not meet the potential criteria to allow sub -grade units. The Commission's approval of Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing relies on the ability to vary the amount that the finished floors of the garden level units are below grade. There are two options for the proposed project: 1) City Council approves the code amendment language that Staff drafted, which includes criteria for granting the variation that the Aspen Walk project meets or 2) the project reworks the garden level units to meet the code amendment language that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to City Council pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5, Series of 2011. Staff included draft language in the Resolution that would allow the project to receive Growth Management approval for the housing units conditioned on Council's adoption of language that Aspen Walk meets. If Council adopts language that Aspen Walk does not meet for a variation, the Growth Management approval is void, the City Council review is continued, and the project is returned to Planning and Zoning for a re- review pursuant to the adopted language. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes the benefit that affordable housing provides to the community and the benefit APCHA sees in gaining new (both in construction and inventory) affordable housing units at no cost to the agency; however, development projects need to be sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood where they are located. 3 If the 9 proposed category 2 units are raised to Categories 3 or 4, those units will be substandard size according to the APCHA Guidelines. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 03.15.11 Page 5 of 6 Staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the AACP and the review criteria outlined above, and recommends the following changes to the proposal: • Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing units. • Provide more street oriented entrances and one story elements to bring the project into closer compliance with the Residential Design Standards and meet the PUD criteria related to architectural character and site design. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing to a date certain to address these issues; however a resolution is included with this memo that is written in the affirmative, approving the GMQS reviews, Residential Design Standard variances, and recommending approval of Final PUD and Subdivision to City Council as presented RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the Growth Management reviews for the demolition of free market multi - family units, demolition of deed restricted affordable housing multi - family units and the development of affordable housing; Residential Design Standard Variances, and a recommendation of approval to City Council for Final PUD and Subdivision for Aspen Walk." Attachments: EXHIBIT A — Final PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings [provided on February 15, 2011 ] EXHIBIT B — Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings [provided on February 15, 2011 ] EXHIBIT C — Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings [provided on February 15, 2011 ] EXHIBIT D — Residential Design Standard Variances [provided on February 15, 2011] EXHIBIT E — DRC Comments [provided on February 15, 2011] EXHIBIT F — Council Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual PUD approval [provided on February 15, 2011] EXHIBIT G — Application [provided on February 15, 20111 EXHIBIT H — Staff memo and exhibits dated February 15, 2011 EXHIBIT I - Supplemental information to the application dated March 1, 2011 EXHIBIT J — Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated February 15, 2011 EXHIBIT K — Housing Department memo dated March 8, 2011 Please notify Staff if you require another copy of Exhibits A — G. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 03.15.11 Page 6 of 6 P7 RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF FREE MARKET MULTI - FAMILY UNITS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, VARIANCES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION FOR ASPEN WALK, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737 - 074 -04 -705 and 2737- 0741 -04 -701 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management review for the demolition of free market multi - family units and the demolition of deed restricted affordable housing units, and Growth Management for the development of affordable housing, Residential Design Standard variances and a recommendation of approval of Subdivision and Final PUD to the Aspen City Council to merge the two lots into one lot to be redeveloped with two detached multi - family structures containing fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units in one building and seventeen (17) affordable housing units, with a shared below grade parking area; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi- family housing, Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments, Residential Design Standard Variances; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located is zoned Residential Multi - Family (RMF) with a PUD Overlay; and, WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standards meet the underlying zone district standards of the Residential Multi - Family (RMF) zone district with the exception of Maximum Height; and P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 1 of 6 P8 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Parking Department, Transportation Department, Utilities Department, Fire Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 15, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Affordable Housing a. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves seventeen (17) Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments from the 2010 Growth Management Year, conditioned upon the approval of a pending code amendment related to Section 26.470.070.4.c for subgrade affordable housing units. The Aspen Walk project shall meet the language in the adopted code amendment as determined by City Council. Growth Management allotments for the development of affordable housing for Aspen Walk are considered void if the project does not meet the adopted code amendment language. In such event the project shall be deemed continued until a new review for growth management approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission is completed. The applicant proposed 17 units onsite deed restricted for -sale housing units, 25 bedrooms, and 12,032 square feet of net livable area with a mix of Category 2 and Category 4 units meeting the mitigation requirements for the 100% replacement of the existing 14 free market units. Any changes to the proposed Categories shall meet the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 2 of 6 P9 b. In order to meet the mitigation requirements of the existing onsite affordable housing, the provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) to mitigate for the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. Affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5 FTEs shall be extinguished according to Section 26.540 of the Aspen Municipal Code prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. A bond or letter of credit may be submitted to the City equal to the cash in lieu payment for the 17.5 FTEs for Category 1, as listed in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, calculated at the time of building permit submittal. The bond or letter of credit is subject to approval by the City Attorney and shall be held by the City until affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5 FTEs are extinguished. The credits shall be extinguished prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the free market units. Any change to the type of mitigation provided for the demolished affordable housing units (i.e. affordable housing credits) requires review pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 2: Residential Design Standard Variances Pursu to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances for the Residential Design Standards listed in Section 26.410.040.D, Building Elements for multi - family residences as represented in the application. Section 3: Final PUD Dimensional Standards The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) of subject to the following conditions in Table 2: Table 2: approved dimensional requirements: i % sJ X X IiX ; - 1 32,774 sq. ft. I f f.1 SI It . 1: �? 31 units in total Xi it 14 free market 17 affordable residential units housing units Stp i h15 H t � ti as per PUD plat ry f 14i { �1 I! F Yt Xi 4Uk bE t om . r ?i P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 3 of 6 P10 tE�t� ai t 5ft. ,� E [Z a t t o f t as per PUD plat r : as per PUD plat t� fk a 7a; n/a l P bt9! ' T.ry z m n/a fisc, ;: � 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft. 6 rfimtt� Nf X ,.. 0 s 52 spaces: 2 9 spaces (including 3 tandem) for free .� market residential units; and 23 spaces (including 2 tandem) and 2 r � z electric cars for use by the affordable ; housing units Section 4: Subdivision to combine Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approval to merge Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision. The newly created lot, Lot 1 of the Aspen Walk Subdivision, is 32,774 square feet as depicted on the survey. Section 5: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. Park Avenue /Park Circle Intersection Alignment The alignment of the Park Ave & Park Circle intersection needs to be consistent with the Park Avenue Pedestrian Plan, prepared in conjunction with City staff by JR Engineering. This includes a shift in current roadway alignment as well as the installation of sidewalk on the eastern side of Park Avenue. If a traffic impact analysis deems a decrease in level or quality of service the recommended speed table will be installed just south of the intersection. The applicant agrees to pay their proportionate share of the improvements. Section 6: Building Permit Soils disturbance in the 414 site is regulated per the Smuggler Mountain Super Fund site. Appropriate measures will be required manage this portion of the work for the proposed development. The application must meet American National Standards Institute, specifically regarding accessibility, prior to Council review. The project shall be subject P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 4 of 6 P11 to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, in place at the time of land use application submittal on October 12, 2010. Changes subsequent to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be subject to the Code in place at the time of proposed changes. Section 7: Fire Mitigation This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2003 Edition Section 503), Turning around of fire apparatus, depending on site configuration (IFC Section 503.2.5), Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be provided (IFC as amended Section 903 and 907). Detailed wildfire mitigation plans for both landscaping and structural standpoints shall be submitted. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 9: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 10: Transportation The application shall be subject to the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality impact fees at the time of building permit. Section 11: Parks Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the City Parks Department. An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition, development or access infrastructure work takes place. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. The building permit shall be compliant with Aspen Municipal Code Section 13.20. Section 12: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 13: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 5 of 6 P12 Section 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Comrnission of the City of Aspen on this 15 day of March, 2011. Stan Gibbs, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Elevations P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT H P 1 3 STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle): Subdivision, Final PUD Review, Growth Management for multifamily replacement (for free market multi - family units and for deed restricted affordable housing units) and for the development of affordable housing, Residential Design Standard Variances. MEETING DATE: February 15, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PFG Aspenwalk, LLC (404 Park Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Avenue) and Aspen Pitkin County Commission continue the public hearing to allow Housing Authority (414 Park Circle) time for the Applicant to revise the plans. A site visit is proposed for noon on Tuesday, February REPRESENTATIVE: 15` Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, SUMMARY: Inc. The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Residential LOCATION: Design Standard variances and Growth Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision and Lot Management review for multi- family 5, Sunny Park Subdivision commonly replacement and the development of affordable known as 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park housing, and a recommendation of approval of Circle, respectively. Subdivision and Final PUD. y CURRENT ZONING & USE 1 Located in the residential multi - family (R/MF) zone district with a Planned Unit r Development (PUD) overlay. 404 Park contains 17,550 sq. ft. of lot area while 414 Park Circle contains 15,224 r a'! cI sq. ft of lot area. _ r 404 Park Circle PROPOSED LAND USE: Y The Applicant is requesting to merge lot 3 and lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision, develop a residential multi- family building containing sub -grade parking, 17 affordable housing units and 14 free -market residential housing units - -. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 1 of 14 P 1 4 EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 for a total of 31 dwelling units. 414 Park Avenue LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to develop Aspen Walk: Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals: • Growth Management Review for the demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing (Subsection 26.470.070.5.1) for the demolition of free market multi - family residential units. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. • Growth Management Review for the demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing (Subsection 26.470.070.5.2) for the demolition of affordable housing units. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. • Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing (Subsection 26.470.070.4). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. • Residential Design Standard Variances (Subsection 26.410.020.D) for multi - family housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. City Council Approvals: • Subdivision Review (Section 26.480) for the development of multi - family units and the vacation of a lot line. City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Final PUD Review (Section 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the proposed development. City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Resolution No. 74 (Series of 2008) granted Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Aspen Walk on October 27, 2008. Council extended the conceptual approval for one year to October 28, 2010 via Resolution No. 84 (Series of 2009). The conceptual approval is for the proposed redevelopment of 404 Park Avenue (owned by PFG Aspen Walk, LLC) and 414 Park Circle (owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority) as a single development consisting of 18 affordable housing units and 14 market rate residential units. The following standards were included in Resolution No. 74, Section 1.A (the entire Resolution is included in the application) as conditions of submitting a Final PUD application: 1. Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 40,968 sq. ft. or a Floor Area Ratio of 1.28:1. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 2 of 14 EXHIBIT H P 1 5 STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 2. The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator shafts) feet as outlined in the application. 3. The Minimum Off - Street Parking standards for the affordable housing units shall be 23 spaces for the 18 affordable housing units and the Applicants will provide two electric vehicles for the use of the residents of the affordable housing. 4. Provision of affordable housing shall provide 100% replacement (Subsection 26.470.070.5.1.a) for the existing free market units. Additional affordable housing associated with the project beyond the eighteen affordable housing units proposed on -site may be provided off -site. The existing affordable housing units to be demolished have been determined to house 17.5 employees. CHANGES FROM CONCEPTUAL PUD APPROVAL: As stated in the Land Use Code, "approval of a conceptual development plan shall only authorize and applicant to submit an application or a final PUD development plan in accordance with the City Council Resolution granting conceptual PUD approval." The applicant has submitted a Final PUD plan that is in substantial compliance with the Conceptual PUD Resolution. Changes from the dimensional standards listed in the conceptual approval are the following: 1.) the number of affordable housing units was dropped from 18 to 17 units to meet multi - family replacement requirements regarding number of bedrooms, 2.) the proposed FAR was reduced to 1.25:1, and 3.) height variations are requested. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicants, Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) have requested approval to demolish existing buildings located at 404 Park Avenue (Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision) and 414 Park Circle (Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision). 404 Park Avenue is a 17,550 sq. ft. lot that contains 14 free - market residential multi - family dwelling units in one building. 414 Park Circle is a 15,224 sq. ft. lot containing 11 deed restricted residential multi- family affordable housing units in one building. Combined, both lots contain 32,774 square feet and 25 dwelling units. The Applicants would like to merge the two lots and redevelop the newly created lot with two new multi- family buildings and a sub -grade garage, accessed by ramp off of Park Circle, to service both buildings. 14 free - market residential multi - family units are proposed in one building and 17 deed restricted multi - family affordable housing units are proposed in the second building. The affordable housing units are proposed to be a mix of Category 2 and Category 4 for sale units. The free market and the affordable housing units are proposed to have separate HOAs. A total of 31 units are proposed for the Aspen Walk project, which represents an increase of 6 units from the existing density. The properties are located in the Residential Multi - Family (R/MF) zone district with a PUD Overlay. The site is sloped with a distinct upper and lower bench demarcated by an existing retaining wall between the two lots. The free market residential building is proposed to contain a total of 31,158 square feet of net livable area and the affordable housing building is proposed to Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 3 of 14 P 1 6 EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 contain a total of 12,032 square feet of net livable area. A portion of the garden level of both proposed buildings is sub - grade, as illustrated in the building section labeled Figure 1. The proposed configuration for each building is below in Table 1: Table 1: Pro .osed con for each buildin: •er floor. u'k .caQ..r. �k_ "Z 51M brwAdty ua f- i�l[Sl 4& Eta¢�S"la �.uvaEf6 {'i F {illf _. 29 spaces for the free - market residential units 23 for the affordable housing n units (including 2 stacked spaces) (including 3 stacked spaces) and 2 electric vehicles Row a 5 units : 5 units: 4@ 3 bedroom (1,424 - 2,322 sq. ft. net livable 1@ studio ` t each) 1@ 1 bedroom 1@ 4 bedroom (2,257 sq. ft. net livable) 2@ 2 bedroom 1 • 3 bedroom } ' 5 units: 6 units: 4@ 3 bedroom (1,506 — 2,343 sq. ft. net livable 2@ studio each) 2@ 1 bedroom '' 1 • 4 bedroom (2,257 s.. ft. net livable) 2 • 2 bedroom 4 units: un 2@ 3 bedroom (2,024 and 2,306 sq. ft. net its: livable) 2 @ studio 2@ 4 bedroom (1,997 and 2,242 sq. ft. net 2@ 1 bedroom livable) 2@ 2 bedroom 3 ..,_ Access to roofto• ratio No access to roofto. o- 14 units 17 units 3 31,158 sq. ft. 12,032 sq. ft. Bedroom count for the free market residential units are to be verified at building permit. 2 Net livable area proposed for the affordable housing units is included in the growth manageihent section of this memo. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15 11 Page 4 of 14 EXHIBIT H P1 7 STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 VII 1:11:11111 nisete t 1111 410$0- ��� 1 III�1 I _: e eUILDR4G E€cuai 04E .nr Figure 1: Section of the proposed free market multi - family building. Dimensional Requirements: The proposed dimensional requirements are noted below in Table 2. The highlighted cells are the proposed standards that exceed permitted requirements for the underlying zone district. Table 2: RMF zone district coma ared to .ro,osed final PUD dimensional requirements a °Sd t u A 'TLa""•"5s � `n b- i .li s vsw t f a ors � 6000 sq. ft. 32,774 sq. ft. � i. a - no requirement for nla multifamily 31 units in total 14 free market residential 17 affordable units housin• units 60 ft. as per PUD plat 5ft. 5ft. ass � i, ,,. 7-d: 3.33 ft. 5ft. ' 5ft. 5ft. Paa cn ,g - t" 5ft. 5ft. ry n a as per PUD plat 'e „a rike ;7:4 .'� 32ft. u. .w: . Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 5 of 14 P 1 $ EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 no regm't for multifamily n/a (building and fire codes apply) n/a n/a 1.25:1 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft. • An existin deficit of parking 52 spaces': existing P g P • may be maintained. 27 spaces 29 spaces (including 3 tandem) for free market • are required. A detailed residential units; and ( f explanation is included in the 23 spaces (including 2 tandem) and 2 electric cars i- I arkin_ section of this memo. for use by the affordablehousin• units The proposal presented before the Council is to demolish the existing the free - market units at 404 Park Ave. (Lot 3) and the affordable housing units at 414 Park Circle (Lot 5). There are two different types of mitigation required for the demolition of the existing free -market residential and affordable housing units. The following two sections are divided to address each type of mitigation provided. Demolition or Replacement of Multi - Familv Housing: Free Market Residential Unit Replacement: For approximately thirty years, the City has required a certain amount of affordable housing to be developed when existing free market multi - family residential dwelling units are demolished. The Land Use Code provides two mitigation options when a free market residential multi - family project is demolished. The Applicants propose to meet the 100% replacement option which requires the development to replace at a minimum the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area of the demolished multi - family building. The remaining development on the site may be free market as long as there is no increase in the number of free market residential units that previously existed. The applicant proposes the following onsite affordable housing units to meet the requirements of multi - family replacement: Table 3: Existing configuration of free market multi - family units and proposed configuration of onsite affordable housing units E*0:01. Soft** Conti a#notc e o e v < Conff t t,on. 100100 o' rkplaiement # of units 14 14 17 # of bedrooms 25 25 25 3 The Land Use Code requires the lesser of 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit for properties outside the Aspen Infill area. If there was no existing deficit, the parking requirement would be the following - 52 required spaces: 28 spaces for free market residential units and 24 spaces for affordable housing units. 4 The Land Use Code does not count stacked or tandem spaces individually for multi - family development; therefore 47 parking spaces are technically provided on the site: 21 spaces for the ah units, and 26 spaces for the free market units. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 6 of 14 EXHIBIT H P 19 STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 net livable area (sq. ft.) 1 9,300 1 9,300 12,032 Affordable Housing Unit Replacement: While mitigation for multi - family free market units requires unit density, bedroom count and net livable area to be maintained, the Land Use Code requires projects that demolish deed restricted multi - family affordable housing units to replace the total number of employees, also referred to as full time equivalents (FTEs), housed in the existing development. The overall number of units, bedrooms and net livable may be decreased or increased, but there may be no decrease in the total number of employees housed in the existing development. Council Resolution No. 74, approving the Conceptual PUD plan, states that "the existing affordable housing units to be demolished have been determined to house 17.5 employees." The applicant proposes to purchase affordable housing credits to mitigate for the required 17.5 employees. Providing off - site housing was permitted under the Conceptual approval. Parking: An existing deficit is allowed to be maintained when a property is redeveloped; however, this deficit is only for the previously existing number of units and any new units are required to meet the off -street parking standards unless granted a variation in the requirement. In a PUD, the minimum off -street parking requirement can be established as part of the Final PUD. A total of 27 off - street spaces are required by Code if the applicant selects to maintain the existing deficit of parking. The Applicant proposes 52 onsite parking spaces (including 5 stacked spaces) that are allocated between the free market and affordable housing units. The application meets the parking requirement. Tables 4 and 5 provide detailed analyses of the existing and proposed parking. Table 4: Existiarkin_ at 404 and 414 Park n s ,�, 414 Park Avenue 11 14 5 - 9 404 Park Circle 14 22 10 - 12 Total 25 36 15 - 21 Table 5: Required off -street •arkin• at As .en Walk 3 t R id T4 e p a i =- %-, , teaLsita MEM 25 15 New 6 12 Total 31 Total of 27 slues Table 6: Pro .osed off -street .arkin• at As. -n Walk vs..arkin: re'uirement if no existin: deficit 23 AH (including 2 stacked) 24 AH 29 Free market (including 3 stacked) 28 Free Market Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 7 of 14 P20 EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 Total of 52 Total of 52 The Applicant proposes a parking allowance of 23 spaces, including 2 spaces for electric vehicles, for 17 affordable housing units which is 1 less than what is required if the applicant choose to not maintain the existing deficit. Council mentioned parking allocation as an issue to discuss during Final Review. STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The intention of Conceptual Review is to discuss the initial threshold issues relating to a large development proposal, and to evaluate the suitability of a development project on a particular parcel of land. Review boards identify areas of concern that need to be specifically addressed during Final Review. The project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission twice and the City Council six times before Conceptual PUD approval was granted. Density, affordable housing mitigation, height, floor area, ownership and parking were the main issues identified, many of which are included as conditions of Conceptual approval in Resolution No. 74 (see Exhibit E). Staff recognizes the discussion and subsequent improvements to the project made during Conceptual review and does not find it appropriate to re- discuss the proposed density, site plan, floor area, overall number of off - street parking spaces, and configuration of 2 separate buildings above grade. Height variances that were not discussed during Conceptual review, and architectural details and elements are appropriate for Final PUD Review. In addition, parking allocation and the livability of the affordable housing units were raised as concems by City Council to be addressed during Final Review. Both Tots currently have a PUD overlay on them. The purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives." A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants are requesting to vary the allowable height limit for this project. With the exception of height, the project meets the dimensional requirements for the underlying RMF zone district. 5 Code requires the lesser of 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit - 52 required spaces: 28 spaces for free market residential units and 24 spaces for affordable housing units Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cr. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 8 of 14 • EXHIBIT H P 21 STAFF MEMO AND EXHI 03.15 .2011 Staff recognizes the community demand and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's goal to develop affordable housing within the City limits of Aspen; however staff does not interpret the housing goals as maximizing the quantity of affordable housing units on a site but rather finding a balance between quantity and quality units for a positive livable experience. As stated in the AACP, "housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community not just units." Staff is concerned about the quality and livability of the units, the overall affordable housing experience, and the impacts on the neighborhood The only outdoor communal space for the housing units is proposed above the parking ramp in the northeastern corner of the property that faces the windows of a housing unit (see Figure 2 below). Staff questions the usability of this space and the proposed location. Balconies are not provided and there is no rooftop access - there is very limited positive outdoor communal space for the housing residents to enjoy. Figure 2: view of the affordable housing building, parking ramp and outdoor communal space above the ram . te a ' '' � .. at: _ _ a FM building � v; ° i-. . A B . R .ar - Communal i space for AH residents / � �: garage Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 9 of 14 P 2 2 EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 As mentioned, the number of parking spaces exceeds the code requirement, which allows a redevelopment to maintain a deficit of parking. However, there is another issue to discuss in addition to the code requirement. Parking allocation is an issue identified during Conceptual PUD review. When looking at the total number of proposed parking spaces and the allocation between the free market and housing units, it appears that the allotment leaves the affordable housing units deficient 1 space and the free market units over 1 space (refer to Table 6 for details). Furthermore, 2 electric vehicles are proposed for use by the affordable housing units that will occupy 2 of the spaces allocated to housing units. Staff is concerned about the impact of off -street parking allocated to the housing units on the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not seem equipped to absorb any additional on -street cars. Developing 2 separate buildings on the site to reduce impacts of the mass on the neighborhood was included in the Conceptual approval. During Conceptual approval, the applicant reduced the proposed floor area and density to comply with the underlying RMF zone district. The height of the buildings was reduced by proposing a garden level that is partially subgrade. Conceptual PUD approval notes that the maximum allowable height shall be no greater than 32 feet (excepting elevator shafts.) The detailed plans in the Final PUD application show that height variances are needed for both proposed buildings in addition to the elevator shafts and stairways. Staff finds that the height variances requested for the elevator shafts and access stairways are appropriate, as noted in the Conceptual PUD approval. The height of the north elevation of the affordable housing building is measured from finished grade of the parking ramp, which explains why that portion of the building is over the 32' height limit. Staff finds the height variance request for the housing building to be an appropriate trade - off to providing off -street parking subgrade. Two height variances are requested for the free market residential building: the northwestern corner of the building measures 36' 2" and the southwestern corner measures 37'. Staff finds that it is not appropriate to grant a height variance for the free market residential building. The two and a half story building is already larger than most multifamily buildings in the neighborhood and allowing a height variance will exacerbate the size of the building and its impact on the surrounding context. Staff finds that the purpose of PUD review to "achieve a more desirable development pattern, a higher qualify design and site planning...and a greater compatibility with existing and future land uses..." is not met with the proposed height variances for the free market building. Staff strongly recommends that the application drop the height of the free market building to meet the 32' height limit in the RMF zone district. Figure 3: Northwest elevation of proposed project. The housing building is to the left and the free market building is to the right. AH BUILDING FREE MARKET BUILDING Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 10 of 14 EXHIBIT H P 2 3 STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 The Architectural Character section of Final PUD review emphasizes compatibility of the neighborhood and appropriate relationships between the architecture and intended use of the building. Staff finds that the overall design conveys a heaviness and vertical emphasis that is inconsistent with the eclectic, low scale architecture in the neighborhood. The proposed "Mountain Contemporary" style is often found in lodges located in tourist zone districts to attract visitors that associate a Rocky Mountain vacation with large log timbers, heavy stone veneer, and big central fireplaces. The Park Circle neighborhood is largely residential with small scale multi- family, single and duplex homes scattered around the base of Smuggler Mountain. Both buildings' designs do not include a street facing entrance or one story elements that create a positive pedestrian experience (these elements require a variance from the Residential Design Standards addressed below) and relate to the residential nature of the neighborhood. Staff finds .,,;,, s t,— '`'� gi p' � > ' " tig • that the proposed architecture does not relate to the multi - family use of the buildings and does not contribute to the existing built environment of the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the architectural elements and materials to better relate to the intended use and to bring the design into compliance with Design Quality goals of the AACP which states: "We favor diversity tempered by context, sometimes historical, sometimes not, as opposed to arbitrariness. `Context' refers first to region, then town, neighborhood, and finally the natural and manmade features joining a particular development site. Decisions regarding scale, massing, form, materials, texture, and color must be first measured by context. Contextual appropriateness transcends `style' alone" Staff recommends that the applicant improve the quality and livability of the affordable housing units, re- allocate the parking spaces to provide 1 more space to the housing units, drop the height of the free market building to comply with the underlying zone district, and redesign the architectural details and materials to reflect the neighborhood context and intended use. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 11 of 14 P24 EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 SUBDIVISION: The application proposes to combine Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision into 1 lot, renamed Lot 1 of the Aspen Walk Subdivision, and to redevelop the lot with 2 new buildings and 1 large subgrade parking area, as outlined above. Staff finds that the Subdivision criteria are largely met, as outlined in Exhibit B, with the exception of the entire project's compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: As outlined above, the project requests three growth management reviews: multi - family replacement for the demolition of free market residential multi - family units, multi - family replacement for the demolition of deed restricted affordable housing multi - family units, and the development of affordable housing. The project proposes to provide onsite mitigation in the form of 17 units for the 100% replacement of the free market multi - family demolition component, and to provide mitigation in the form of housing credits for 17.5 FTEs for the replacement of the affordable housing demolition component. Conceptual Resolution No. 74 approves the concept of off -site mitigation for the 17.5 employees. Council recognized the impacts of increasing the density of the project on the neighborhood and directed the applicant to evaluate off -site mitigation options other than on -site units. The Code requires housing credits to be purchased and extinguished upon issuance of a Development Order. The 17 proposed affordable housing units require growth management review for the development of affordable housing. This Section of the Code requires affordable housing to meet specific criteria related to compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines including: mitigation requirements; ownership requirements; affordable housing credit eligibility; and the requirement that 50% or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above finished or natural grade, whichever is higher. The Aspen Walk project proposes some "garden level" affordable housing units that are 2 or 3 feet below grade, while more than 50% of the units' volumes are above grade, however, the units do not meet the current criterion noted in italics above. Similar to design variances for Accessory Dwelling Units, Staff proposes a code amendment that permits the percentage of the unit's net livable area that is at or above finished or natural grade to be varied at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission through the Special Review process. The Code amendment is scheduled to be reviewed concurrent with the Aspen Walk project. In the case of Aspen Walk there is a clear advantage to allowing 2 or 3 foot subgrade spaces, a small amount in Staffs opinion, in exchange for a lower building height and increased density on site to meet mitigation requirements. Please refer to Exhibit C for a detailed discussion. The Code amendment is written in consideration of all future projects that may seek a variance from this criterion. Staff finds that the proposed Aspen Walk building meets the proposed criterion for granting a variance to allow the garden level units to be between 2 and 3 feet below grade. Staff finds that the growth management criteria are met, conditioned on approval of the proposed code amendment, for both on and off site housing mitigation. Staff included a condition in the Resolution that requires the applicant at a minimum to extinguish the housing credits for 17.5 FTEs at the time of issuance of demolition permit with the option to provide a bond or letter of credit equivalent to cash in lieu payment for the 17.5 FTEs to ensure that the Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 12 of 14 EXHIBIT H P 2 5 STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 demolished affordable housing units are not' dependant on the entire project receiving a final certificate of occupancy. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All residential buildings are required to comply with the Residential Design Standards with specific standards applying only to multi - family residential buildings. Many of the concerns that Staff referenced in the PUD discussion above are reiterated in the Residential Design Standards for multi - family buildings. The project requires variances for first story elements and street facing entrances. The purpose of these standards is to "preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's street and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking...Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face." The street facing facades of the proposed buildings have three story elements as opposed to the required one story element (i.e. a front porch). There are two street facing entrances for the free market residential building and no street facing entrances for the affordable housing building. Please refer to the illustrations provided in Exhibit D for more detail. Staff recognizes the topographical restrictions of the sloped site and the resulting garden level; however the adverse impacts that the proposed architectural elements will have on neighborhood character and the pedestrian experience are concerning and inconsistent with the goals of the Design Standards and the AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A. It may be unrealistic for the project to comply with the Design Standards; however Staff recommends that the architectural elements are redesigned to be better aligned with the intent and purpose of the Standards and provide an appropriate design for the context of the neighborhood. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water/Utilities Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Parking Department, Transportation Department, Building Department, Housing Department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. DRC comments are included as Exhibit E to the memo. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the AACP and the review criteria outlined above, and recommends the following changes to the proposal. • Reduce the height of the Free Market Residential building to comply with the 32' height limit in the RMF zone district. • Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing units. • Reallocate the parking spaces. • Restudy the architectural details and materials as outlined above. • Provide more street oriented entrances and some one story elements to bring the project into closer compliance with the Residential Design Standards. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 13 of 14 P26 EXHIBIT H STAFF MEMO AND EXHIBITS 03.15.2011 Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing to a date certain to address these issues; however a resolution is included with this memo that is written in the affirmative, approving the GMQS reviews, Residential Design Standard variances, and recommending approval of Final PUD and Subdivision to City Council as presented. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the Growth Management reviews for the demolition of free market multi - family units, demolition of deed restricted affordable housing multi - family units and the development of affordable housing; Residential Design Standard Variances, and a recommendation of approval to City Council for Final PUD and Subdivision for Aspen Walk." Attachments: EXHIBIT A — Final PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT B — Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT C — Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT D — Residential Design Standard Variances EXHIBIT E — DRC Comments EXHIBIT F — Council Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual PUD approval EXHIBIT G — Application Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 02.15.11 Page 14 of 14 P27 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC RECEIVED landscape architecture. planning. resort design MAR 01 2011 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado S1611 t. 970/925 f. 970/920-1628 i nfo @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com CITY OF ASPEN p 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 March 2011 Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3 Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Supplemental Submission / Final PUD Application - AspenWalk Dear Sara: On behalf of our clients and in connection with the Final PUD application for AspenWalk, please accept the enclosed supplemental submission. Highlights of the redesigned building shown in the enclosed supplemental submission include: • "Lighter" redesign of the exterior architecture which meets the 32 ft. height limitation; • New street facing, one story, entry elements in the form of porches on the Free - Market building; • Revised street oriented entrance for the Affordable Housing units and an additional entrance for the Market -Rate units; • One (1) additional sub -grade parking space dedicated to the Affordable Housing units; and • "French balconies" provided for all Affordable Housing units. The materials enclosed as part of this supplemental submission are as follow: • Two (2) sets of 24x36 and ten (10) sets of 11x17 of Architectural Sheets, Sheets "A 1.0" "COVER SHEET" through "A 9.4" "ROOF LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN" • Two (2) sets of 24x36 and ten (10) sets of 11x17 of Civil Sheets, Sheets "C-01" "SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE" and "C -02" "COMPOSITE UTILITY PLAN" • Ten (10) copies of the Revised AspenWalk FAR and Net Livable Calculations, datcu 1 March 2011 • Ten (10) copies of the Garage Storage Unit, Typical Section and Elevation, dated 25 January 2011 (unmodified from previous submissions) Sheets A5.0 -A5.2, the Free - Market and Affordable Housing Elevations, show a 32 ft. offset of the proposed or existing grade which illustrates how the building meets the stated 32 ft. height limitation. With the exception of the elevator and stair cores, the roof is now flat. t Sara Adams, Senior Planner Supplemental Submission / AspenWalk 1 March 2011 One area of topography has been interpolated for the height study. This area of interpolation is indicated with a solid red line on Section 1/A5.0. A plan view of the roof plan set over existing and proposed grade will be provided by Friday which will further illustrate how the building is within the height limitation and how the interpolation of the topography was arrived at. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Very truly yours, Patrick Rowley STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure Cc: Tom Klassen Torn Salmen Stan Clauson Ken O'Bryan P29 Memo STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC *a landscape architecture. planning. resort design 422 North Mill Stec Aspen. Colorado 81622 t.920/9 1.970/92 infotlscaplanning. corn www.scaplanning.com To: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RECEIVED CC: Tom Klassen, Tom Salmen, Tom McCabe 4 2 From: Stan Clawson Associates, Inc. MAR 0 Date: 21 January 2011 CITY OF ASPEN Re: AspenWalk P &Z Review Concerns, 15 February 2010 cow u�jTV DEVELOPMENT In with staff following the P &Z initial AspenWalk Final PUD hearing on 15 February 2010, six key areas of concern were identified. These were: 1. Provision of parking and the location of battery- powered vehicles within the parking; 2. Request for modification of street- facing entrance residential design criterion; 3. Location of elevators within buildings 4. Revisions to architecture to create a lighter, more contemporary design; 5. Affordable housing livability, including balconies, outdoor spaces, snowmelt, and access to light and ventilation; and 6. Building height. We are providing below additional information in response to these concerns along with architectural drawing showing a complete revision of the building architecture. It should also be noted that on 2 March 2011, the applicant's representatives met with the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority Board. The Board has requested some revisions to this joint venture project. These revisions generally include an increase in the category level of the development, without affecting either the overall floor area or number of affordable units to be provided on site. For this reason, the resulting units will be somewhat smaller than the category minimums, although identical with the originally proposed unit sizes. It is our understanding that the APCHA Board believes that this higher category level, even if it entails some reduced size units, will produce a very livable affordable housing development that is consistent with the Housing Authority goals. Other requests from this APCHA Board meeting have been incorporated in the material below. 1. Parkins The existing parking condition in the neighborhood is very informal and the provision of subgrade parking, as proposed by the Applicant, will represent a considerable improvement of the existing parking conditions. The parking structure presented in the revised plans shows a total of 53 spaces: a total of 29 free - market parking spaces (2.07 spaces /unit) and 24 affordable housing parking spaces (1.4 parking spaces /unit). This is consistent with the APCHA Joint Development Agreement, which specified one parking space per affordable unit and 2 spaces per free market unit. While the code would allow the Applicant to maintain the current parking deficit currently experienced on the site, the Applicant is in fact meeting and exceeding the requirements of the underlying zone district, that of 2 spaces per free - market unit and 1 space per affordable housing unit, despite the fact that the PUD could allow greater flexibility in parking count. Based on a City Council request during the Conceptual PUD approval process, the Applicant had agreed to commit to providing two electric cars dedicated for the use of the affordable housing units. The original intent was that the electric cars would be parked in one of the stacked parking spaces provided in the affordable housing parking. Because it will be likely that at least some of the residents of the affordable housing units will not have a vehicle of their own, these cars would provide a readily accessible means of transportation for non-car owners, in addition to the public transportation located immediately adjacent to the development. As these cars would be used primarily by those who don't have a car, the two spaces in P30 which the cars sit would not detract from parking availability of the other residents. However, the Transportation Department did not favor this solution because they felt it would encourage vehicle use as opposed to public transportation. At the 2 March 2011 APCHA Board meeting, the Board recommended that we delete the provision of electric cars, believing that these vehicles would be a burden on the affordable HOA. They recommended instead providing two outlets that could be used for charging electric vehicles that might be owned by occupants. Since the provision of two electric vehicles was a condition of Conditional PUD approval, a P &Z recommendation in this regard would be appreciated. 2. Street Facing Entrances The current submission has made certain modifications to the street facing entrances. An additional entrance has been added to the free - market building which means that each entry into the free - market building serves 4 units or less. Additionally, all garden level free - market units can be accessed for the street level. The entrance on to the affordable housing building has been modified to be more oriented to the street. Additionally, this and all entrances have received an architectural treatment which will aid in identifying the entrances to visitors and pedestrians passing on the street. Street - facing, first story elements have been added along the free - market building in the form of porches. These elements, intended to meet the requirements of the residential design standards, provide a certain pedestrian friendly experience to the building. These elements extend from the building and thus do not have a habitable space located directly above, meeting the requirement that first story elements not have habitable space above the designated first story element. 3. Location of Elevators The location of the elevators and the associated elevator overruns is dictated by the general design of the building. The applicant believes that the current locations of the elevators are the most appropriate and convenient to the future residents of the buildings. While the proposed development is being reviewed under the previous Part 500- Supplemental Regulations section of the L.U.C., a new Part 500- Supplemental Regulations section was recently enacted which places further requirements and restrictions on the measurement of elevator and stair enclosures. The new more restrictive requirement states that "elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit if set back from any street facing facade of the building a minimum of fifteen feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair enclosures are minimized and combined to the greatest extent possible." The proposed development meets this newly enacted portion of the code with the current configuration of the elevator and stair enclosures. 4. "Lightening" of Architecture In addition to the complete architectural plan set provided on 1 March 2011, the Applicant has provided renderings of certain representative views of the building showing the revised exterior architectural treatment of the buildings. A 3- Dimensional flyover is currently being produced and will be available for review at the scheduled hearing. The heavy timber elements and the variety of roof pitches which were used in the previous architectural designs have been replaced with lighter, more "modern" features. The roof has been modified to be completely flat, with the exception of required elevator and stairway enclosures. The flat roof ensures that both buildings are entirely under the 32 foot height maximum, with the exception of the one area where the grade is lowered to provide entry to the underground garage. Additionally, the flat roofs and varied materials on the facade create a much cleaner and lighter appearance of the buildings. Larger and more visible window treatments, along with glazed railing treatments, provide a greater sense of openness to the building. The Applicant believes that these changes have created a feeling that the building is less massive and heavy. Further, the Applicant believes that the architectural style is similar to some of the many varied • Page 2 P31 architectural styles present in the neighborhood, and that the proposed development will improve the neighborhood by replacing the deteriorating, sub- standard structures currently located on the site. 5. Affordable Housing Livability The Applicant has and continues to work closely with APCHA to ensure that the affordable housing units are Dyable. The APCHA board has had discussions concerning the desire to modify the categories of the affordable housing units to be all categories 3 and 4. This would, on the face of it, necessitate fewer units being provided in order meet the minimum square footage requirement for the category 3/4 units. There is, however, an option to reduce the unit sizes up to 20% upon recommendation from the APCH board. Accordingly, nine (9) of the proposed seventeen (17) affordable units that were specified to be Category 2 units will fall somewhat below the minimum net livable for Category 4 units. It is our understanding that this recommendation will be forthcoming in time for the scheduled P &Z hearing. The floor area reduction by virtue of an increase in category will still provide exactly the same square footage as previously provided for each individual unit. With the revised architecture, all affordable housing units will have a "French" balcony which will provide an ability to step out of the unit and will also allow a generous French door opening which will ensure light and ventilation of the unit. Additional design work has been completed, which will be demonstrated in the revised flyover, of the outdoor spaces accessible to the residents of the affordable housing building. These spaces, particularly the patio on the north eastern portion of the building, have been designed to contain a built in gas grill, a fire pit, and additional landscaping which will ensure that this space is a functional and pleasant location for the residents of the affordable housing to meet and socialize. The interior walkway has also received additional design work intended to make the courtyard an area available for more passive experiences. The units being proposed are a vast improvement over the existing units and meet all requirements of the code. The garden level units, for from being dungeon like, are located subgrade approximately 2 -3 feet, the same amount that the free - market garden level units are located subgrade. Standard windows will be provided and additional opportunities exist for the provision of patios on some of the units. The interior spaces have been thoughtfully designed. In particular, the studio units, which are large as studio units go, have been designed so that the experience will be more like a one - bedroom unit. 6. Building Height The height of the existing structures located at 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park circle varies but is generally 28- 32 feet. The proposed building will not exceed 32 feet in height, except in the area of the driveway cut as anticipated from Conditional PUD approval. Certain man -made cuts in existing grades, primarily for the provision of parking spaces, have had interpolated pre - development grades used for the purposes of height measurement, as provided for in the Land Use Code. Drawings have been provided to staff showing how the height of the building fully meets the 32 -foot height standard, with the one exception noted. Conclusion This is a significant public - private partnership project which will result in much additional deed-restricted affordable housing, the provision of affordable units that are considerable better than most of the units within the affordable housing roster, and an upgrading of older, deteriorating structures to the benefit of the neighborhood. We hope that the P &Z will recognize these significant benefits, and work with us to provide a project that is economically viable, and an asset to the community. • Page 3 P32 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC '1. ,, landscape architecture. planning, resort design Memo ,< ., ' 422 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado Bien t 970/925 2323 f 97 'h2 infoOscaplanning.corn www.scapianning com • To: Sara Adams, Senior Planner CC: Tom Salmen, Tom Klassen From: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Date: 7 March 2011 Re: Additional Outdoor Patio Design / AspenWalk Final PUD Application Attached is a plan showing additional design work on the north eastern patio as well as on the internal courtyard. Two additional perspective drawings of these areas are also attached which further explain the intent of this additional design work. The north eastern patio is intended as an active gathering space for the affordable housing residents. It features a built -in gas grill with a built -in fireplace. Appropriate outdoor sofas or other outdoor furniture can be included in front of the fireplace and are shown in the attached perspectives. Tables are also shown that can be removed or arranged to suit the particular gathering. This patio space will have a certain degree of flexibility of use, appropriate for "cocktail" gatherings or for small group or individual use. Columnar junipers are shown in planters as there will be no possibility to have tree vaults extending below into the service areas located below on the garage level. These planters will provide screening from the unit located adjacent to this patio area. Sufficient landscaping will be included along the property line to create a sense of enclosure and screening for neighbors to the north. The internal courtyard, also known as "the AspenWalk," is intended for a more passive experience. The pavers, set at an angle, will create a meandering effect through the courtyard. The pavers also will tend to loosen and melt into grass which will be planted on the fringe of the walk, next to the building. Intimate spaces are created in the geometry of the courtyard creating areas where a bench and a chair can be located. This area will present an attractive view for passing pedestrians on the sidewalk. The design illustrated by these drawings will ensure inviting and useful outdoor areas are provided for the residents of the affordable housing units. Please note that every effod Is made to provide accurate and complete informatlon. The f ndi igs within this analysis are based on our best understanding of the client's Intent and our understanding of land use code provisions that address those Intentions. No warranty Is expressed or implied as to the suitability or accuracy of this information. This analysis must be confirmed through a formal Pre-application Conference with public agency staff. Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. shall not be responsible for any consequential damages arising from any service or action performed. City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 F33 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Aspen Walk -404 and 414 Park —Final PUD 2 Code Amendment — Affordable Housing percentage above grade 13 1 P34 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday February 15, 2011 to order at 4:35 in Sister Cities meeting Room. P &Z members excused were Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Jim DeFrancia. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Michael Wampler and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance Jim True, Special City Counsel; Sara Adams, Community Development ; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes of February 1st seconded by Michael Wampler. All in favor APPROVED. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Walk — 404 and 414 Park — Final PUD Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on Aspen Walk 404 and 414 Park, Final PUD Review. Sara Adams provided the public notice. Sara Adams said the applicant requests approval of the Residential Design Standard Variances and Growth Management Review for multi - family replacement and the development of affordable housing and a recommendation to City Council of approval of Subdivision and Final PUD. The property is located at 404 and 414 Park Circle and zoned RMF PUD; 414 Park Circle contains 15,224 square feet and is owned by Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and 404 Park Circle is owned by PFG Aspenwalk LLC and contains 17,550 square feet of lot area. The applicant is requesting to merge the 2 lots and develop a residential multi - family building containing sub -grade parking; and it is determined that 17.5 FTEs were required for this project. The buildings would be demolished and re- developed into 14 free market units at 404 Park Circle and at 414 Park Circle there will be 17 deed restricted units for a total of 31 units, which is an increase of 6 units from the existing density. Adams said the Planning and Zoning approvals were final for 1. Growth management Review for demolition or redevelopment of free market multi - family residential units. 2. Growth Management Review for the demolition of affordable housing units. 3. Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing. 4. Residential Design Standard Variances for multi - family housing. P &Z recommendations for City Council approvals are: 1. Subdivision Review for 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 P35 redevelopment of multi - family units and the vacation of a lot line and 2. Final PUD Review to establish dimensional requirements for the proposed development. Adams said that staff was concerned about height; the height limit in the RMF Zone was 32 feet. This project needed height variances for the affordable housing building and 2 height variances were requested for the free - market residential building. Staff is concerned about the quality and livability for the affordable housing units; the only outdoor communal space for the housing units is proposed above the parking ramp in the northeastern corner of the property that faces windows of a housing unit. Adams said they were meeting all the minimum requirements for unit size; multi- family free market is met. In the deed restricted that is going to be demolished the determination was 17.5 FTEs were housed so they have to replace 17.5 FTE spaces. There is a recommendation from the housing board and they find that the criteria have been met for the affordable housing for growth management. There is a criteria that 50% of the net livable space be above grade; in this case the first floor of the affordable housing units are about 2 to 3 feet below grade so it won't meet this standard. Adams said there was a code amendment on the agenda tonight that will address this; the proposed language in the code amendment will allow the Planning & Zoning Commission to permit Aspen Walk to have these partially sub - grade units. This code amendment was to allow for some flexibility to be 2 to 3 feet below grade and hopefully it will be a positive experience. Adams said that all residential development has to meet the Residential Design Standards and specific standards apply to multi - family buildings. The purpose is to preserve neighborhoods style and character and make places conducive to walking and comfortable for the neighborhood. There are 2 street facing accesses for the free market units but there aren't any for the affordable housing units. Staff thought not having street facing entrances made the building seem monolithic and somewhat unapproachable. Staff feels the building could be brought into closer compliance to be more compatible with the neighborhood. Adams said overall staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the AACP specifically the housing design quality sections of the AACP and recommend P &Z continue the hearing to allow the applicant to readdress the following: 1. Reduce the height of the free market residential building to comply with the 32 foot height limit in the RMF zone district; 2. Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing Units; 3. Reallocate the parking spaces; 4. Restudy the architecture details and materials and 5. Provide more street orientated entrances 3 P 36 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 and some one story elements to bring the project into closer compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variances. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, representing the applicant and with him is Ken O'Brian from O'Brian Architects. Clauson utilized power point to show the context of the project showing the free - market component and the affordable housing portion. Lot 5 is the Smuggler Apartments owned by APCHA and Lot 3 is the 404 Park; the property extends somewhat into the Midland Avenue/Park Avenue and a similar circle that intrudes onto lot 3 although it is not essential to this property they have offered a land exchange with the city for Park Avenue to be completely on City property. Clauson said the parking in this area is informal head in parking to the buildings partially in the right -of -way partially on private property. Clauson said reviewing what has happened in our original application in 2007; our conceptual PUD application and that had all the housing mitigation on site so that had 25 deed restricted units and 14 free - market units at that time. With concerns from the public and comments from Council, we reduced that to 18 deed restricted and 14 free market units with a concept that 100% of the additional would be provided off site. Clauson said the current amended proposal is for 14 free market units, 17 affordable housing units, 25 affordable bedrooms and over 12,000 square feet of affordable housing on site. Clauson said the unit sizes as they evolved within the housing guidelines are larger than the unit sizes currently on site. The entire site is to be developed with an underground garage with 52 parking spaces; 23 spaces for affordable housing plus 2 electric vehicles and 29 spaces for the 14 free market units and are happy to adjust the figure say 28 spaces for the market rate units and 24 spaces for the affordable housing units. Clauson said that the onsite condition is better in the summer than in the winter because of snow storage in the spaces. You enter the parking garage from a ramp from Park Circle and there is trash storage at the base, there is mechanical and water service connections sub - grade. The elevator and stair towers are placed in the most efficient position for the units; 2 meet the entrance on the street and 2 do not and it is an efficient layout of the units. Clauson said there was a considerable amount of bike storage and additional storage facilities over each parking stall. Clauson showed the landscape plan and showed the entry to the affordable housing stair and elevator tower; they believe the entry off the courtyard has a nice feel to it and doesn't detract from the property. There would be curb and gutter around the perimeter of the property, sidewalks and street trees; there would no longer be head in parking. There is a less formal walkway to the back and connecting through to 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 P37 the passage through and is well screened from the adjacent buildings; there is plenty of activity to have sidewalks in this area; there were 3 plans proposed. Clauson said they have done site grading studies; there are some drainage issues that would be remedied with appropriates drainage inlets along the curb and gutter section. The Midland Park drainage will be fixed with this project and they have done a substantial amount of engineering about that. Clauson said there was only one place that they were going to seek a technical height variance because they were excavating along the side for the garage and is created by the sloping entrance to the sub -grade parking garage. The height limit is 32 feet and this site has been benched for the development that exists on the site right now. Clauson said they have to measure from the contours as they exist and they are manmade contours from the benching for the 2 units; a 5 and 3 /4 inch variance can be granted by this board as part of the PUD process without any deterrent to someone standing in the street. Clauson said he didn't think anybody standing in the street could tell the difference between 32 feet and 32.575 feet; where you are seeing 34 and 35 feet there is a bench that exists as you move from the level of the 414 Park Circle Building to the 404 Park Avenue Building, that was a retaining wall that failed a couple of years ago and wasn't removed. Clauson noted there were 2 associations created and worked out with the housing board and a percentage of the affordable housing to the free market so the affordable housing would have reduced homeowners' dues. Clauson said the new affordable units were larger and better than anything that exists on that site or even in many of the adjacent buildings. No Growth Management allotments are being used; there no additional free - market units being brought in; they are within walking distance to the core; accessible to RFTA — it stops right in front of the door. This is a public /private partnership between APCHA and the developers and it is a design which reflects the neighborhood; the neighborhood is pretty eclectic. The garden unit on the affordable side contains one less unit where they have combined units to create a 3 bedroom unit in order to get the bedroom count up to code. The current code requires that 50% of the finished floor area be above grade and they puzzled over that because the code was written over basement or sub -grade units served by light wells and emergency access; there was a code amendment that eliminated that sub -grade space and we expected that would actually permit garden units. 50% of the floor area has to be above grade and if you think about that it creates a 2 level unit or some kind of walkout where the level is decreasing; it really cuts down the possible number of units that can be at this level. Clauson said the free market units on the first floor 5 P38 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 were partially sub -grade and the affordable housing units on the first floor and again they are exactly the same; there is no difference in the livability in the free market or the affordable housing units on the first level. Clauson said the code amendment is different from the one that they originally proposed. Clauson said this is the architecture as proposed and consists of stone, timber, some flat roof elements and some pitched roof elements; it also gives you the opportunity to see curbs and gutters. Clauson showed some illustrative drawings of a change in architecture; this is the entry to the affordable housing and street side entry with the affordable units on the left and the free market on the right. Clauson said they could redesign the building in this manner and if P &Z likes this better; the APCHA board like the existing architecture. Cliff Weiss asked Stan Clauson if he represented the Aspen Walk project when it came before P &Z in 2007. Stan Clauson replied that he did. Bert Myrin asked staff about the height exception for elevator shafts, does that apply to just the free market or also the affordable. Sara Adams asked if he was referring to the condition that was in the conceptual resolution. Myrin asked if the affordable one had rooftop access. Adams said it was just the over run and did not include roof top access for the affordable housing. Ken O'Brian said that the height above the elevator was for someone servicing the elevator to have room to work on it while it was in service. Myrin said on page 5 of the staff memo it talks about the parking deficit; is that because of the PUD process or can you suggest something otherwise. Adams replied the code allows an existing redevelopment to maintain their existing deficit; through the PUD process you can establish parking requirements. Adams said the applicant is meeting the parking requirements regardless if there was a deficit or not; she said that she wanted to point out that there is an existing deficit. Myrin said if we found that there was not parking on the street would it be appropriate to suggest more parking. Adams responded that the purpose of the PUD was to allow flexibility by varying standards of the underlying zone district for community benefit and neighborhood compatibility. Jennifer Phelan said to consider with the PUD you can determine the parking standard however it does say using the underlying zoning as a guide and the other thing you should consider is if they are meeting the parking standard why would you require this person to provide more parking when someone across the street might do something by right and would not be provided this. Myrin said because it opens up as a PUD he asked why the code used just a minimum and then vary from that and notice that this area has no on street parking. Stan Clauson responded that currently there are parking spaces at 414 Park Circle with a real parking area but 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 P39 the others are just head in and there are 20 spaces at best and get shaved down to about 18 when there is snow storage; so we are moving from 18 to 52 spaces, so there is a huge jump in providing parking for that neighborhood and the development. Myrin said it was a concern because it went from 27 bedrooms to 70 bedrooms and using 21 on street spaces and he asked if they could speak to that versus just the code. Jennifer Phelan said as a PUD you could determine the parking requirement; it is a site specific review that you need to look at. Sara Adams said that they have done a good job at being creative in the garage. Myrin asked if the garage goes beyond the building walls. Clauson replied that it does in the sense that the garage goes beneath this landscaped area but in general the outer perimeter of the building defines the outer perimeter of the garage. Myrin said on page 8 there were 4 reviews and he asked how those fit into the 6 reviews. Adams replied they would fit into your final PUD recommendation and the architectural elements are reiterated in the Residential Design Standard Variances. Myrin asked what was meant about the livability of the units and if it had to do with balconies, common space or is there more to it. Adams replied the rooftop space and they were concerned about the units meeting the minimum net livable size for the categories and they were right on the size and there was concern because there aren't outdoor balconies, there aren't yard spaces for people to get out of their units and what the impact will be on the neighborhood and the overall impact of just living in those stacked units. Myrin asked if there was a dollar amount for the cash in lieu for the 17 units. Jennifer Phelan responded that they were not proposing cash in lieu. Once the buildings are removed and the housing units out of our stock we would ask for cash in lieu as kind of a bond that would be subject to the City Attorney's approval. Myrin asked again the dollar amount for that. Adams replied that she hasn't calculated that. The applicant has agreed to pay the TDM fee, the transportation demand management fee, and that is the demand on infrastructure according to the traffic studies that have been included. Myrin said the council resolution on page 57 of the packet mentions 2 electric cars, is there a long term replacement plan for these cars; he said he was trying to figure out if that was a sustainable program over time. Clauson replied that there was not a replacement plan built into the project and would be presumably maintained through the HOA and if the NOA chosen to allocate to this and have a fund of some kind. 7 P40 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Myrin said there was mention to the 2 spaces for the electric cars in the affordable spaces. O'Brian said as the applicant thought that the affordable housing unit people would be using the electric cars. Clauson said that there would be more than 1 parking space for every unit and considerable access. Adams said per code it is the lesser of 1 per bedroom or 2 per unit; when calculating your parking requirement for multi - family outside the infill area it is one per bedroom or two per unit. Myrin asked if guest or service vehicle parking were included in this or was it street parking. Adams replied it was not required in the code. Myrin asked about the trees on the Midland side of the buildings and asked the setback from the property line. Clauson said there was a mixture of Aspens and Blue Spruce to provide a fairly dense screen along the area where the excavation is down into the parking garage. Clauson said there were many smaller shrubs and Aspens to provide some screening of this patio area from the adjacent areas; the plantings are fairly close to the property line. O'Brian said the setback was 10 feet up to the transformer and then it was 5 feet. Myrin asked why the 5 '/4 inches couldn't be taken out of the building. Clauson said by dropping the building you are dropping the parking garage and the ramp is now at 12% and snow - melted and you don't want it to be too steep. Myrin asked the ceiling heights and if they could be dropped. O'Brian replied the heights were at 10 feet floor to floor for both the free market and the affordable so they couldn't really be dropped anymore. Michael Wampler asked about the heights and Sara said something about 46 feet from the bottom of the parking ramp and asked the net difference from where it is now and where it is going to be and what was the height of the existing building. Wampler said that he would like to know the net difference is in height. Phelan said that they were only 2 story buildings. Clauson said that 414 Park was about 24 feet. Wampler said so this will be 16 feet. Clauson said it was at 32 feet if you did not have the ramp into the parking garage you would have 32 feet. Wampler said so it would be 8 feet higher; he asked for story poles. Clauson said that they put story poles up last time. Wampler asked why there weren't balconies on the affordable housing units. Clauson replied that they discussed this with APCHA and they thought it was okay not to have balconies. Clauson showed French balconies on the one side of the affordable housing with very generous door but were not deep enough to jut out and not enough to put a chair or a barbeque on and they have a railing. O'Brian said the deck was a foot and a half. Wampler said that right now the road has a considerable hump in it where the affordable housing was. Wampler asked if the road was going to be re- graded. Clauson replied no. 8 P41 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Wampler said that he was offended by the 4 elevators and how far they stick up; do we really need 4 or can we get away with 2. Clauson replied they needed 4 to service the locations and the elevators meet the code requirements. Wampler asked how many more off site units are needed. Adams replied units for 17.5 FTEs. Wampler said that there were 70 bedrooms between the affordable and free market and 52 spaces down below and so where are the 18 or more additional cars going to park because there were serious issues with parking in this area. Weiss said affordable housing had 25 bedrooms that he counted and proposed were 23 parking spaces; is the 1 to 1 free market as well as affordable housing. Adams said the code said 1 space per unit with a maximum of 2 spaces per unit. Stan Gibbs asked what tandem stack was. Sara Adams replied it was a parking place long enough for 2 cars back to font; if you were in the front space you would not be able to get out and those spaces counted as 1 space. Gibbs asked Stan Clauson if they explored having the cut for the ramp to the parking garage on the other side of the building so it wouldn't be such a deep cut. Clauson replied they explored a variety of entrances and this was designed to be of the greatest value to the adjacent building. Gibbs asked if the credits were not available could they do cash in lieu. Adams replied that she put in the resolution if credits were not available they would have to come back to P &Z to change to cash in lieu. Stan Gibbs voiced concern for the code amendment and why they didn't work on that first so we knew what we were dealing with; it feels like we are doing this just for this project. Gibbs said he would have felt more comfortable with the code amendment on its own merits. Gibbs asked how many people would like to speak on this project. Only 3 people raised their hands. Public Comments: 1. Marcia Goshom said she was on the APCHA Board; addressing the code amendment it really wasn't just for this project and APCHA go with the code amendment because people were coming in with dungeon space and windows that were egress but didn't get a whole lot of light. Goshom said these were livable units with light. The affordable housing rooftop was taken out at the request of the neighbors and the patio space was actually better and the balconies end up as storage space and have to be shoveled in 9 P42 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 the winter. Goshorn said that the architecture if you walk toward Park Circle and Highway 82 there were newer things in that neighborhood. Goshorn likes the idea that the building might last for a long time and the people that have lived there for years have the first option for buying in. Goshorn said that there were assessments for the capital improvement funds to be based on replacement of the car share vehicles but the bus was right there. 2. Cindy Houben said that she lived at Midland Park and was on the HOA Board and they have not reviewed this phase of the project as a group and meet tomorrow night and hope to review this at that time. Height was a concern in terms of the relationship to the Midland Park area; they thought the height limit was 32 feet and she asked what will the new roof elevations look like with the elevator and stairwell shafts. Also the outdoor space for the residents is in an area that will be shaded and not get a lot of sun and the spillover effect in the neighborhood. Houben said they do not allow dogs in their neighborhood because of the tightness and even though our street is private it is used to access Smuggler. Houben said that she didn't know if this project in the free market or affordable housing units were going to allow dogs and asked where those dogs would go. Architecture wise it does seem to be more internalized than streetscape which is different from the surrounding buildings. They have an incredible night sky so they were concerned about lighting for this project and the construction management plan because it was a tight site. Houben said snow shedding off the roofs onto the Midland Park property because of the new park they have and in the winter they have snow sledding. Curb and gutter in that neighborhood would seem pretty suburban and other features that could be considered rather than an actual gutter maybe a green swell. Houben said that the housing categories were 2 and 4. 3. Jay Maytin said that he asked the height at one point and the setback from the ground. Clauson replied that the height from the flat grade would be 32 feet. O'Brian said there was a 10 foot utility easement. Maytin said that he Lived at the Tailings and he saw the story poles and the view will change for the Tailings. Parking is a concern for this commission and have talked about the PUD could set the amount of parking required for this project. Maytin said the driveway safety with a 12% grade of the ramp with the sidewalk there has to be some kind of safety mechanism there because you cannot see coming up a ramp especially kids. Is it possible to have some sound absorption in that parking ramp because at 12% grade a car coming up there is going to be loud for everybody that lives in the area. Maytin said that he would like to see a lighting plan as part of the final because this needs to be 10 P43 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 addressed. The street corner could handle the rooftop equipment better because of the natural grad of this land. Maytin said the mass and scale of this building is not acceptable. 4. Tom McCabe said that mass and scale was brought up years ago and he had all the square footages from the area and he can bring that back and the aerials of the buildings. Commissioner Comments: Bert Myrin said that he would like to see this continued for architectural elements; the parking allocation could be appropriate for cars; parking pushed beyond and it was not appropriate to grant height variances. Myrin said that Council had 6 sessions and they came up with the limitation of 32 feet height limit. Myrin agreed with the street facing entrances to make the building feel welcome. Myrin wanted to know more about the elevators and if they could be done from the lower level instead of the roof. The lighting was of concern and the code might not be enough and the noise from the HVAC in the garage. Cliff Weiss said when this came before P &Z in 2008 he supported it and went to Council and spoke on the project's behalf because there were a lot of things that P &Z suggested and the applicant at the time complied. Weiss said a lot of the compromises that were made are gone so this will never get his support now. Let's start with the elevators; those things only make the building look taller, bigger and uglier move them to the back and remove the stone. Weiss said that all the work that they did the first time around is gone; the height that you gave for the north side is questionable and the diagram said 39 to 41 feet and that was compromised the first time. There was an interesting design the first time and it's gone. Weiss said the categories 1 and 2 was what the applicant sold him on and that was why he went to bat for them at Council and now you are category 2 and 4. McCabe said that Smuggler was category 1. Weiss said it was their selling point the last time. Weiss said there are no buildings in that neighborhood that are 12,000 square foot or 31,000 square foot. Weiss said he called that architecture National Park; it is very heavy for that neighborhood; these are huge buildings but yes there are starter castles but they are not 12,000 or 31,000 square foot. Weiss said that he didn't understand if he owned a free market unit and he flew into town why he needed 2 parking places. Weiss said he has always felt those who live here permanently need more parking places. Weiss voiced concern for the exit ramp because buses come down that street and when it is icy that is a nasty street; he was concerned about actually being able to see; do you have line of sight to be able to see those buses. Weiss said that it seemed like in the original proposal they were replacing 11 P44 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 25 units with 25 units are they exchanging bigger units for less. Weiss said he could not vote this as it is. Mike Wampler concurred with what Cliff and Bert said. Wampler said that he was struggling with the height and mass. This was out of character and it was just too tall and he can't go with this parking. Wampler said he was okay with cat 2 and 4 and it was still employee housing. Wampler said he hated the elevators. Stan Gibbs said he will not repeat the comments with which he agrees and will focus on the height variance was pretty explicit from Council at 32 feet; this seems just unnecessary. Gibbs said he was in line with what staff has said on the Design Standard Variances and he cannot see where you would go in; especially to be in character with that neighborhood to have an obvious entrance. The building is overly heavy it feels like it should be in the commercial core as lodging; it doesn't look like a residential motif; he would explore the pictures of the alternatives. Right now the building doesn't feel like it fits in that neighborhood; there is way too much wood, way too much stone and too imposing. The features have to much more petite in that neighborhood. Gibbs was also concerned about parking; the argument about bedrooms is more important for parking demand than the number of units, especially for families. Gibbs said that he would like to see a full 25 units for affordable housing. He understood the transportation was excellent in this neighborhood but going from 71 bedrooms is going to be a burden on parking; you have to assure that there won't be any on street parking with HOA agreements. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue to March 15` Bert Myrin second. All in favor, APPROVED. Stan Clauson pointed out that this was a public private partnership that has been long in the development; there are some things that we can do and some that we can't. Clauson said that they can't expand parking; they can reallocate it; it is a full plate of parking plus bicycle storage plus other things that need to go into the basement level. Clauson said so there isn't any way to expand those 52 spaces beyond 52 spaces; with respect to the elevators they are required to have that head height many there is a design that makes them look more diminutive. If they put them at the back of the building then the entrance is at the back of the building if you put them at the front of the building then the entrance is at the front of the building. Clauson said with respect to the height, this is exactly the same building that we presented before the only difference is that staff has asked us to measure it based on existing top, the benched condition rather than a diagonal line that flows along the street so that has changed some of the height measurements, but basically 12 P45 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 this is a 32 foot building in every respect. Clauson said they will look at the way in which the building is designed and try to come up with something that is more appropriate. There is a lighting plan and certainly there is no intention to light up the building. Clauson said there was some concern that the building would block views from the Tailings; this was clearly worked out with Council to provide the Tailings with the same views that they have now. Clauson said the square footage meets the code it is exactly the density that the code describes at 1.5 FAR. Clauson said that he hoped that you will consider the project as a whole in terms of the benefits and the work that has been put into it. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue for 15 minutes; Michael Wampler second. All in favor. Cliff Weiss said an inviting entrance didn't mean you had to move the elevators to the front; an inviting entrance means that you can get from the sidewalk to the entrance and it looks like an entrance. Public Hearing: Code Amendment for Affordable Housing percentage of livable area above grade Stan Gibbs opened the Public Hearing. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to continue the Code Amendment to March I seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 13 P46 !C MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Department DATE: March 8, 2011 RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE ISSUE: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors (APCHA Board) is currently renegotiating the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with PFG AspenWalk, LLC and reconsidering some of the recommended categories for the 17 affordable housing units to be constructed on site. BACKGROUND: The applicant had recommended all Category 2 and 4 units in the development application. At the Housing Board meeting held March 2, 2011, the Housing Board directed staff to review the categories and see if a Category 3 and 4 mix would meet the minimum square footage requirements under the permitted 20% reduction criteria, as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines require that the Housing Board review and approve variations to the minimum square footages of any deed - restricted project. Staff reported to the Board that all of the units specified as Category 2 in the application do meet the minimum net livable square footage under the 20% reduction criteria when applied to Category 3 and 4. The Housing Board considered the proposed square footages and they agree that the reductions easily meet the criteria stated below and satisfy Category 3 and 4 square footage minimums. The conditions under which square footage reductions may be made are listed below. • Significant storage • Above average natural light • Efficient and flexible layout • Site amenities • Location within the project • If the applicant can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with this variance. The code requires the satisfaction of a large number of objectives, and as a result the development contains an underground parking structure, elevators, and other items to satisfy those requirements. These components will result in higher on -site association dues. Staff and the Housing Board are in agreement that this type of development would better serve higher category buyers, ones that are able to pay the higher dues. Recent changes to the code, coupled with concerns about on -site mass and scale have also resulted in the replacement of all eleven Smuggler Mountain Apartments (currently on -site) to an off -site location. As part of the new JDA, the Housing Board is requiring that all of the FTE's associated with the replacement of the Category Criteria for Aspen /Walk Joint Development Page 1 P47 Smuggler Mountain Apartments be housed at no higher than Category 2, and that the units satisfy the 17.5 FTE obligations in the form of studios, one - bedroom or two- bedroom units /mitigation credits. The Housing Board has not yet approved a preferred category mix, but will be reviewing and approving the Amended and Restated Joint Development Agreement at their regular meeting to be held March 16, 2011. The Agreement will cover the recommended categories and the required form of mitigation for the off -site 17.5 FTE's. The Housing Board will also be requiring that the 17.5 FTE's be covered by a bond or line of credit in the amount needed to satisfy Category 1 payment -in -lieu fee. The Board also discussed a request by the Community Development Department for balconies and a roof -top garden for the affordable housing units. The Board has not yet reached a decision on these suggestions. These two issues will be discussed at their meeting on March 16, 2011 and those recommendations will be forwarded. The Board had no issues with the plan that was proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff will offer several possible category combinations for the 17 deed restricted on -site units to the Housing Board for their decision. Category Criteria for Aspen /Walk Joint Development Page 2