The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20110503 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, May 3, 2011 Meeting is at the Pitkin County Library 4:30 p.m. — Public Hearing I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Aspen Walk (404 Park Ave. and 414 Park Circle) Subdivision, Final PUD, Growth Management for multifamily replacement — Public Hearing VI. WORK SESSIONS A. NONE VII. ADJOURN 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. Public hearing continued from February 15, 2011, March 15, 2011, April 5, 2011, and April 19, 2011. MEETING DATE: May 3, 2011 Since the April 5 meeting the applicant has updated the site plan and provided 2 options, one with on street parking (LA 1.1) and one without on street parking (LA 1.0), to address parking concerns raised by the Commission. The remainder of the project is unchanged from April 5 Staff prepared two separate draft resolutions, as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission, to separate the final reviews that are under the Commission's authority from the recommendations to City Council. Option LA 1.1 proposes 6 onstreet parking spaces to address the Commission's concems about guest and service parking for the project. The Engineering and Parks Departments are not supportive of onstreet parking spaces: "The parking proposed for Park Avenue will conflict with future ROW improvements in that area in addition to limiting the City's ability to plow snow in the area. The parking proposed for Park Circle will limit the City's ability to plow snow in the area. Both locations do not meet the. Section 21.20.030 of the municipal code which requires a minimum of width of 4 feet for a planting strip between the sidewalk and the curb and gutter." Furthermore, the on street parking spaces are not permitted to be allocated specifically to the Aspen Walk project because they are located on city property. An important part of this proposal is the subgrade parking garage that cleans up the current parking situation at 404/414 Park which will positively impact the neighborhood character and the safety of Park Avenue. Staff is not supportive of the on street parking, option LA 1.1. In option LA 1.0 the walkway located at the rear of Aspen Walk has been removed and replaced with additional landscaping. A stone wall along the property line to shield Midland Park from Aspen Walk is not proposed at this time; however the applicant strategically placed bristlecone pine trees to act as a barrier between the two projects. The applicant provided an example that allocates some guest parking spaces in the subgrade garage. The future HOAs for the project could decide on the specific allocation of parking spaces once they are in place. Staff is supportive of option L.A 1.0. The remainder of the project is unchanged. Staff does not have comments in addition to the Staff memo dated April 5, 2011 (attached as Exhibit S). Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 05.03.11 Page 1 of 3 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; however, development projects need to be sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood where they are located. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deliver a decision on this project. Staff remains supportive of the project under the condition that the following items are resolved (which are included in the draft resolution recommending Subdivision and PUD approval to City Council): • Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing units by adding balconies to all of the units. • Provide more one story elements to reduce the perceived mass of the building and to bring the project into closer compliance with the intent of the Residential Design Standards and meet the PUD criteria related to architectural character and site design. 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, 2011 ] EXHIBIT H — Staff memo and exhibits dated February 15, 2011 EXHIBIT I - Supplemental information to the application dated March 1, 2011 [provided on March 15; 2011] Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 05.03.11 Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT J — Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated February 15, 2011 [provided on March 15, 2011 ] EXHIBIT K — Housing Department memo dated March 8, 2011 [provided on March 15, 2011] EXHIBIT L — Height analysis [provided on April 5, 2011 ] EXHIBIT M — Supplemental information to the application dated March 25, 2011. [provided on Aprils, 2011] EXHIBIT N — Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Numbered 5, Series of 2011. [provided on April 5, 2011] EXHIBIT 0 — Letter from adjacent property owner Sara Garton. [provided on April 5, 2011] EXHIBIT P — Comments from the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Board dated March 31, 2011. [provided on April 5, 2011] EXHIBIT Q — Letter from Midland Park Homeowners Association dated March 31, 2011. [provided on April 5, 2011] EXHIBIT R — Letter from Judith Kolberg dated April 5, 2011. [provided on April 5, 2011] EXHIBIT S — Staff memo dated April 5, 2011. EXHIBIT T - Letter from Midland Park Homeowners Associated dated April 19, 2011. EXHIBIT U - Supplemental information to the application dated April 8, 2011. Please notify Staff if you require another copy of Exhibits A — R. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 05.03.11 Page 3 of 3 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 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 Applicant proposes 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 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 P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 1 of 4 Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon 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 the Residential Design Standards and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review; 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, 2011 and to April 5, 2011 and to April 19, 2011 and again to May 3, 2011; 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 sub -grade 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, as determined by City Council. 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 3 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 4 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 Pursuant 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: Any changes to the proposal adopted by the Aspen City Council that are in conflict with the approved growth management allotments and/or the Residential Design Standard Variances specified herein shall supersede the Planning and Zoning Commission's adopted resolution. Section 4: 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 5: 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 6: 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. P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 3 of 4 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3` day of May, 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 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. _ , SERIES OF 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RECOMMENDATION THAT 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 Applicant proposes 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 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, P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 1 of 6 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, 2011 and to April 5, 2011 and to April 19, 2011 and again to May 3, 2011; 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: P &Z Conditions The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that Council consider the following during Final PUD and Subdivision review: 1. Eliminate the rooftop deck to minimize the height of the building and impacts of the project on the neighborhood. 2. Relocate the subgrade garage ventilation away from the Midland Park open space. 3. Add private balconies for each of the above grade affordable housing units to increase livability. 4. Add private patios for the partially subgrade affordable housing units to increase livability. 5. Add one story elements above the entrances on the street facing facades to create a better relationship between the pedestrian/neighborhood and the new building and to reduce the perceived mass of the buildings. 6. Address guest parking for the project that does not include on street parking spaces. 7. Landscape plan LA 1.0 is recommended with the condition that the applicant work with Midland Park Association to ensure proper shielding between the two properties. P& Z Resolution # Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 2 of 6 Section 2: Final PUD Dimensional Standards The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Table 1: Table 1: Recommended dimensional requirements: e � 32,774 sq. ft. E%ta & ke „' n/a < 4. 31 units in total yF n � �CSa `Et 14 free market 17 affordable residential units housing units g C E4E! y kill fi "1 >~- as per PUD plat „cPx 5 ft. g Fktl 1 0 �E_• 5 ft. Vats N F H ..w4„^r. k is' 5 ft. 5 1L L`" as per PUD plat as per ; ry n/a 31fiEi ;. n/a 5 81 t iYni�i ori, ,� 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft. � 53 spaces: t E { { Ep oEiF Y� 29 spaces for free market residential units; m t � 24 spaces (including 4 stacked) for the M�o£� x';e .„ affordable housing units P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 3 of 6 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. A completed drainage report/plan as outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit issuance. Failure to meet the standards in Title 21 may result in a physical change to the project and possible review by City Council and/or Planning and Zoning to amend the PUD. 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 to 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 is subject to the Building Code in place at the time of building permit submittal. The project shall be subject to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations adopted pursuant to City Council Ordinance numbered 27 (Series of 2010) on January 10, 2011. 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. P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 4 of 6 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. All plantings within the City ROW must be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. 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. 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 Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3` day of May, 2011. [signatures on following page] P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 Aspen Walk Page 5 of 6 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 MEMORANDUM OF TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Community Development 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. Public hearing continued from February 15, 2011 and March 15, 2011. MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011 This staff report is new since the March 15 hearing and addresses proposed changes. It contains the following: • Review authority. • 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. REVIEW AUTHORITY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority regarding Growth Management for Multifamily Replacement for demolition of the free market and affordable housing units; Growth Management for the development of affordable housing; and Residential Design Standard Variances. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding Subdivision and Final PUD reviews. The project is a public - private partnership between Aspen Walk LLC and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Even though APCHA is an applicant, the Code requires referral comments from the Housing Board to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth Management review. APCHA provides comments based on compliance with the APCHA Housing Guidelines which address minimum net livable unit sizes and proposed categories. The ability to reduce the minimum net livable unit size by a maximum of 20% is solely under the purview of APCHA based on a finding that it is "demonstrated that the development satisfied, or is required to adjust to other physical factors or considerations including, but not limited to, design for livability, common storage, other amenities, location or site designs." Compliance with the APCHA Guidelines is approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission in addition to the specific criteria listed in Growth Management for the development of affordable housing and the general requirements for growth management review. With the exception of unit size requirements, the adopted documents that address quality and Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 1 of 8 livability of affordable housing units are the AACP (a standard in Growth Management Review) and the specific criteria for Growth Management for the development of affordable housing" SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS FROM MARCH 15,2011: At the March 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 when applicable. The Applicant's representative has provided a memo on the changes and associated drawings that are included as Exhibit M. PROPOSED CHANGES: • Affordable Housing: The applicant submitted information regarding window sill height and window size for the garden level units to address the livability of the units. The affordable housing units are proposed to be deed restricted at Categories 3 and 4, rather than the proposed Categories 2 and 4. The specific designations for each unit are not determined yet; however, the minimum net livable unit size is the same for both Categories 3 and 4. The unit design has not changed, but the higher categories require a larger unit square footage and sell for higher rates. The following onsite affordable housing is proposed: Table 1: Proposed Net Livable Square Footage for Affordable Housing Units at Cats. 3 and 4. # of # of Square Feet Net Livable Area % Difference unit type units bedrooms Proposed Required Reduction A 2 studio 500 500 0% 0 B 3 studio 500 500 0% 0 C 2 1 600 700 14% (100) D 3 1 705 700 0% 5 E 2 2 857 950 10% (93) F 3 2 851 950 10% (99) G 1 3 1,110 1,200 8% (90) H 1 2 851 950 10% (99) 5974 total sq. 6450 total sq. 25 17 units bedrooms ft. net livable ft. net livable proposed required • Street Facing Entrance: The applicant added 2 street facing entrances to the affordable housing building. There are a total of 7 entrances that face the street for this project. Residential Design Standard variances for street facing entrances and first story elements are required for this project as discussed below. • Height Variance/ Elevators: The applicant reduced the number of elevators with rooftop access from 3 elevators to 1, thus reducing the amount that the elevators Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Nanning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 2 of 8 penetrate the height limit. All of the elevators (with the exception of the elevator in the affordable housing building) and the stairway con-idors that provide rooftop access are all above the height limit. Height variances are required for the elevators, stairway access to the roof and the north elevation of the affordable housing building adjacent to the parking ramp. Please refer to the highlighted areas in Exhibit L to see the requested height variances. • Lighting: The applicant revised the material proposed for the stair towers facing Midland Park (southeast elevation) to reduce light pollution from the motion activated lights within the stairways. The complete lighting plan is found on Sheets A9.1 — A9.4 of the revised application. Proposed light fixtures were submitted with the March 15 supplement to the application. Certain aspects of the proposed lighting plan do not meet Lighting Code requirements, for example the lights must be entirely located within the property boundaries and light may not spill over property boundaries. • Garage ventilation/noise requirements: The proposed garage ventilation system and vents are depicted on Sheet A3.0 of the revised application. Outside air will be pulled through the garage from the garage entrance (the garage door will open 18" when the exhaust fan activates). The air will travel north to south through the garage to be vertically vented through a grate located in the south portion of the property that abuts the Midland Park open space area. Title 18 of the Aspen Municipal Code mandates a maximum decibel level of 50dBA during the nighttime (9pm — 7am) and 55 dBA (7am — 9pm) during the daytime for residential properties. The parking garage is not permitted to exceed these maximum noise levels. 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 finds that the inclusion of two street facing entrances and walkways from the right of way on the affordable housing building is a positive addition to the project. The applicant added a walkway to a private side entrance for affordable housing unit B which also adds to the residential feel of the building. All of these elements start to create a positive street presence and a stronger pedestrian relationship, which brings the project into closer alignment with the goals of the AACP and the Residential Design Standards. The Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 3 of 8 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. The Residential Design Standards recognize the importance of prominent 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). This Standard reiterates the requirement the street facing entrances are required to have a covered entry front porch of 50 square feet or more, be located no more than 10' back from the front facade of the building and have street facing principal windows. The first story element and street facing entrance Standards are not technically met on either the free market or the affordable housing buildings. The actual numbers of entrances that face the street meet the required 7 street oriented entrances, however the proposed entrances either do not have covered front porches that meet the 50 square feet requirement and/or the doors are setback more than 10' from the front most facade of the building. Staff believes that the most recent proposal with added walkways and entrance doors is closer to the intent of the Standards, and supports the overall design. Staff commends the applicant for adding walkways and more street facing entrances and recommends that the applicant continue to meet the intent of the Design Standards and the PUD criteria for Architectural Character by adding more first story elements (i.e. front porches without usable space above) to the front facade to define all of the entryways. For example, adding front porches as one story elements will create an appropriate relationship with the pedestrian and neighborhood character, it will break up the perceived mass of the building, and it will accurately represent the intended residential use. The proposed mass of the project, which meets underlying zone requirements, is much larger than the other multi - family buildings in the neighborhood and as such architectural elements could be added to reduce the perceived mass of the building. Staff believes that the enhancement of one story elements to break up the mass of the building would meet the Residential Design Standards and assist the project to meet the PUD criterion for Architectural Character - "be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources." Overall, Staff believes that the project would comply with the intent of the Residential Design Standards by adding one story elements to the front facade to break up the perceived mass of the building, which will likely also bring the project into compliance with the PUD criteria for Site Design and Architectural Character. 2) Affordable Housing Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 4 of 8 Design: The applicant has not changed the affordable housing units from the March 15, 2011 proposal which added French balconies to all 17 proposed units and refined the outdoor patio space above the garage entrance. Staff remains concerned that the combination of substandard unit sizes' and limited private outdoor space for the residents does not meet the AACP policy to "promote a high quality of site planning and architecture in affordable housing to enhance the character and charm of Aspen." Increasing the categories of the units, which increases the purchase amount, requires a reduction of unit size requirements for more than half of the units (9 of the 17). While French balconies provide additional natural light, the lack of private outdoor space creates an imbalance in the project when considered in the context of the adjacent free market building that features abundant balconies. Staff is supportive of the partially sub -grade units on the ground level, as long as the units meet criteria for a variation. Staff believes that the project does not provide adequate compensation for the sub -grade location and for the substandard unit sizes by at least providing private outdoor space to make up for the undersized interior space. There seem to be somewhat simple changes that could increase the livability of the housing units without compromising the overall project. For example, the addition of a walkway to the street- facing garden level housing unit (Unit H) activated the space in front of Unit H and provided a positive connection between the building and the right of way. Another example to increase livability is to allow the partially sunken units, Units G and H, to have access to the sunken outdoor area created by the retaining wall as opposed to the proposed French balconies that will not allow the resident to access the outdoor space. The trade -off between sub -grade spaces and/or substandard unit sizes and the livability of the housing units are not yet realized in this project. Community Development finds that the project can go further to fit into the neighborhood, provide quality design and livable units for the future affordable housing residents. With these few enhancements to the livability of the units, staff can support the design. 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, attached as Exhibit N. 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 scheduled for Council review on April 25, 2011 for first reading and May 23, 2011 for second reading. 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 ' 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 04.05.11 Page 5 of 8 stated in the proposed code amendment and therefore do not meet the potential criteria to allow sub -grade units. Again, some simple changes to enhance the livability of the units, such as proper balconies, could meet the criteria for a variation. 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 applicant 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 satisfies. 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 retumed to Planning and Zoning for a re- review pursuant to the adopted language. 3) Lighting The proposed light fixtures located in the right of way and the lighting that will spill over property lines is prohibited in the lighting code. In addition the bollard -like fixtures along the rear of the property are spaced too close together to meet the requirements for landscape lighting. Staff recommends that that project meet the required lighting standards. 4) Garage Ventilation Staff is unsure about the impact of the exhaust vent on the adjacent Midland Park property and recommends that the applicant provide more information about the operation and associated impacts (if any) of the exhaust vent on the neighborhood for review by City Council during Final PUD. 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. 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 by adding balconies to all of the units. • Provide more one story elements to reduce the perceived mass of the building and to bring the project into closer compliance with the intent of 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 Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 6 of 8 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, 2011 ] EXHIBIT H — Staff memo and exhibits dated February 15, 2011 EXHIBIT I - Supplemental information to the application dated March 1, 2011 [provided on March 15, 2011] EXHIBIT J — Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated February 15, 2011 [provided on March 15, 2011] EXHIBIT K — Housing Department memo dated March 8, 2011 [provided on March 15, 2011 ] EXHIBIT L — Height analysis EXHIBIT M — Supplemental information to the application dated March 25, 2011. EXHIBIT N — Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Numbered 5, Serits of 2011. EXHIBIT 0 — Letter from adjacent property owner Sara Garton. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT P — Comments from the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Board dated March 31, 2011. EXHIBIT Q — Letter from Midland Park Homeowners Association. Please notify Staff if you require another copy of Exhibits A — K. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir. Planning and Zoning Commission Memo 04.05.11 Page 8 of 8 (AArn T r Midland Park Condominium Association ^_ P.O. Box 10609 �f WW Aspen, CO 81612 April 19, 2011 Chairman Stan Gibbs and Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: The residents of the Midland Park Condominium Association want to thank you for allowing us to present our concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment project at 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle (Aspen Walk). We know how difficult your decision - making process must be when confronted by several interest groups, all of whom have their own opinions and positions regarding project approvals or disapprovals. While the mass and scale of the proposed redevelopment and its subsequent impact on the surrounding neighborhoods continue to be a major concern we would, however, like to express our appreciation for your support and recommendations concerning the following items: • The elimination of the proposed rooftop patio; • The repositioning of the garage and air - conditioning vents away from our open space /park; • The removal of the sidewalk abutting the back of the proposed building and along our open space/park; and • The lighting mitigation with the possible installation of a stone wall between the proposed building and our park and incorporating coniferous vegetation on the applicant's property and along the first -floor units. There was also the suggestion by Commissioner Weiss to divide the free - market building into two buildings (thus, the total project into three buildings), thereby breaking up the mass. We lend our support to this idea as it would reduce the overall mass and increase the pedestrian experience with more open, green space and view corridors that would allow sunlight to melt the accumulated ice that pools at the bottom of the hill as well as at the school bus stop. Again, thank you for hearing our real concerns and understanding our wish to preserve our special, small -scale residential neighborhood. As neighbors we will continue to follow the progress of Aspen Walk. For the Midland Park Condominium Association Jim McPhee President r including: Tom Griffiths Cindy Houben Todd Welden 4 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC 14,. landscape architecture.planning.resort design RE • CI 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t 970/925 -2323 t 970/92o -1628 APP 0 info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 8 /utl CITY COMM p nb P NT 8 April 2011 EV Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Revised Landscape Plans / AspenWalk/Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Dear Sara: On behalf of our clients, please accept the enclosed two (2) sets of landscape plan studies, Sheets LA 1.0 and LA 1.1, which seek to respond to various comments received from the Planning and Zoning Commission at our last hearing held on 5 April 2011. Highlights of the enclosed landscape plan studies include: • Sheet LA 1.0 has removed the path along the southeastern facade of the building. A path which leads to the sidewalk is still provided from the building entrance at the far southern end of the free - market building. Additional landscape plantings have been included in place of the path which feature strategically placed bristle cone pines. The use of these coniferous trees, with the previously contemplated use of deciduous trees, will provide year -round screening of the southeastern facade of the proposed building. No other changes have been made to the landscape plan on this study; • Sheet LA 1.1, in addition to including the above referenced modifications, indicates the possibility of providing six (6) parallel parking spots, two (2) off of Park Avenue and four (4) off of Park Circle. The possible provision of these parking spots is a matter that is entirely for the City's consideration. The subgrade parking plan previously presented, which provides twenty -four (24) affordable housing parking spaces and twenty -nine (29) free - market parking spaces and which meets the code, remains unchanged. Please call me with any questions. Very truly yours, Patrick S. Rawley, Associate ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment Cc: Tricia Aragon (w/ attachment) Brian Flynn (w/ attachment) Thomas Klassen (w/ attachment) Thomas Salmen (w/ attachment) Ken 0' Bryan (w/ attachment) Stan Clauson (w/ attachment) II S.- ft - STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. esor t design Memo 412 North Mill Street Aspen. Colorado St6u t.97o/9 f.9)o /920.'628 inlo @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com To: Sara Adams, Senior Planner CC: Tom Klassen, Tom Salem, Ken O'Bryan, Ken Robertson From: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Date: 18 April 2011 Re: Proposed Parking Allocation Plan / AspenWalk Final PUD Application In connection with comments made by several Planning and Zoning Commissioners at the 5 April 2011 public hearing concerning the parking plan for the proposed AspenWalk development, please accept this revised proposed parking plan. The purpose of this revised proposed parking plan is to provide greater clarification on how the fifty -three (53) parking spaces in the subgrade parking may be allocated by the yet to be created homeowners association who will be overseeing the day - today operations of the free - market and affordable housing associations. We would note that there is no code requirement with respect to the actual allocation of parking spaces within a project. This information is provided as a voluntary clarification of potential allocation within the project. It is not intended to bind future free market and affordable housing Homeowners' Associations from decisions in the best interests of their respective constituencies. Background The parking structure design provides for fifty -three (53) spaces divided among the free - market and affordable housing portions of the development. Twenty -four (24) parking spaces are provided for the seventeen (17) onsite affordable housing units. This represents 1.41 spaces per affordable housing unit. Twenty -nine (29) spaces are provided for the free market units. • Per the applicable requirements of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), and confirmed by City of Aspen Plans Examiner, Dennis Murray, the applicant is providing two (2) handicapped parking spaces in the garage, one (1) of which is required to be van accessible. The provision of handicapped parking spaces does not alter the required number of spaces in the garage. Proposed Parking Allocation Plan While this parking design plan complies with both the IBC and City of Aspen Land Use Code, some members of the Planning and Zoning Commission have questioned how visitor and service vehicle parking could be accommodated in the subgrade parking structure. In response to these questions, the applicant provides the following proposed parking allocation: Proposed Draft Parking Plan /AspenWalk Final PUD Application 18 April 2011 • Free Market Parking o Twenty -nine (29) total spaces; o One (1) handicapped parking space; o Two (2) visitor /service reserved parking spots (identified on the drawing as FMU 28 and 29) o Fourteen (14) dedicated spaces (one (1) space per free market unit); and o Twelve (12) undedicated spaces (available for purchase by residents of the free market units or other parties). • Affordable Housing Parking o Twenty -four (24) total spaces; o One (1) van accessible handicapped parking space; o Two (2)visitor /service reserved parking spots (AH 3 and 4); and o Thirteen (13) single dedicated spaces will be allocated to 13 of the 17 affordable housing units; and o Eight (8) tandem dedicated spaces will be allocated to 4 remaining affordable housing units, based upon need; Attached to this memorandum is a graphic representation of this proposed parking allocation plan, showing the location of the visitor /service parking spaces as well as the handicapped parking spaces. Potential for On- Street Parking The applicant has also provided a revised landscape plan, Sheet LA 1.1, which identifies six (6) parallel parking spaces that could be provided off of Park Avenue and Park Circle. This plan has been submitted to the Engineering and Parks Departments for review. Their referral comments will be included in the staff packet for the hearing scheduled on 3 May 2011. The provision of this off - street parking is entirely up to the City, as this parking lies outside the applicant's property and is located on the City of Aspen right-of-way. Moreover, these spaces would be open to the general public and not reserved for building use. The City would need to determine any parking restrictions that might be placed on these proposed spaces. For example, they might be designated as "Loading Zone" or have a time restriction such as 15- minute or 2 -hour parking. The applicant would comply with any recommendations concerning these parking spaces. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. • Page 2 CI < 9-- B 6 °c u. au'siwwwY4filIC.m t01i1iii A 9 0 H g ° i r,i I 1 'I ��, 1 .rr s E • • X33; " °'`I` 1 1 a I a a. <` m o a __w____._ a _ Y a w in • —I . . . I m C C a l P t. fl 111 cc d i * O • r a J I s i : t �, r a c } as a P ' i e r a °" t I a i 10 0 z ° N I P 3 : c r '. _... _. i m— i li I i a- 1 �� \ / �� e- i I i a F 1 0 II1 1 i 1 1 0 0 1 w \`N \ V I a N � C a x 6 i ____ )- _ ■ L,1 - - ,,, Z Z191B 03 'N3dSV f= , I w c .. (( 101) SI& '3AV )111Vd Et S 101 ' ' I 0- § • , z 0: ; 12 F, Ain BIF9 8 •NOISIA109NS >RPM ANNfIS Ek 7 f U s 3 1 i g IA < z V . ° ...ON ' 7-. 1 Z ix tu td - r i.,r4, 3: >, E p Lu L F. ° .41 ."`'' ° - . a 8 _, : 1 .41‹ 0 z z 1E a- aE 5w 11E uadsv 1 . .., .., - ., .... 8- . ,-- ,. st h o, t < ,.. -1 _1 .,4 I 1 H 0_ KM — — — - ,,.. \ \ N N79 ,B -1. "i'fitt' * ,., ,...., vidit„gr „ \ - - imsfri‘ 4...,„ ....110,:l ,Irio :,,,,,,r0,410,-.,,,,, LI ,t ... . '4• ( r 46 liZir440 .4 teraffir iii i;112 ' 0 ---' ., __./ ' - 4 6 A 'dmer-l v■mi \ \ , mt. ...,-, < , , „ — . - - - - .. ;',4 ••••■• WA'r ON .. 4 0 \ _.■ ....tr. - i .111 •, •• • ;:t4 1 .,,. 0:....vx* jE \ ) „,.. . 00 . 00 , 00 , 1 --• ,g ,i g ::**,-, ., R Iii, .'" Vike,t),4 0 n C M: ' *: - " -r -:•V 4 8 r - - - - 7 106 De o_ 1 \ gl ig 1111 I him 04%., oi = i „ , • - ir ME - .x - . .:-.4 1 i ri 1 41 I i 1110 U 0 1 4 : :VII110,■*: ' .0.• T .21 7,3 6 " i w... .. ..... .0.0, ,.., Mgt &' e, Illkli \ VII ' I in 0 'n 1 § t, S • P...:',',",‘ ........„:„. , ,_, 4111M-414r011 E 0 _1 6 E = Ote4:til: k \weigh > u 6 n ° 6 . kik* • ,,,t! a ,I, III p ■ „t ,.... , , .. .4 ;,.. g , ,-:,., o p. vr mianw 44 i f i nr i mia b ..... § li Ihy 44 4, I" 4tNi • 44: 11 11 N t * &011111 eAV*4 i OtiaA..,,,, ,W I, It., ,4-1f,Llik e M ■;$tj - Th - l \ 4 p, ,,, ,4•0;;A:v - w . tc7;a7;7w, IIKV,,„V, illtiSgh ; i . le ;*; 17 421 f v",2 N (4 kk ,- A■ -.bk..: 4..444K9 0,V --r 1.1-ariA,1•Nathwomor ' tri*::::::::PritS, INitttitta, k k74-,4 r .41( 1 41 -.:*• IkAte- , 7Mi al VfM , 1110P. Oita 0 AV 4.41: At 9 7 8 . is, i ,.., i - < N,. Amy ;t - , ir.:is .7...wevt:401 1 011111M .4. , ...,., Ac • : 4 t.:*%40 , girl , ?,9 7 ., ,.___..„,,,, 2 ■•■•■•• ■ .... •4.- go.* ea, -- 11111 1111111 0 eldlilte0 40 6 'ow "Ilf IR O , , 01 ,...1,4 ....„. (..) S 4 a, L-5 41111t \ IL I ' '''`' ........s 0. '..,r,111 8 4 t 2 II /--- z cz t ' A 10 te n < i ° TA* I • y r, a 6 a_ A te 049 .- ., , L OF pia ,-. = , 79,. z 8 I gr P40 k., Q . 2 N t II 914 411110 8 g / lip il i c 1 , 0 e kn, 2 ■ ..„--.. , .. , t14 N _ k A-wol ol co Ptik E . 41,y ait N e, -2 § 'i - 1 o __I --.... P 4 1 ' i 1 ! R 4 °4 e. . v ter. = ° . 9P° is P gi' E ' ' i W - E , . E . .1 P c,.. 1/ IIN 0 I- 4) 2 . k Of gp p! , '' °,1 1111j 1■ 1100 0 - - 0 Viet e• 9 1 gp.iii 14.10 41 12 , or .... 1 82,1 -. 08g3,2 22 . VIP i 1 i L Op MI , . / , wh / hbAiggtVNP , i 41111l flo,„ A .., 2 2 gThl§hili 6b, Ab........ 7 i 8 IliiMilag ni dr , , › n ...' 4111011110 ' i llk 0 .., /11 v. A e.> \ 4 0 ... k .1 :, 4 i .1 4 7, . . - 1 ,:,,•,. r, r, ; ; . . ,41„,,,,, ................. ,r CIO e• ' .41 1 1 nl.g ii 1 IliEt - 5.5 T:Or■ Or 1114 .4,- .....,....../ 0..... 14„„,> iiii Pt A 6 ---- i 1111P' ■7...... 0,m1.,,,,4 .• 0 mg) P6 7 / MOC) ,----- , -- ----Y-- 1 I 1 11011•■• .." j 4, 4:70 ,.. ......_...„ b.._ ( ) ,„.., , 4■1' N'. ...■■•■ , &`■ . 4 011/ f .: VP1 t ji 1 .1 4 ,* Wf ( \t„..411*.1■40,0y4 uj _____ LI, ,/ ' \ st..... • It c---.1 0, sow 4, 7,......) CD LIJ IA- 4 t ■ .4, I u - , 1 m._ g z a: :7, Van ,;, - >- ... ,- 0 Es" 1. ..% Z1.919 03 'N3dSV (E 101) SldV 3AV NMI 1 3 S 101 .NOISIAI0911S )121Vd ANNES 4 0 ii 5 5 a i ; a- .7, 2— tr . 6 LLI ' : 6 ..,,..= u, ----; : 0 .- 'T z • • ,I. W v-- 7 , .3 Le, co Lu 1.3 i- t x i .3 ''';' - E P-J b m E E . gt% 4 IP 9 fieAA uadsv ._... g.. = .er .D '8 a, 2,`. I- `‘e % A g - ' - 1 EH F. ' ce < 62 - ,.., g < ,:z ____ — a I N. 79AV \ \ \ lib 18 iirragintak40....,,,,,,gmabsiiimmttrikv S1-17IR.,,r, L,10,4„.....,_:,,Asivirs...16::01:40:04,:r.iirlirio4cofwoilip4\ T., ..1 .41111..... ‘` .41111111111 : 44 . 'P6: . ■ . Ed )-) .S --.. r,..:•' t..,..I 6 114 > \ . 1 ff. p.•.* • .. -, *v. v4 4•4•001 NIU' 4144,4Y41.4 o 1 • t , IN , , e ,,,pow.„,, • s., k o_ . ••■••■■,..44,404 44 0 In 1 44 vs 3 4., -. PAN o NNNN Ot' 3_ I r I - - - - Ilik' di I MK i III I O 1 r Ill a '>1‘INGOIS '- , ...4 V...• .41 ,prau I l i .i i i ti : 1;0 F _ a .•.•••4 If* 40 -a ,T) L p, „ .. ...v.v.,- 0... , .in:1", " .3 U t n ,, 8 1 F ,-- § H ‘' 9 LOPii Fr., tt 4 S� 4 ,- . 6 u-.) 8 1 ,t 0 . 4 4•••4,,* • 4•••• .4 E --,_ ARV - . , ii:...-..4144",: ..... 4.. • 4 m ,--...‘4Nib 1 Et . . Q L E P, ti.• ,.. tr, i i I =,.. .041,•to t ,, 1 lbw . 10, .3 `Z p o 6 g . itti, 6 g § I !,,, _ ,... .... , rilbt .'' in... -,u,rran ._ Walk lol ,___,-...... '''. agi S la6 % - 7 4 4 , 411111—# 11110 " . 4 1 :4 1 414 1 1 ‘ M. ••. ViVd111111.-•■?* •,•,, ......:12 _ ,., I ' ;1 fr ". ** t Yereinti`.144 Y1X:% •• - .■,.. 4* ( ?" # S 1 g a 1 '- ii ■ ittt;;X:itt : : : 41 : *:: : .* : : 4 gilt - Vitti01: 4 :: : *: : : : ::: . 3:+ . 7 t i . '''- . 4 • , ,,,,. , • 1 1 I WI 4 , 1 i1 ;#41 ;4■Afi J•1:1 165 I I b I I I 111 I I it t ip li , .., . f . we ......,:otokkt 1 , i i......t ro 1 -- i tpowir ...Iv ' filiffillifilit iv k 1 oi Amor ' 1 i c•:::::3:4+::: Ats4444+:+:46 - TA= Trrea04 ow il ' 0 4 ,..,, olii,„,.),,,,,,,..„..„...................„,...,..,....... 10 9,6, .•,....,•• 4 ' A1 114 - 4.' 44 ■iii.. .4 '' ' S Y •* ,-.0,•V4404 I_ I 7 1 1 -111 7 ..■ ■■ ■• g ■Mb, ; r i,_111.. , .., , - -stt.:Itt.omto.!li.. 4 1 0 _,, , , 16 Orle i (1 I Pik 1 111 L .2 . 9, ) 7 4 1 I I i z + 1 ' E a_ tin ° 4I1P \ 3 0 MMEMMM1 n < Nz - ..._,..1pp e Z k 164 g < IL - ti ,:. ,,.. ..... parig i x ' 1 )---'" 'C'' 1 ),' lifeji 4 kpliatitc4......./ i *7: P 7910 . H `' ,- Wel, • ..,- Ig. i 111 u. . ,... • , ) 5 1 1 1 1 6 6D 65 I III • L E ',:..... 6,, le i x . vr*ir 6 g e 2 • A 1 1 IV*, '.' t--,' la 41 T4 i oP 4 1 si / -, p \ , , of , , „ 2 '2 m '±' IA, ' I 5 0 , At- , '6 . • .. 11 ,, ; .. . ,41111) • g•-6 t ; i',9i ,-2' , 7908 r .'"-- AV. - r- p, 410 'MAYA .......---..., cs PAi !' qq E'In i ' ' lippr w w - - 0 PO 6 ID 0 ib;4@3 tl' li \ III , bk ,AMEL + g bf PR 4 qe3 “ ' l'Oli 'I eg : t/ . 11 ilirtirle* E .M. • a 5 2Q §E l o, • in CD z 8 n 323E i33 Ve4 _ I - A ( ifflp iiii 1 4( N 5 ,.> ] fro o ' -111E1111 NEER .........- 91 0 .2 ___..•\ 41,4,*, g g rg. AV „ III 1 Effitti ME R (4' 1110 . 7-----■ 111 z . 1))1t& • < • Ateg * it 1111E! 11111 ., 1 p„„ ......_....„ 4,1/4 .......,„ f . ■ vaf • • ill 1 3! . - t ''' g it N''... • ), -........ ( Itabs.4111 trp r 4 It‘ / o_< z 71* fa , \ \ > 0 WI\ II I 111 11107 t.r.q 7 ',1.• • • AI• 1lLi _ b - s Al ti 41, 1943 7,1**1_414_ 4-11/,1116- l 11 d (44Y1t4ifaear441, \ - _ . • / ‘ • 4 iiii - Flr N........._.00 -- --- --------- ---- - e 1 rAk W — --- c=. Z Ai Uri cg LI— Cm) Cc 3._ 0 W .c