HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19941018
.
SITE VISIT
4:00 P.M.
(meet at 225 S. Mill st.)
KNFO
=================================================================
AGENDA
==================================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
==================================================================
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
'"-,,,.-
II. MINUTES
III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. KNFO Conditional Use Review for a Satellite Dish,
Kim Johnson (continued from 10/4)
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Condominiumization Text Amendment, Kim Johnson
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. West End Traffic Update, Bob Gish
B. Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner
C. Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual
SPA Plan, Leslie Lamont (to be tabled indefinitely)
"
V. ADJOURN
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: October 18, 1994
Regular Meeting - November I
Youth Center SPA Amendment (LL)
624 E. Hopkins GMQS Allotment & Special Review (KJ)
205 W. Main Conditional Use Review - ADU - PH (ML)
Regular Meeting - November 22
303 E. Main St. GMQS Exemption, Special Review, View Plane (KJ)
a. nex
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson, Planner
Text Amendment for Condominium Regulations
October 18, 1994
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the
condominium regulations which will require that condominiumizations
for divided ownership of land shall be processed through full
subdivision process. This amendment is initiated by staff to close
a gap in the current regulations which allow any condominium
approval through administrative Planning Director approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ordinance 53 of 1993 amended the
condominiumization regulations to be in conformance with the
revised state regulations regarding condominiums (CCIOA). CCIOA
does not allow condominium ownerships to be subjected to
regulations to which similar developments are not required to
comply. Ordinance 53 eliminated affordable housing mitigation
payments and minimum lease lengths for condominiums, and allows for
condominium approval by the Planning Director rather than City
Council as a streamlining measure.
Typically a condominium approval would divide air space within
buildings and the bulk of the land would remain in common
ownership. Staff has realized that the current regulations do not
prevent a property owner from creating ' what has been referred to
as a "land condominium" which divides ownership of the actual
ground plane with or without division of spaces in a building or
buildings. Staff believes that this "land condominiumization" is
a subdivision action taken under the guise of a shortened Planning
Director's approval without public hearing. What is at risk is the
potential that an existing development can be "condominiumized"
with certain site elements such as parking, open space or
trash/utility facilities being owned by persons other than the
owners of the building condominium units. In fact, a situation
like this has already occurred to a degree with the Galena Plaza
parcel which received GMQS allotment in 1993. In this instance,
the land was divided between two buildings. The parking for the
parcel is on one "condo unit" and little parking remains on the
other "unit."
Staff objects to this practice because it creates in effect a
subdivision which does not have the benefit of being reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. It is the
subdivision regulations which require dedication of easements,
public improvements, and contains the statement that a non-
il
conformity cannot be "created or extended".
The following amendment is proposed to Section 24-7-1007:
"Section 24-7-1007. Condominiumization.
A. General. Where a proposed development is to include a
condominium form of ownership, or if an existing
development is to be converted to a condominium form
of ownership, in whole or in part, a condominium
subdivision exemption plat reflecting all of the
development to be condominiumized, shall be
submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval as a subdivision exemption pursuant to the
terms and provisions of this section. A
condominiumization of land shall be reviewed
pursuant to section 24-7-1004. subdivision
Approval."
Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review
standards for amendments to the code:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: No land use code conf licts are evident for this proposed
text amendment. Currently there is the potential for dimensional
requirement non -conformities to be created by land
condominiumization without full review -under subdivision criteria.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan does not address
text amendments specific to condominiums.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The amendment will allow specific review of land
condominiums in terms of physical needs through subdivision review.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: Per se, this proposed amendment has no effect. However,
through subdivision review the Engineering Department will be able
to consider easements, road widths, parking and similar issues.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
2
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed 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.
Response: This amendment will not have impacts on public
facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Condominium ownership interests do not impact the
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: This amendment is not site specific, so this criteria
does not directly apply.
H.. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: This condition does not apply.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: This amendment allows for simple airspace condominiums
to be approved through the streamlined Planning Director's review.
In situations where the land does not remain in common ownership,
the two-step subdivision process (with public hearing) shall be
taken, which is in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the text amendment
requiring two-step subdivision review for condominiumization of
land.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council approval
of an amendment to Section 24-7-1007 of the Aspen Municipal Code
requiring condominiumization of land to be a two-step subdivision
process as recommended by the Planning Office."
3
3
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment
DATE: October 18, 1994
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission considered the applicant's
request June 7, 1994, to merge Lot 2 and Lot 4 (which is used
solely for access and parking) to increase the building square
footage on Lot 2. This application was requested to be tabled by
the applicant because the Commission was contemplating a 2-2 vote
on the project.
The applicant has had difficulty obtaining approval from all
property owners within the subdivision which is the reason for the
delay from mid -July until now.
Since this application was considered in June, staff -and the
applicant have found another approach in which this application can
be considered. The applicant's letter explaining this new proposal
is attached as Exhibit 111". A new site plan and architectural
elevation are also attached to this memo. This memorandum reviews
this new methodology and PUD amendment.
METHODOLOGY: Staff believes that the'Aspen Land Use Regulations
permit the applicant to request a substantial amendment to the
Creektree Subdivision/PUD to recalculate the lot area of each
parcel to include the land area under the park which was part of
the original PUD plan. Using the entire land area of the PUD
permits larger lot areas in which to calculate floor area, thus the
duplex units. can expand. This method will also redefine the lot
area for the Eagles Club (Lot 3) and the single family residence
on Lot 1.
The current definition of "Floor area, Planned unit development"
is stated in Section 24-3-101 of the Land Use Regulations as
follows:
For planned unit development (PUD) applications where
land is held as common open space, the allowable floor
area shall be calculated dividing the lot area by the
total number of lots existing and proposed for
development to determine the land area for each lot in
the planned unit development (PUD), which shall be the
area used to determine the amount of floor area of each
dwelling unit in the planned unit development.
Although the Park parcel of the Creektree Subdivision/PUD has been
conveyed to the City for a public park, the park may -be
reconsidered to be used as calculating lot area in this PUD
amendment. This method was used in the 1010 Ute residential
project which allowed the lots to use the floor area attributable
to the park which was later conveyed to the City.
Staff agrees with the calculation method proposed by the applicant
on page 2 of Exhibit 11111, however, we would like the applicant to
include the Eagles Club, located on Lot 3, in the total calculation
of lot area. Although staff recognizes that it is presently a non-
conforming use in a residential zone district, the PUD regulations
don't differentiate the use of the lot in determining lot area, but
by the number of lots. It is also possible that the Eagles Club
may become a conforming use if rezoning or an SPA overlay is placed
on the property. Nonetheless, staff believes each lot in the
Creektree Subdivision/PUD should be treated equally in determining
lot area at this time.
The actual calculation has not been prepared by the applicant for
tonight's meeting, as he wants an indication whether this method
is acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to
purchasing a new survey with this information. Should this
proposed amendment be acceptable to the Commission, the applicant
will have the survey prepared prior to the City Council meeting.
Assuming the applicant's survey indicates there is sufficient lot
area to allow an increase in floor area for the duplex units, the
applicant has agreed to limit the expansion potential of each
duplex unit to 500 sq.ft. within the existing footprints of the
duplexes. This would allow the three units that have not converted
their garage to do so, as well as enclosing decks as requested by
the applicant. The net result of this proposed PUD amendment is
an approved increase of 2,000 sq.ft. of floor area divided equally
among the four duplex units. The potential increase of floor area
permitted for the single family residence on Lot 1 cannot be
calculated until the survey is performed, however staff has roughly
determined that it will not be greater than 400 sq.ft.
PUD AMENDMENT: Should the Planning and Zoning Commission agree to
utilize the methodology proposed to calculate lot area, the
applicant will be seeking a PUD amendment to increase the allowed
floor area within the Creektree Subdivision/PUD and to merge Lots
2 and 4. Substantial changes to a PUD require review by the
Planning Commission and final approval by City Council, which
assesses compliance with the PUD review standards of Section 24-
7-903 (B) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
The general requirements of PUD require the proposed development
to be consistent with the AACP, the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area, and shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area. Staff has concern that the
City is looking at a comprehensive reduction of floor area
throughout all zone districts. This project is not located within
2
close proximity to any historic structures, however it is
immediately adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Staff supports the
applicant's request to only add floor area within the existing
footprint of the structure, however we have concern that the
increase of 2, 000 sq. ft. may be in conflict with other goals of the
City.
The applicant will be determining the slopes of the parcel in order
to comply with the requirement for density reduction for steep
slopes. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, this will be
prepared prior to the City Council meeting.
The other PUD review criteria including density, land uses,
dimensional requirements, off-street parking, open space,
landscaping, architectural site plan, lighting, clustering, public
facilities, traffic, and pedestrian circulation will not be
affected by the proposed amendment. The Planning Office is
requesting that the approved building envelope be redescribed in
order to prevent any expansion other than within the existing
building footprint. As mentioned in the applicant's original
application, the merger of Lot 2 and Lot 4 will not reduce any on -
site parking and will better clarify easements on Lot 4.
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: The applicant had only requested an
exemption from 8040 review in the application. This would permit
only Mr. Beckwith to enclose his deck. Should any of the other
three duplex unit owners wish to enclose their decks or garages,
they would be subject to the full stream margin review requirements
of Section 24-7-504 (C). In order to reduce redundancy and to
clear the record, staff is recommending that if the Planning
Commission finds that the PUD Amendment is appropriate, they should
also grant Stream Margin review approval to the entire project, not
solely to Mr. Beckwith's unit.
Section 24-7-504(C) Stream Margin Review
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood hazard Area will not
increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development.
Response: The proposed development is not within a Special Flood
Hazard Area. The proposed development is proposed to be within the
existing footprint of the duplex units. Therefore there is not
increase in the base flood elevation on the duplex's parcel.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The Creektree Subdivision/PUD Plat already identifies
a recreation/river easement within the Roaring Fork River bed as
3
it crosses this subdivision. Both the Engineering and Parks
Department recommend that this easement be redefined so as to
permit fishing use to a distance of five feet from the median high
water line along the river bank. This language is more consistent
with all other fishing easement's along the Roaring Fork River.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent possible.
Response: The Greenway Plan establishes goals for protecting the
natural river corridor. The natural character of the area should
be maintained for the benefit of those who see the area from the
adjacent park and trail. Since the proposed development is not
increasing the footprint of the building and the "filling in" of
garages and some decks is proposed, staff does not believes this
poses a substantial impact on the River.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response: No vegetation or slope changes need to be made with the
proposed addition of approximately 2,000 sq.ft. of the duplex
units.
S. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response: The river channel will not be directly affected by this
proposal.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation
of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice is submitted
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Response: Not applicable.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and
his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Response: The applicant will be required to obtain a new stream
margin review if the watercourse is being altered or relocated.
Should such a request be made, this requirement will be applied at
that time.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one -hundred -year
f loodplain.
4
Response: No work is proposed within the 100-year f loodplain,
therefore this requirement is not applicable.
Staff finds that the applicant's project to add 2,000 sq.ft. of
floor area within the existing duplex structures' footprint is in
compliance with the requirements for Stream Margin review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the applicant's request for a substantial Subdivision/PUD
Amendment which reestablishes the lot area for each lot within the
Creektree Subdivision for the purposes of calculating floor area,
subject to the following conditions. Staff further recommends that
the Commission approve Stream Margin review for the development
illustrated on the site plan dated July 13, 1994, which is included
in Exhibit 111".
1. The applicant shall redefine the building envelope, so that
it is closer to the existing structure to prevent any
disturbance closer to the Roaring Fork River, with the amended
PUD plat.
2. The new PUD/Subdivision Plat must be approved by the Planning
Office and Engineering Department and recorded with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City
Council. Failure to do so may render the approvals invalid.
3. The applicant shall submit slope and area under water
information prepared by a surveyor, prior to first reading by
City Council, to determine the net lot area of each parcel
within the Creektree Subdivision and the resulting floor area.
4. No vegetation shall be removed between the building envelope
and the river.
5. Prior to removal of any trees, the applicant shall obtain a
tree removal permit from the Parks Department. The applicant
is required to either guarantee that the trees survive for up
to two years after relocation or, should they die, that they
are replaced with comparable trees. Excavating around
existing trees will need to be done outside of the dripline
of all trees.
6. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval for the
Creektree Subdivision/PUD amendment to merge Lots 2 and 4 and to
increase the floor area attributable to each lot within the
5
Subdivision. I further move to approve Stream Margin Review for
the duplex structures to expand within the existing footprint a
total of 2,000 sq.ft. as illustrated in the site plan dated July
13, 1994, with the conditions noted in the Planning Office
memorandum dated October 18, 1994."
Exhibits:
Blueprint of site plan and elevations of proposed additions
"1" - Applicant's amended application
112" - June 7, 1994 Planning Office review memo
apz.pudamend.crktree.2
6
Exhibit 1
JUL - 8 1994
VAN N ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
June 30, 1994
Ms. Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment
Dear Mary:
I would like to propose an alternative approach to determining the allowable floor
area for the Creektree Condominiums. The alternative approach is consistent with
the land use regulations which were in place at the time the project was approved,
the City's current PUD regulations, and the Planning Office's interpretation that the
Creektree Condominiums are configured as two duplexes.
As we discussed, Section 24-8.4 of the 1975 zoning regulations (copy attached)
required that a PUD be developed consistent with the density limitations of its
underlying zone districts. This section, however, permitted allowable density to be
calculated based on the entire land area of the PUD. Based on my review of the
Creektree Condominiums caseload files, it appears that the entire land area of the
project was in fact used to meet the applicable density requirements of the project's
underlying zone districts.
More specifically, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements in the R-15
and R-30 zone districts were fifteen thousand (15,000) and ten thousand (10,000)
square feet, respectively (see attacbed area and bulk table). As a result, the four (4)
Creektree units and the single-family unit located on Lot 1 required a total of fifty-
five thousand (55,000) square feet of land area. Please note that the 1975 zoning
regulations did not differentiate between types of dwelling units (i.e., single-family or
duplex), and that land under water and steep slopes were required to be subtracted in
the calculation of density. As the gross land area of Lots 2 and 4 is thirty-seven
thousand nine hundred (37,900) square feet, other lots within the PUD were obvious-
ly included in the project's density calculations.
Subparagraph F. under the definition of "Floor Area" in Section 3-101 of the present
land use regulations addresses the calculation of allowable floor area in a PUD which
contains common open space. The subparagraph states that the entire land area of
230 East Hopkins Avenue - Aspen. Colorado 81611-303i925-6958 - Fax 3031920-9310
Ms. Mary Lackner
June 30, 1994
Page 2
the PUD is to be divided by the number of residential lots to derive the project's
average lot area. The resulting figure should then be used to compute the allowable
floor area of the residences based on the applicable floor area ratio requirements of
the underlying zone districts.
In view of the fact that the entire land area of the Creektree Subdivision was
apparently used to accommodate the density requirements of both the Creektree
Condominiums and the single-family residence, and that the subdivision includes
common open space, I believe it is logical to compute the project's allowable floor
area as provided for in Section 3-101. In other words, allowable floor should be
calculated based on the land area of Lots 1, 2, 4 and the park. Lot 3 can be excluded
since it does not contain a residential use.
Based on this approach, allowable floor area for the Creektree Condominiums and
the single-family residence would be calculated as follows.
1. Calculate the gross land area of Lots 1, 2, 4 and the park.
2. Subtract surface easements, land under water and those areas which are
subject to steep slopes to determine net land area.
3. Divide the resulting net land area by the number of residential lots (i.e.,
three). Note: As discussed in your memorandum to the P&Z, I have assumed
that the Creektree Condominiums are two (2) duplexes which are theoretically
located on two (2) lots.
4. Use the resulting average residential lot area to calculate the allowable floor
area of the two duplexes and the single-family residence based on the applica-
ble floor area provisions of the R-6 and R-30 zone districts. Note: The R-15
portion of the property was apparently rezoned to R-6 following approval of
the PUD.
This approach would ensure that both the Creektree Condominiums and the single-
family residence located on Lot 1 derive equal benefit from the inclusion of the park
in the determination of allowable floor area. The Eagles Club, which is located on
Lot 3, is a non -conforming use, and therefore cannot be expanded. Should Lot 3 be
rezoned, it most likely would be given a non-residential zone district category in
which the allowable floor area is more permissive. Consequently, no detriment would
accrue to Lot 3 as a result of its exclusion from the calculation of average residential
lot area.
While I have not had the surveyor calculate land under water and the amount of
steep slopes for the remainder of the subdivision, my preliminary calculations indicate
that sufficient land area would remain to accommodate the Applicant's proposed
Ms. Mary Lackner
June 30, 1994
Page 3
expansion. In the event the amount of available floor area exceeds that which is
required for the expansion, the Applicant will agree to limit the expansion potential
of each unit to five hundred (500) square feet. This figure would allow each of three
(3) remaining units to also enclose their garage and deck at some future deck.
Given the expense incurred to date by the Applicant with respect to this application,
we are reluctant to engage the surveyor further until we have an indication from the
staff and the P&Z that this alternative approach is acceptable. If it is acceptable, the
P&Z could condition its recommendation of approval upon the provision of detailed
slope and land under water calculations prior to the application's review by the City
Council.
I would appreciate it if you would review our alternative proposal and the attached
materials. I would also like to meet with you and Leslie to discuss the proposal in
more detail. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VAN>ASSOCIATES
Sunny Vann, AICP
• r
SV: V
Attachments
cc: David Beckwith
c\bus\city.1tr\1tr22293.m11
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
►rwr t►.wtan.,a..c•
of the development or site are preserved and
enhanced;
E. The project must be in harmony with its
surrounding neighborhood.
24-8.4 Transfer of Density
A planned unit development must be developed
consistently with the density limitations of the zone
district in which it lies. However, the allowable
density of the PUD may be applied to the total area of
development rather than separately to individual lots,
provided all lots in the planned unit development are
adjacent and owners of all tracts affected are joint
applicants for PUD approval.
24-8.5 Mandatory PUD
Whenever the Zoning District Map designates a
mandatory planned unit development district by in-
cluding the letters PUD as a suffix to the classifi-
cation of any district, all development shall proceed
according to this Article as a planned unit development
unless the Planning and Zoning Commission shall deter-
mine that the development meets the objectives of
planned unit development, and provided, further, that
compliance with this Article is not necessary, a
PUD designation notwithstanding, for construction of
a single family residence on a separate lot. In
addition to any other elements of review provided for
by this Article, in areas designated mandatory PUD,
the Planning Commission may allow construction of more
than two (2) dwelling units per structure (if not
otherwise permitted by the zoning code). In deter-
mining the allowable number of units, the Commission
shall consider the following:
A. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure
and other utilities to service the intended
development;
B. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire
protection, snow removal and road maintenance;
C. The suitability of the site for development
considering the slope, ground instability, and
the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalanche dangers;
D. The effects of the development on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and
consequent effects on water pollution;
E. The possible effects on air quality in the area
and city wide;
F. The design and location of any proposed structure,.
roads, driveways, or trails and their compatibility
with the terrain;
G. Whether proposed grading will result in the
least disturbance to the terrain and other natural
land features;
H. The placement and clustering of structures and
reduction of building height and scale to in-
crease open space and preserve the natural
features of the terrain.
24-8.6 General Procedures for Review
Each applicant for PUD approval shall be subject to
the following phased procedures:
A. Submission of an outline development plan as
herein required shall initiate the process;
B. Upon approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council of the outline development plan,
the applicant(s) shall receive tentative PUD
designation of the subject property. No
- 34 -
c an
'.1 .
'v 'o
Ip.1
CIA
� tD
@
0
C
b
.pi Nt
A
a
uN
r
o
.fir
U p
�
'�•j M
.1 3
Q1�
.F.',
to
•./ U
a �
r4
w 0 O
1
1
" i° e
c
w
O 41
1%
M
w
67
N
$4 C
+
, m
•
.0
a c l0 6
^I
''' p
N
fn
u
u d
4)
:2
L0
of
yu 8� 0
to u .1 fn
• w • .� r
w
=
w w
g O
a1
1
t441
N�
.. N V
r
M
G tll A t4
w o w V
NO,L1C
w� u
NON 1 1 1 N
e4 lad
�0 + Q
x
0000
cc
oo
VV •V
• .ml
a
$000
0 oN�� E 11
tia,
': u.i
toe.►"-4tvnmxvi
a.0Oie.0-
Ord
�oetto�o
w."Ua
8
p
PIC
1
p m
to
U c
O
O N
O
ON .4 T lit rt
L
.1
1 ( O
Qtt
G -4 U C +i O 1
+1 0 fo ++ ..1 to
C
?
4 JJ LI
m fnm
O
to
00
O N
00
t/1
00
.•i 'p 'd 4! 41 Ct
z LI to VIM U••C4
a
00
00
N�
.0 1w .C�
cc
C O
4) �.0
r4 U U+ N O ►.,.1
Ot
ao a
a N
.•I X C w ri to 7
Oc a, -+ 0 1 N .0
to +�
x d
E
o
QO
P,1
� N
� rn
~ �
00
00 41
C
0 0
cc 41
vOtO
.� .r
•
•
0
n
N .•i 'fl w 41 CJ
0
41
O
41 V >
j�
41 L > JJ 41
N
r7 C
O
>+�
-.4 .got
ro•+O-+O E
0-4.0wro
�
Z
x w w
y G. •a
Vf
e
N
IT
1
�C
ti to
b+Gysa
i+
Vl
y .4 O 0 41
ooO.4Cot
4
o0
C olo X
+�
•.i G 0 1
00
. 0
�,
Ntxp
0�
v4 41 v1 w
a>dro.aOy0
41
•C
j
C
1 di S
$10C4-4M10
In
mom
a�vooto�v
•o�
LI
a
1 1
wtn
a
1
rl 1 • 1
u r
++
p
'C
14 a
a °+ e w
�
b
u
Ir
N
"O A�
...
w •
4
'd 0 .4 .4
..1�Oa4b
'� ..4
r ►•.
w u
w
w
a�i
•
u
•
m +1
�
•
Y
r
•
•�.1 05 W C
41 41
• �t
w
> +1
M QI •1
116
y Y
11
Y
47
CA 0
u e
V
Y
7 t0 4!
1•y �
s
y�
`•�
Z
�
Y
N .14
sb
Y 4
L
tS
O
a
•
Y C
as►�
O .r
O w w
Q
.4
ti
1'1
v
tr w
p •
Ln
O y
O t4
cr w
cm to w u
G
m 41 C B w w w
41 r1 Y go -on an
461 31 to
+/ is O—• Nel
p 0 �V 1 1 1
w W w O O s
N t OO
1 u 00
t
to
GI 1 •O
w 1 m m V w
C-4 u c w4
.N+V C.~i c 00
O L ro 7 �• Y I
..4 X C L.. O Y3 u e
41 G
O 1
� O
..1
91 1
4
Y
e
c O •O
• — 1... a .+
osolwma�,
cco 1
'a d ro .9r -1 d Ow0
4)u w
dic 41a A M V
Y1
Exhibit 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment
DATE: June 7, 1994
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to amend the Creektree
Subdivision to merge Lot 2 and Lot 4 (which is used solely for
access and parking) to increase the building square footage on Lot
2; subdivision exemption to amend the condominium plat to redefine
the easements on Lot 4; and stream margin review for a 110 sq.ft.
addition to unit 735.
The primary issue of this application is whether the existing units
should be calculated under the "detached residential" or "duplex"
floor area requirements of the Land Use Regulations.
The applicant will be seeking vested rights approval from City
Council.
Staff recommends denial of the request to increase the floor area
on Lot 2 because the existing duplex structures on Lot 2 are non-
conforming due to being over the permitted floor area of the R-6
zone district.
A copy of the applicant's application package is included as
Exhibit "A".
APPLICANT: David Beckwith, with authorization from all Creektree
Condominium owners, represented by Sunny Vann,
LOCATION: 727, 729, 733 and 735 E. Bleeker Street, Creektree
Subdivision Lots 2 and 4.
ZONING: R-6 PUD, moderate -density residential.
PROCESS: The Planning Commission will review the applicant's
request for the PUD Amendment at a public hearing and will make a
recommendation to City Council. Subdivision Exemption and Stream
Margin Review Exemptions are Planning Director approvals, however
they cannot be approved until after City Council has approved the
PUD Amendment, as there is presently no floor area available on
Lot 2. The Subdivision Exemption and Stream Margin Exemption
analysis are included as Exhibit IIBII so the Planning commission can
better understand the entire development, request.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has received referral comments from the
City Engineer and the Parks Department. These referral memos are
attached to the packet in Exhibit "CIO and I'D", respectively.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is seeking to merge Lot 2 and Lot
4 to enable the owners of the Creektree units to add additional
floor area to their units. The applicant will also reduce the
coverage of the access easement across Lot 4 to enable the
applicant to benefit from the increased lot area.
Lot 2 of the Creektree Subdivision is presently improved with four
condominium units located within two duplex structures. Lot 2 is
approximately 0.533 acres with about 9,525 sq.ft. of improved.
space. Lot 4 is about 0.337 acres and is encumbered by a blanket
access easement for the City of Aspen and parking spaces for Lot
2. There is no floor area attributable to this parcel. (Site plan
illustrations are attached to the memo).
Three of the existing Creektree units are 2,285 sq.ft in size and
Unit 735 contains 2,670 sq.ft. (Unit 735 was approved for
additional square footage in 1991. However, staff recognizes that
this approval was issued in error and the addition should not have
been permitted). This PUD amendment is being processed to permit
this unit to add approximately 110 sq.ft. of floor area and to
determine the amount of floor area available for future use.
The Creektree Subdivision/PUD Plat was recorded on February 14,
1978 and identified the "approved" square footage of each duplex
structure at 4,570 sq.ft. Chief Building official Clayton Meyring
prepared notes for the Creektree duplexes plan review in August
1978. He indicated that the proposed floor area was over the
allowed floor area granted in the PUD. The applicant then revised
the design to bring it into compliance with the floor area
requirement.
The 1977 approvals for the Creektree Condos referred to the
structures developed on Lot 2 as "two duplex units", see Exhibit
"E". At the time the duplexes were approved and constructed there
was no floor area requirement in the R-6, R-15, or R-30 zone
districts other than the floor area specified on the
Subdivision/PUD Plat. In 1982 floor area limitations were
established in the R-61 R-15, and R-30'zone districts, thus making
the existing duplex structures non -conforming due to floor area,
under the current R-6 regulations..
To determine the permitted "duplex" floor area on the existing Lot
2 and proposed merged Lot 2, staff has taken the adjusted lot area
(subtracting area under water and access easements) and divided it
by two to determine the maximum floor area for two duplex parcels.
The following table illustrates these calculations: .
2
DUPLEX CALCULATIONS
R- 6 Req.
R-6 if lots
As Built Requirement are merged
Floor Area
Unit 735-733 4,955 sf 3,720 sf 4,203 sf
729-727 4,570 sf 3,720 sf 4,203 sf
Total Floor Area 9,525 sf 7,440 sf 8,406 sf
The- applicant is requesting that the duplex units be calculated
under the detached residential floor area requirements of the R-
6 zone district. The applicant's proposal would permit an
additional 2,900 sq.ft. of floor area to be constructed on the
parcel. Therefore, the issue of this request is that the applicant
is asking the Planning Commission to support him in considering the
existing units as single family units for the purpose of
calculating floor area.
To determine the permitted detached residential floor area on the
existing Lot 2 and proposed merged Lot 2, staff has taken the
adjusted lot area (subtracting area under water and access
easements) and divided it by four to determine the maximum floor
area for the each unit. The detached residential floor area
calculations are as follows:
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CALCULATIONS
R-6 Req.
R-6 if lots
As Built Requirement are merged
Floor Area
Unit 735
2,670 sf
2,504 sf
3,106 sf
Units 733
2,285 sf
2,504 sf
3,106 sf
Unit 729
2,285 sf
2,504 sf
3,106 sf
Unit 727
2,285 sf
2,504 sf
3,106 sf
Total Floor Area 9,525 sf 10,016 sf 12,424 sf
Staff will review our analysis with the Commission at the
meeting.
Staff is uncomfortable supporting the applicant's request to
calculate the floor area of these units as single family residences
3
for the following reasons:
1. The land use files from the Creektree Subdivision indicate
reference to these units as "duplex" structures. (Exhibit
11 E 11 )
2. The configuration of these units meet the definition of a
duplex dwelling unit. They do not meet the definition of a
detached residential unit. According to Section 24-3-101 of
the Aspen Land Use Regulations the definitions are:
Dwelling, duplex means two-family dwellings with the
units either side -by -side or in an over-under
configuration. In the side -by -side configuration, the
units share a common wall, while in the over-under
configuration, they are stacked. A minimum of twenty
(20) percent of the length of the two (2) walls in common
shall be shared between the units, regardless of whether
the wall is shared by all floors of the units. The
shared walls in common shall not be the walls of a
breezeway, or similar accessory structure, but may
include the walls of a garage.
Dwelling, detached residential means an individual
residential dwelling that is developed with open yards
on all sides of the dwelling unit. Detached residential
dwelling does not include mobile homes or recreational
vehicles .
Dwelling, attached residential means a residential
dwelling unit consisting of two (2) or more residential
units that are developed without open yards on all sides
of the dwelling unit. Attached residential dwellings
include duplex dwellings, and multi -family dwellings.
3. A precedence would be set if this application is approved and
other duplex structures were considered single family homes
and could substantially increase their allowed floor area.
4. The applicant contends the Creektree Subdivision/PUD
originally contemplated four single family dwelling units and
was finally approved with two duplex units containing four
units. Therefore, the duplexes should be considered "detached
residential" units which are located in a row house or zero
lot line configuration as discussed in Section 24-7-903 (B) (3)
of the PUD regulations:
Detached residential units may be authorized to be
clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration,
but multi -family dwellings shall only be allowed when
permitted by the underlying zone district.
4 �
The 1977 approvals did not reference these units as zero lot
line or row house units. In fact the duplex structures are
located on one lot, so the zero lot line concept does not
presently exist. Secondly, the Aspen Land Use Regulations do
not define "row house", however Webster's Dictionary provides
the following definition of row house:
"one of a series of house connected by common side walls
and forming a continuous group"
Staff does not believe the configuration of the Creektree
duplexes can be considered a "row house" which traditionally
contain more than two units as described by this definition.
The applicant believes that the Clarendon Condominiums used
Section 24-7-903 (B) (3) of the PUD regulations to be eligible
to increase the size of the units pursuant to the single
family home floor area calculations. Staff argues that the
Clarendon Condominiums were distinctly approved as 15 units
in a row house configuration in 1976, whereas the Creektree
Condominium records indicate that two duplexes were approved
and not row houses or zero lot line structures.
5. Lot 2 currently does not comply with the minimum lot area
requirements per dwelling unit. The net square footage of Lot
2 is approximately 13,500 sq.ft. Two duplex structures
require 15,000 sq.ft. of lot area and four detached
residential units require 24,000 sq.ft. of lot area.
Should Lot 2 and Lot 4 become merged, the new lot area would
be 22,100 sq.ft. Therefore, the duplex structures would be
conforming due to lot area but the detached single family
units would not.
6. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have
expressed concern that the floor area requirements in
residential districts, especially the R-6 zone district, are
currently too large, and that the City will being revising
FAR's within the next several months. Staff is uncomfortable
recommending approval of the applicant's request to interpret
these units as "detached residential" units which would permit
the applicant to increase their permitted floor area.
In summary, the applicant wants the Planning Commission to
determine whether these units should be considered "duplexes" and
calculated pursuant to the duplex FAR requirements OR whether these
units are considered "detached residential" units and calculated
pursuant to the detached residential FAR requirements. If they are
considered "duplexes" the square footage permitted per unit would
be 2,101 sq.ft. for a total of 8,406 sq. ft. on the parcel. If
they are considered "detached residential" the square footage
permitted per unit would be 3,106 sq.ft. for a total of 12,424
5
�W
sq.ft. on the parcel. .(This assumes the applicant's request to
merge Lot 2 and Lot 4 is approved).
In order to make the proposal more palatable to the City, the
applicant has committed to condition of approval that would limit
each unit to expand a total of 500 sq.ft. within the existing
footprint of the structure. This would permit the garages on units
727, 729, and 733 to be converted to living space and conversion
of space over existing decks.
As mentioned earlier in this memo, Unit 735 was granted a building
permit to convert the existing garage into living space, which
staff contends was approved in error since the buildings are
considered non -conforming structures. The impetus of this
application is that the owner of Unit 735, Dave Beckwith, wishes
to enclose an existing deck. This would increase the floor area
of his unit by 110 sq . ft .
Other Issues
I. The current duplex structures are also non -conforming due to
sideyard setbacks, as only 33 feet exist. The existing lot
requires a total of 43 feet for sideyard setbacks, with a 15 foot
minimum distance on each side. The proposed merger of Lots 2 and
4 will require a total of 50 feet for sideyard setbacks because of
the increased lot size. The applicant has indicated that he would
like to vary the sideyard setbacks pursuant to the PUD provisions
of Section 24-7-903 (4) (e) of the Code. Staff would support this
PUD request as no additional encroachment into the setbacks is
proposed by this application.
2. Each unit has four bedrooms, for a total of 16 bedrooms in the
Creektree duplexes. If other units are permitted to convert their
garages into uses other than parking, the applicant will need to
ensure that a minimum of 16 parking spaces are provided on Lots 2
and 4". The plat indicates there are 10 designated spaces, however
additional room exists for more parking.
3. The maximum site coverage requirement for Lot 2 is 4,643 sq.ft.
which is 20% of the total lot area. The applicant has not given
the Planning Office the current site coverage of the improvements.
The merged lots have a maximum site coverage requirement of 7,615
sq.ft.
4. The applicant's proposed addition of 110 sq.ft. of floor area
will increase the non -conforming status of the property for floor
area. Section 24-9-103(C} of the Aspen Municipal Code does not
permit expansions to non -conforming structures.
SUMMARY: Staff does not support the applicant's request to merge
Lot 2 and Lot 4 of the Creektree Subdivision to obtain additional
floor area for Unit 735 because there is no floor area available
1.1
\1
to be utilized under the R-6 floor area calculations. Staff also
does not support the applicant's request to calculate the floor
area for each unit as a detached residential unit because there is
a clear distinction in the past approvals for Creektree that these
are two duplex structures, and not zero lot line or row houses.
The Planning Commission should also be aware of the precedence of
interpreting these units as something other than a duplex as the
additional floor area permitted between duplex and single family
structures can be substantial.
Should the applicant wish to pursue the merger of Lots 2 and 4 for
"housekeeping" measures and not seek an increase in floor area,
this can be accommodated and staff supported with a PUD variance
for setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of the
applicant's request.
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Planning Director Reviews (Subdivision Exemption/Stream
Margin Exemption)
"C" - City Engineer referral
"D" - Parks Department referral
"E" - Original Creektree Subdivision records
N ►vNP aCAtr P-cit7
r, MIT ,
Nq
?1.71
i
r
di
W-"37="r( 3�31
N�,j14(Z'"W 30�
a70'19'�' W 61�
rrrwcvowkrc
WCC TMAL tA
MW "MCA
ArT Mc-1T
72
LICIT
IT�I•AC*tr CWtir ;.,?!'(•,.' :%�.. �: iJ.,l rfl+w �?
Z.
Zi
�r �/ C1f p o • ruw ..i
UP
IVA AN
Fop? LCT
«. 1.• UZ'�tY 1 . ' 1
';�• 2Jrlr: � I•
00
rjp
CIA
I
� I
I
I i
I I i
I I
I � I
I
I I
i I
I �
i I
W
I I Z
I I
( I
I I
I I
I I
I
"/ HEOP RaR
1, F0
MCMTM
MC*,LF 0-20'
O 10 m 40 ?PT
Iwr'"•i :"r.�c',r r;• �Ir,-!+rY.11':v !"ftivtCtl
11 11 1 W "� 1wl.p 11;"{71 tf ►� R 11i•/' w1 I t i
liAl"ll'/- "Al' 11'10b111. Ar,llI ItR• -CUR jWr-'I
i•1,RIitr, AClrI1.1f'I•r''1.If/11• f/ MITI :•f,
1!•1i lkMT11 •IA)11►.IX rpANrAIP
1•IQTICL
'1f'&'far.•11•!t/f•,•f1 1,►W'•• r1•ryi'1•.1"r 1
AI 1111 FW /rfv.t 1V;11:1I.•111 �Or11'1llr 1.11..1.1.
t
,po
Exhibit A
VAN N ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
January 31, 1994
HAND DELNERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application to amend the original subdivision/PUD
approval for the Creektree Condominiums, which are located at 727, 729, 733 and
735 East Bleeker Street. The application also requests an exemption from stream
margin review for a minor addition to Unit 735, and subdivision exemption approval
to amend the project's condominium map (see Exhibit 1, Pre -Application Conference
Summary, attached hereto). Vested property rights status is requested for all approv-
als granted pursuant to this application.
The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 7-504.B., 7-908.B., 7-1006.B. and 7-
1007 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by David E. Beckwith, the owner of Unit
735 (see Exhibit 2, Warranty Deed). Permission for the Applicant to amend the
project's subdivision/PL D approval has been obtained from the owners of Units 727,
729 and 733 (see Exhibit 3, Consent Letters). Permission for Vann Associates to
represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 4. An executed application fee
agreement, and a list of owners located within three hundred (300) feet of the Creek -
tree property, is attached as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively.
Backgrouud
As the accompanying subdivision/PUD plat illustrates, the Creektree property consists
of Lots 2 and 4 of the Creektree Subdivision. The four (4) Creektree condominium
units are contained in two (2) separate structures which are located adjacent to the
Roaring Fork River on Lot 2. As originally designed, the units .were identical in
layout, and contained four (4) bedrooms and an attached one (1) car garage. Please
note, however, that the garage in Unit 735 has been converted to a recreation/storage
room. A building permit was obtained for the conversion and the original condotnin-
ium map was revised to reflect the change.
230 East Hopkins Avenue - Asper, Colorado 81611-303%925-6958 - Fax 303!920-9310 ��
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 31, 1994
Page 2
While the project's subdivision/PUD agreement (see Exhibit 7) contains no reference
to unit size, a notation on the Creektree subdivision/PUD plat would appear to
indicate that each of the two structures was to contain four thousand five hundred
and seventy (4,570) square feet, or two thousand two hundred and eighty-five (2,285)
square feet per unit. I was unable, however, to find any reference to proposed unit
size, or the imposition of a floor area limitation, in the Planning Office's caseload
files for the original project.
Although separately described, Lot 4 is considered appurtenant to Lot 2, as it is used
for access, parking and utility purposes. In addition, each condominium unit owner
also owns an undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in Lot 4. A minimum of thirteen
(13) surface parking spaces are located on Lot 4, as is the project's access driveway
from Spring Street. As the plat indicates, the City was granted an easement over and
across Lot 4 for the purpose of accessing the adjacent Newbury Park. Use of the
easement, however, is limited solely for maintenance and construction purposes.
Public access to the park across Lot 4 is expressly prohibited in the project's subdivi-
sion/PUD agreement.
As the subdivision/PUD plat indicates, Lot 2 contains approximately 0.533 acres, a
portion of which is located within the Roaring Fork River. Lot 4 contains approxi-
mately 0.337 acres. Both lots are zoned R-6, Moderate -Density Residential, manda-
tory planned unit development. Please note that a building envelope was designated
on Lot 2, and that the condominium units are located entirely therein.
Proposed Amendment
The Applicant wishes to enclose a small exterior deck on Unit 735. As the attached
architectural drawings indicate (see Exhibit 8), the proposed two (2) story addition
will increase the unit's existing floor area from approximately two thousand six hun-
dred and seventy (2,670) square feet to two thousand seven hundred and eighty
(2,780) square feet, an increase of one hundred and ten (110) square feet. At issue is
the availability of sufficient floor area to permit the addition.
It is my understanding that the prior City Attorney, Jed Caswall, took the position
that the maximum allowable floor area for the Creektree Condominiums should be
calculated based solely on the area of Lot 2, the appurtenant nature of Lot 4 not-
withstanding. His position, ,I assume, was based on the fact that a structure's
allowable floor area is a function of the size of the lot on which it is located. While
his position is understandable, it renders Unit 735, and most likely the remainder of
the Creektree Condominiums, non -conforming with respect to floor area. As a
result, the Applicant's proposed addition would be prohibited.
To permit the addition, the Applicant proposes to amend the Creektree subdivi-
sion/PUD plat so as to merge Lots 2 and 4, thereby eliminating the existing non-
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 31, 1994
Page 3
conformity with respect to floor area. In addition, the merger will place the project's
surface parking on the same lot as the condominium units. The Applicant would also
like to clarify the project's maximum allowable floor area to avoid future confusion
should other condominium owners wish to remodel their units. Each unit's allowable
floor area will be noted on the amended subdivision/PUD plat and included within
the revised development agreement to be recorded upon the City Council's approval
of the requested amendment.
As a "housekeeping" measure, the condominium owners propose to more formally
describe the City's access easement across Lot 4. More specifically, the owners wish
to replace the existing "blanket" access easement with a twenty (20) foot easement
which would generally parallel Lot 4's northern and western boundaries. Construc-
tion of the park has been completed, and the existing easement does not appear to
be utilized by the City. The new easement, however, should be more than adequate
to permit future access for park maintenance purposes in the event required.
The project's lot area, floor area and other development related data is summarized
in Table 1, below.
Table 1
Development Data
1. Existing Zoning
2. Existing Lot Areal
Lot 2
Acres
Square Feet
Lot 4
Acres
Square Feet
3. Proposed Lot Area=
Lot 2
Acres
Square Feet
4. Net Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)3
Land Under Water
New Access Easement
R-6, Medium -Density Residential, PUD
0.533
23,220
0.337
14,680
0.870
37,900
22,100
9,720
6,080
1'5
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 31, 1994
Page 4
5. Average Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)4 5,530
6. Maximum Allowable Floor
Area/Unit (Sq. Ft.)s 3,110
7. Existing Floor Area of
Unit 735 (Sq. Ft. )6 2,670
8. Proposed Floor Area of
Unit 735 (Sq. Ft. )6 2,780
9. Existing Parking 16
Garage 3
Surface? 13
10. Proposed Parking 16
Garage 3
Surface 13
I All square footage rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
2 Based on merger of Lots 2 and 4.
3 Land under water and surface access easements must be subtracted for floor
area calculation purposes. Area takeoffs prepared by Alpine Surveys (see'
Exhibit 9).
4 Net lot area divided by the number of existing condominium units.
s Based on single-family dwelling unit in R-6 zone district.
6 From floor area takeoffs prepared by Cottle Greybeal Yaw Architects (see
Exhibit 8).
A minimum of thirteen (13) surface spaces are located adjacent to Lot 4's
northern and western boundaries. Additional spaces are available adjacent to
the condominium units and within the interior of Lot 4.
As Table 1 indicates, the maximum allowable floor area per dwelling unit for the
Creektree Condominiums is approximately three thousand one hundred and ten
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 31, 1994
Page 5
(3,110) square feet. This figure was derived using the same approach that the
Planning Office applied to the recent remodel of Clarendon Condominiums. The size
of Creektree property was first adjusted to reflect land under water and the new
twenty (20) foot access easement. The resulting net lot area was then divided by the
number of existing condominium units to arrive at an average lot area per dwelling
unit. This figure was in turn used to calculate each units maximum allowable floor
area based on the requirements of the underlying R-6 Zone district.
As Unit 735 will only contain approximately two thousand seven hundred and eighty
(2,780) square feet after remodeling, sufficient floor area is available to accommodate
the proposed addition. The potential for similar, modest additions would also appear
to be available to the remaining three (3) condominium units, depending upon their
current floor areas. The floor area of these units, however, need not be determined
at this time, as none of the remaining owners have immediate plans to remodel. As
noted previously, the maximum allowable floor area for each unit will be added to
the revised subdivision?T_71D plat and agreement.
Review Requirements
The Applicant's proposed addition requires approval to amend the Creektree
Condominiums' subdivision/PUD plat and agreement, an exemption from stream
margin review, and subdivision exemption approval to amend the project's condomini-
um map. Each of these review requirements is discussed below.
1. Subdivision/PUD Amendment
Pursuant to Sections 7-908.B. and 7-1006.B. of the Regulations, all amend-
ments to an approved subdivision/PUD other than insubstantial amendments are
subject to review by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
With respect to PUD amendments, the Regulations only require that the amendment
be consistent with the original PUD plan or an enhancement thereof. An amend-
ment to an approved subdivision plat need only be consistent with the original
approval.
As discussed previously, the primary intent of the proposed amendment is to
establish the maximum allowable floor area for the four condominium units, and to
eliminate an existing floor area non -conformity with respect to Unit 735. While the
amendment will allow a modest addition to each of the units, these additions will be
limited to the existing building footprints (e.g., garage and deck enclosures, etc.). As
the original subdivision/PL-D approval did not impose a floor area limitation, and no
architectural plans were recorded with the subdivision/PUD approval, the proposed
amendment is consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 31, 1994
Page 6
It should also be noted that no reduction in existing on -site parking will be
required to accommodate the proposed amendment. The existing surface parking
located on Lot 4 is more than adequate to address the needs of the project. Finally,
the proposed access easement will merely replace the blanket easement which
currently encumbers Lot 4. No loss of access as required in the original subdivi-
sionlPUD approval will occur.
2. Stream Margin Review Exemption
The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development may
be exempted from stream margin review subject to compliance with the requirements
of Section 7-504.B. of the Regulations. The specific review criteria for exemption
from stream margin review, and the proposed addition's compliance therewith, are
summarized as follows.
a) "The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to
the floor area of the existing structure or increase the amount of building area
exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (?57'c)."
As discussed previously, the existing floor area of Unit 735 is approxi-
mately two thousand six hundred and seventy (2,670) square feet. The proposed
addition totals approximately one hundred and ten (110) square feet, which is less
than the ten (10) percent limitation.
b) "The development does not require the removal of any tree for
which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-76 or the applicant receives
a permit pursuant said subsection."
As the attached architectural drawings illustrate, the proposed addition
will enclose an existing above grade deck. No trees will be removed in connection
with proposed remodel.
c) "The development is located such that no portion of the
expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line
than is the existing development."
T`be proposed addition will be no closer to the high water line than the
existing deck.
d) "The development does not fall outside of an approved building
envelope, if one has ben designated through a prior review."
The proposed addition is located within the previously approved
building envelope.
(P
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 31, 1994
Page 7
e) "The development is located completely outside of the Special
Flood Hazard Area and more than one hundred (100) feet measured horizontally
from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River or the expansion will cause no
increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the Special Flood
Hazard Area."
As discussed previously, the proposed addition will enclose an existing
above grade deck. No increase in the building's footprint is proposed.
3. Subdivision Exemption
As you know, City Council Ordinance No. 53-93 repealed and reenacted
Section 7-1007 of the Regulations in its entirety. The new ordinance provides that
condominiumization is subject only to the approval of the Planning Director as a
subdivision exemption. While the ordinance does not specifically address amend-
ments to existing condominium approvals, I assume that such amendments need only
be approved by the Planning Director, and that a revised condominium map must be
recorded. Accordingly, the Applicant will submit a revised condominium map for the
Creektree Condominiums which complies with the requirements of Ordinance 53-93
upon the receipt of subdivision/PUD and stream margin exemption approval.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call. As the Applicant wishes to commence construction this spring, your
prompt attention to the scheduling of this application would be sincerely appreciated.
Yours truly,
VAINYASSOM
t
unny `n, AICP
SV:cwV
Attachments
cc: David E. Beckwith
Charles T. Brandt, Esq.
clbuu\ci ry.app\appZ2293.amd
11
-,tom --- •�-
^�_�,��,�, =0:1 EXHIBIT 7
mac
j3`' . . -
-e th_� c_v o
^�. T^� OF �S-'=:I COLOR:�O (here-naf =er
ig i 8 by and between �— C-- - - -
called
"C_t•'") and G Y GROVE-R (here:naf _
s c:::e ti:ae s -- " . "'
(:zer i of r c=:
caled
i l e - and A:,-
Cwr.er") OPZ UL''_'C= _=
Subd=vide=") .
=a -TNFss =-
wri5vide= wit= the c....se. - :: - ral
of Ow::er has s
--, _ a :sec•=tic:.
and =icn' - - a --na , =!at and deve.lo!r; :e_^. � � ==•
�..+p.- .•i, �.�..v�_�^r W4b^e C__"I C_ t�..7re.. Gs s :C•�w C^ t=
pla= c� e Cree'.{ tree Subdivisior, final subdivision and .^ pla-
red u 4 t deve:ccmenc p lat (herei naf t_r "Plat") ; a='=d
W.-
�/_. _
C'_`�r has r..,,y cors•;.v_ed sue^ Flat,
the s-oocsed deve:cc-1e = he a.".d ti-rrovement of the l=•^-c
t here' n, anc, the bu-der_s to be :..-nosed Lyon other ad join:.^.c
o_ bV =ease:: of the procosec develcc-
d ;: ,.,,,,:e o Plat; and
^ _--ve.Ten = o f land + .,.-.... G
me a.. c -
W. ..R=M C_ 4.60
• -^rove, exec_te and
Plat .=. ree cf. tae Owner
rr
accept for recor-
ation that P _a,. _won agreement.
and tze Subdivider to the matters hereinafter desC_:beC, and
sub j ec t to all the re-'i=ements , terms , and condi tiors of the
Cicy of Aspen cubdiv:sion Regulations now in effec = and other
laws, riles and r equiati or s as are applicable; and
WE,:*�,,; , t: a Ci ty has -, 0s ed cordj. ons and require,
men-..s in ccnnec :ion with its approval, exec::__on and acceptance
for recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are neces-
to r otec :, p: �aote and enhance the puh lic welfare; and !�
sa_--� _ p
Cs e- r
r`� _ • to
cf of -he C_ _i
: , a -
assura:.ce a= = he ma:.t_rs he=e:naf:er agreed to we
by the Subd; v_"p"
a :fu ly per=crm�^ - ...._ .
i �, _ -
•.he .�..t•1dl ccve.^.a�':=s herein cont_i.^.ec, and t e ap _cva� , exe-
bV } w e Ci i•�
„-a^ce a- the Pla= for recor�=t=cr- .. _.
c::ticn and aced_
it is agreed as=o-:c•�s .
l . ;, Be_ _a _ of Creek t=ee Sub_
upon ` he rec0r"__ny c_ _..-
.mot �, rec- shall cost_tut= one single
as
divi. sicn, _ s .corn t..e _
� �
raaL_v res+den =ia_ '_c t and Lot 2 shall cons t_t•1te a site or
each consisting 0-0two (?) dup'_ex c: ctr.-
_ _.. a r` C= less,
'' be co�v�_�ede City and t a Own to == e S'-==^��`T=c
s h a_ •• e
c.,-.de�-s -=====ed he== tc as Lit ici t and s:.al_ ..�.-
bV L..e e — a
_,. to a 5 �t� _= _ -n a c: n5 z aC tior. bV C,,:.C_v C a new
s" `�`
• : 1 -�i •.� -i•►.r -•.p r- _p•....M! Or..Z- o rag"t ps sG_�. burlG=_:g
r
r
club
-0 be c^nstrue_e= acccord:nc to the Pia_ ?_a. s
t _ C=ee:� ==Be _bd=vs_c.. Pla^ne= t.._.., j
..
_..a_
•� a.T: v r it o z
3. _he park as shcwn on the ?la consis=_nc of
1. 875 acres, 7..ore cr less, shall be conveyed by I= e Subdivider
and Owner to } C'_ ty by good and sla en t warr an tw deed
_
sub j ecd to the cm. -her : rovi siors hereof. .
4. '2,a t 4, consisting of (". 337 'acres , more or less,
shall=be deemed • appi=-"=errant. to. Lot 2-for the pu roses of
The ° ers
-arking•and utilities to Lot'2.•`
prov+ g °ac._ss, r _- from time to time C_ ^.e duplex c= condominium u_'.i is o- Let
2 ' s� al
l be deemed to own equal undivided interests in Lot 4
for said puzoses ; subject, however, to a perpetaal easement
and right of wav for the be.^efit of Lot 3 for the installation
as more fu11v c_ �c=:bed in 13 he_-
5 Nor:.& Se='^.c St_�e�- a.nd
-. - -
Bav Street •
A. Subdivider and Owner covenant and ag ee that
they w-__ of f:--tatively ccrsent to and j oia in the
it
formatior. c= any street z..rovement dis �__c _,
encompassi^.c all or any part ofthe Subdivision,
that may her eaf ter be propose_ or f0'-".sed for the
cons t=uc tion of any improve*aents within or Or' Nor'
Spring Street a..^.c Bay Street as required by t- =e
City' s subdiv=sien ordinance now in force and a rect.
I=_cve.mer._s =av include, but s :a11 not be
glad4nc, oavinc, s_cewaiks, curbs, cu====s► --
and d _, -4.-. ace .
B. :.n = he event that t.e City, at any time cr
f: cm t=`me tp ti.-ze , shall cons t= scp or instal? any
Street ice== =vemen is or other imp rovemen is recur= ec by
the City' s subdivisiond::
o__ance, as now in force and
effect, w:= out formation. of an i�=rovesent cis
which r�,vements service o: improve a cenera'_ a=_a
includ_= „c the !ands within the Su ci =_s_on, Su!:divicer
and Owner. acre, upon demand, to pay or rei.mburse
_he City for t':at portion of the actual cost of such
iamroveme^.=s which is properly allocable to Lots 1, 2,
3 and 4 of the Subdivzisicn.
In the case of i=rovements to Bay Street, the properly
allocable share for Lot 1 shall be based upon frontage
abutting Bay Street. In the case of imp-ovements
to Spring Street, the properly allocable shares for Lots
2, 3 and 4 shall be based upon the combined frontage
�: �o
of Lots 3 and 4 abut Z...ng Spring Street. The cost
:^
-• each C
units located cm Lot 2.
four (4) g
In no eve.^. _ shall
the Subdivider Is and Owner t s
obligation '-=-=el=der exceed their : coperly allocable
shares of r^_ total cost of such i-rove*aents as
deter=; ed b the custcmary co=e , —ie char des a..
rates n = evai line 4, Aspen and
its env4 " Cns -
c ewe= , D- a4 nace
and
II _i l' ``.r = ovements :
Owner and
ct:::c-vide- shall
ccnst_ac_
those water, sanita:-v
sewer, gasp eleCCr = cal tele�aC^.�, Cs.: �e ==� ev s:Cr, a.^.0 Cr3r.:lace
- cribed
oc hee* I C z `:e ? :at and as des
= �.� '► /�veme 71 `.i a s s ,v .. ♦ r '
i. �_,.7
r-.,= Trime_ 19 777. G''J1^.e_ an Su!:d:4 e= s.'ic� 1
all : _cessa-y eacineeri: c andi.:scecpio:: services. for
a_so prov_..e -- -
---c c^ of abcve 4 - = cvemen is .
the des i5n a_-:d c V.._ -- •• --�
• r: .. ll be "'=�= = red to
Cons = sc t; on craw;- -as and s: a _�__ca __c..s sha s
the City Eacl: eer a.:d shall be am-r-ved y the C' ty -n - -
r ._ - cf tee above
prior to cc • e^ ceMe_. c= ccrsc_ �c
•r_'_: �y i-*"rcve�*1e = _s s:♦all heic= to `.e cafe of
a - .� _„� a"Y bLilc_ngs on
issuance of cs_ __---___ o= 0Ccu: anc_ ..
Lots Z and 3 . The acreed estimated - costs for const- action
of these i=?"'OvemeM=s is as follows:
Wa ter
Sewer
Gas
a A. � .
Telephone/T.V.
7. Roads
$ 2.01621. 00
6,575.00
750.00
6,210.00
525.00
Drainage 61406.00
Parking a:Id Related 1=rovements :
. _ ,. � ,
pwr.e: and Subdivide_ shall
_., �.
ccnst_ -c_
the road, P arcing
areas 0 and retain+n5
T::e Plat
shall provs.de all
necessary engi: eer:n= services :cc the design and inscec`_on of
these is^rovements. Final drawings and specificat=ons
shall be submitted tc t-%-,.e City Engineer and shall be approved
by the C'_ty EnS- nee= ' ricr to cc e.^.ceme^.c of cons sct:on.
The acreed est.,L=a tec costs for cons ,ct_en c:: ` ese i=rovements
is $14,400.00.
Cwner and St::divider shall landscape Lcts 2, 3 and 4 and
revece =ate all dis �.:rbed areas as shown on t :e Plat • All suc h
r
•
landscapinc and r_ �Tese ta..+c.^. saa__ oe c,.rp _ - -
Nove� er 1, 1979 .. '^`.:e agreed es __mat:= cost of t^1s wc:k is
52500.00.
3e=pre the C_ =v shall finally accept i.=': oveme.^.=s
e.^.0 e=atem i:i t. =s 1c= e9men t r Owner and cubd; v- e= s'na1 1
Su. I=L as-bu 1 t S", -e'rs and plans to the Cit''r _ C1=ne=- • �1 1
public i--::==Ve-nren is s :all be conveyed to the City or t^.e
r_smect:ve utility subjec - to a one (1) vear war_a— acains I-
Co T _e-=S o,- a; 1 „
10 . E 5'c r pw � = ar cz*nen
It is est'__aa=ed that the acc=ega_e cost of ccnst_uc=i=lg
and installing of all cf t'=e i=rovements herein described in
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 above, wi 1? not exceed $ 47 , 5 0 0. 0 0 .
In order to sect a the performance of the const,:=tien and in-
stallation of the jprovements herein agreed to, • the Subdivider
and owner and t_^.ei: Lendor guarantee, by acceptance of this
As=eement, that --Funds in the amount of the aforesaid estimated
costs ofs const_=ucoon are held in an esc=ow account which is
specifically desig=ated for use in construction and installation
of the i=rcveme^.ts herein described. Doc,=entation of the
Ancnunt shall be supplied to the City Prior to the Plat
A=�TA ree^ c.^ir�►v +.� a.evr, C_ t..e
ia�C.
i ii:r / liV r.
.
bean met as here_.nayove prc r ided, thers s :all be arc ` he
from disbursement and w:. _hd:aaral so rn:ch of said f _nos as
is estimated, from ti=e to tire, to be necessary to r-^=; lete
i :stalla t4 on of said i.:►�- cvermen is . In
the cons t= sc ::on and
Y an ;or.. —
on c: t e work and -m-
any event, however, t:^..a - bee-^- instaLi.ed accord'_^c tc the cord- _ions
provements have net
contained herein, then • and in that even the Ci t � ;aav have
such remaining work amp ts cc=_clad by Such means
and in such manner by c-rtract with cr wibl=c
letZinc, or o -h a=w_se, as it may deem acv=sah__, and Sub d4 vicar,
= e_T.:: se
Owner and Lerdor, r•,r s•
1 �
�' ,,wea ..find -1r L 0... ac^.�r�ir:,.� L.,e
the City,our � escr _, _ �..
Ci t.� ,s cos y�s ---ccnrmp let-* nc s a_d work and
provided, however , t= = = in no even-: sh all Lendc_ he ch'? -dated
to pay to the Ci w ^ore 4--ha.- the acc. egata s•., -1 0 f $ 4 7 , 5 �0 0. 0 0
less those a=. aunts : =ev_cusly paid and ap: _cved by the Cit_�,
by reason of t:Ze de —fault of Suhc_vice= or Cwre_ i : Per__ -=mince
of the -arms, ccnc_tior s and covena: _s h erai : con t====e- •
From ` =e to time as woad to be per andi:.ip cti e*nen is to
be cons t_ruc Zed hereunder : = oc: esses , su: c_v:de_ Or Cw: may
sup
recuest in w: ting t hat t :e C_ty Enginee= in specZ woi.k
and improvements as are completed, and may sub= .t to t::e City
the cost of such completed work and i=rovements . WheM. t-he
City Engineer is satisfied that such work and i=rcve-'=cents as
are requi: ed to be comp l.eted, have in f ace been coma leted
in accordance with the t=r= hereof, and in no event la"'e=
than twenty (20) days from date osuch request f
f or inspection
by the City Enginee= , the City Eng'. near West subnu t to the
Lendor his stateme^.t that ha has no obj ec Z'_on to the release
of so much of the above specified escrow f►.snd, or seta=l'ng his
-L - - • --- --_ __, ��, .,,,,,.� �f ��,o ai�nvA ��ecified escrow �J
are
-:c as5
a.:�: z.. � G'�i �_... '� _ ..- ...._..
as a �
Ce==•••._,pL'=s�+a� s
tC L he te==-s of t i
Acreawent. All pz= =i-- releases frc:� esc_cw ==.cs s::a?'_ be
to a ten (10%) percent rotain age until final acceptance
sub�ec_ -
of the project :.-6 cve eats. Should the Cit•I=ncinee= fail to
submit his state- e=�_ 4-1a t —ely fash=or. as herei.na:^ove
orov:ded, '-o re'_ease the said
then Lender sh all have the rig
esc_-..w =s�-ids nec_ssa: to pay said costs forhwit =• '�'==e
.
procedures for cc-plet_cn of i=rove:ae.^_ts and work by t_he City
ursemen- o= t. = City then e=cr by Lend= shall apply whethe_
there be one or nc_s default -sr or a sucaass:.cn o:. defaults on
�- Subdivider or Owner � � per=gyring t:-e te-as •
the par _ of. _..
con d: ans a-nd C.. I _.. _s C.... =3 ... _ .... �. _ .
3y Teasec �,� above -e= escrow a_=ange-en t,
. = �_._ _ c-ea..:
r i n no way ra=:eve= c= any cb__ a=-o
ns
St:bdiv:.der c Cw..__ _s _
''}�'�^ r t_: e Ci `y
to make the ove--e^ =s above prov_ded fo= , ac is
ob'_icared to assu..._ M .e
Tespcnsib_" ty for these i:.:p=cvements
"
by accept=zce e- =.s escrow arra .cearert.
ll. The ded-. ca ion of the Park to t:.e Ci _y sha_:
CoMstImU_e C. �i 1 .or �l1 oC 1 +ga ..4 ans -%^i= l�nC
�far- 074 S.Cr
ded,ica-on as _''i
r`r- by the 0=
Mpir.
uric.al Code, Sec=c20-2.8, as arse.^.de_ by t_'=e : =cv=s=ens
of ordinance Ito • 6 (Series o_ 1976) with resoec t to all
of t^.e properties shown on the Plat. By its accep to^ce and
=ecorm=9 of the ccnvevance of the P ark to t_^_e City, the C=t"?
agrees that said par=el shall be used as open space fo=
public park pu:7poses.
12. The roadway and :parking area showy_ on the Plat
as Lot 4 shalLbe._a .pr=.vat&_ road; not dedicated to the publ+c
and shall be used cnly_�.as_, access- ..to . Lot 2" except that the
Fraternal Order o= �agles shall be entitled to use said
roadway to a point no farther east than the southeasterly edge ��
s
• e...•.*.i ; ps C 1G� �i�._,Wa_p 5..a,_ mcz be 'ZEed a. .. .'.C- r .7 .....
(( 1
to "�e P3r:t. ._ase.ze ts _.._ ...a_ .-e::'c...
operations by the C_ `_r and Asper Me :=cool'_ ta.^. San= =a t'_cn
• t-• i, be as mrovided cr. the Flat.
District shall _
E
13. :e Su Ci'J=der acknowledges and agrees t hat the
[., . • '• . ... L _ /1 14 L ter.. ., �•
condominiums cr cup _e_s L.._ t.. .,e c..ris ..c L ..ed
c.. .mac 2 Sail.__ not
E` be leased fora period c_ less than si.1 (6) mon s. •r'.cwever,
each unit sha_l be allowed t-�o (2) short -ter leases (less
than six (6) :ncn-. s) anyone calendar year. �,ccep to c` of
L:,; proh�'^i L' on -s a c=rca t'_on Lcr subdivis_
cn approval, and
• ,e. by w�`; C:, one C_ said
e a ch and eve':-.7 1 ^.5 .. C,. -
4
C O-%V"
E �v ri 5-=1sz C-�
purchase: ac-=ss .ac ._ c�:.d..:� L _
r.veyed r *',. v ^sve= be Lased f :r a : ered cc
�5 (6) S'.:.,.�SSr.Ve':��. �5 e. ^'�� :.2. = E.�.�.r"1
a � CG.�G C (L) 5�'1Cr r i L?5e5 ( - - `= an 5=X
ne
the.ail z _ ....rr..
S.�J •"", C an.-: be . en.-:^..-', :a?�r.e �"V �'..e C��J CC ;z;e •
den=:cal leasing
♦.., L% /� Wr� _ be _.l C..r�LV/-.a V.�.r _•. Qnv Ccve - r1
res c..._..r. -
Declaraticn so as uo prcv_de racord no "ice o� s-aa. on.
R.6'he covenant an'"' acc_e:^S .cs C = L Subdiv� d_r ^e_a_n wi .•1
respect to Lot 2 shall be deemed covena.:"s that =• 'w =. th
the land and shall b=nd and be specifically en -for ceab 1 e
against all presen = a-nr- subsequent corners ther=o including
Subdivider, his heirs S. : erscna1 represen"a ?yeas , 5 ;:c�essors
in interest and ass:; s.
14. The C =_,r agrees to provide ve'm cular access to
Lots 2, 3 and 4.
Gb li cayion to Con=c= -0-o Laws:
' ' g anything contained herein to tze coat=ary.
Notwi the tanG=n .
Owner and Subdivide=, in developing the property contained within
the said Plato and the other 4=rot vemens as herein described.
shall fully comply all applica�:'_e ..:_'es, regulat_o :s
standards and laws of the City, and other gover-nme ntal
agencies and bodies having jurisdicc=en.
16. upon exec"' on of this Ag=eement by the par--; es
hereto and by the Lendor, and provided all o the=' conditions as
herein contained have been met by Owner and Subdivider, the
City agrees to execute the Plat and accept the sane for
recordation, upon payment of :ecorwng fees and costs to
the City by Owner and Subdivider.
17 • 3: c, rc ,�_ocy:
^. — . ..
T cTeement shall ex'-e.nd tc and be b= :c-- S upon the
This `
parties hereto, t: err s•,accesscrs ands ass'-^s.
OWE R :
GUY F GROVrR
Route 1
Rcwlev, , Iowa 53239
arc Y. z�lvicesve^_
S
By .7, , U
;&r:.r e U l rc h
P.O. Box 2202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CITY OF
By : ; ��
�cr 5 tandlev, _--
u�i�OR
By M=c: ael Be.^sit,
ATE ST - Mayor P� Te:'B
't�- ��� - j
Kata,ryn . Hauter
City Clerks
EXHI IT E
p5X)1-1E11'ErL WatL,1, Ave EA 1-7
M eTE� �•,ro,VL�}2EA �� Et.o��t +��, ► 'LG,4A ►� E _ l L��
- -- - ro j i� 1, F�.vv ►L �Q.�ft .. _ _ .. ... �- --........ � �ioo `�
FLzt.';14 AZ-tA Fo2 FA.2.
s
v�
/sue �t 14
--,r
Ira&l
T
2. z, e Z. S ' P50 �-Ow n1.1.
I
pELK �►rwvE 2�4w
GRAYBEAL
YAW
ARCHrrEM
—_LTD
510 E+sr "MAX 9M n
PHONE 303/425-2867 /�,
_ _ p - ).
1400 440V Erz A' a6�
I4.97010.G�u,41so'. 100
4�. OF PA P-or { V,44 L, �
a , a. 7A�04
En�GLO��� Iell
HAI Q ....�
VEX, ►TH.... 44.r-l00., G it. rsl&k T2Ec1 4t PGA , co
l v TZ9
- 45f r�ol Gvy►4-1 E
COTTLE
GRAYBEAL
AR cHrrEcrs
_LTD
510 EAST MWAK YJTTE 21
ASPLN, COLOR ADO 8M (I
PHONE 303/92 rMG
TaTaI,AREA Fob F.A,R.( - 6Xlhiir,,I�
�u�TO-T.A i'-'
AEG Oz.-t 14,-+ 15,&f los4 A*v+so_.� i75¢ �_.......
- - -- ..-• ------ :.- A 26"7 1
4 o f fPA . W P► I. L
in
a
U
I-JA,�vf c;e F5 enQ-,:::7vM
aKi r4 v 8d �{ rJGo� 6 �L ►� D 6c•� .
E ;P F L/ A <
f3F.41csew1'V Gc�r.1Dc�� G�-GGI�'�.2�E, Pt✓�J...
221.2z
GRAYBEAL
YAW
ARClEaTZM
510 EAST "MAN. SURE 21
ASPEN, CMDRADO 81611
PRONE 303/92 -2867
erl OF PAxr--f \�rl,4 I -�h
rz. _ __� PSGE G 1.�� ", I lv, 10
'i S p EG is , 1-1 v —j*' l.-v U ►JTE D
IJ
I
P;
. I
CzI'II E
_ GRMFAL
YAW
� G2 EL'CZt:�� ��P�n1 ,GG , LTD
sto �sr x�uK arn� n
pEF-!
r,A.L9l
o�9;y.ahP4el
0
Llv! Kiel
_ nt5
Io`�GovE R�
Ezi:=
rjOrT,vU,Jr
Gov r. PLEh D Eck.
kr►
_ GRAYBFAL
'r, LMAI 'i �4.. Lo� o###A F Q 0 PO E; 15_YkW
f 7 EGk 00, C, Tit C C j ASP E n l , Grp _ ----- -_510 EAST HYVA N. %rM u
• fe;1�Ipti _ ........ _ASPEFHON corcRnoo8telt`
PHONE 303/925-2867i ' \
2�
TOTAI. A2EA FOZ F,A,2.G���. - P.2�_�°p5-
IN
� ` v
K/i
l� o F PAQ-'Y way ✓
AA.
-
�`� Dom, ►JOT Go UIli l7p� --
GWRAY�B E
�-r M
1142; Z z%Q 3 _ .. _ ... --- _ E 303/ 925-18b7
p�
t
I
GRMBFAL
ykw
�mc=crs
LTD
510 EAST HYMAK AM 21-
AS?I,N, COLORADO 816U
MtONE 3031925.2867
rt+c,oQ �� i7 VL A A.
vi�WGe�
Jr�r5
r 4k c k
w A + K I
'vim ow
GRAYBFAL
YAW
ARCHrrECTS
ED
510 EAST HYMAK sort£ u
ASKN. GOICRADO816U
MiCNE 303/925-W `t
—
diD
Now t�
GR&BFAL
YAW
ARCBrIE"
5W EAST HTMAK SUTTE 21
A5&1. c XM DO 81611 /
MOVE 303/425-2W
P.q )
;=60v,.
aov
�NGw WAtt 1 �cX�S�'. WAIT
Goluv�nr► �o�ndatt'�ov�
I . Irmorossv
GRMF.a
YAW
20 FAST !;S MAK StlTTE M
ASPEN. COLD"Do 8 U
MOM EJa3/W-289 tr
Irt • 1"i• a'3
EXHIBIT 9
January 20, 1994
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that approximately nine thousand seven hundred and twenty-four
(9,724) square feet of Lot 2 of the Creektree Subdivision is located beneath the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River. In addition, approximately six
thousand and seventy-nine (6,079) square feet of Lot 4 is located within the
proposed new twenty (20) foot access easement.
James F. Reser. L.S. 9184
k
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Stream Margin Review Exemption and Subdivision Exemption
DATE: City Council meeting date
The applicant is seeking a Subdivision/PUD Amendment to merge Lot
2 and Lot 4 of the Creektree Subdivision, in order to increase the
size of the units. The Subdivision/PUD Amendment must be completed
prior to approval of the Stream Margin Review Exemption and the
Subdivision Exemption.
Subdivision Exemption
Ordinance 53, Series 1993 authorizes the Planning Director to
approve condominium ization plats. The Subdivision Exemption
required for this project will be a revised condominium plat which
illustrates the new Lot 2 boundaries, the redefined access
easements, and the addition to Unit 735.
Stream Margin Review Exemption
The applicant is seeking stream margin approval because the
proposed 110 sq. ft. addition to Unit 735 is located within 100 feet
from the 100-year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River.
Section 7-504 (B) permits the Planning Director to approve a Stream
Margin Review Amendment which meets the following standards:
1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent
to the floor area of the existing structure or increase
the amount of building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent;
Response: The proposed increase in floor area at this time is 110
sq. ft. to Unit 735. This represents a 2.2% increase in floor area
for the existing structure. Should the Creektree condo owners
request additions in the future, they will be subject to the Stream
Margin requirements of the Code.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree
for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section
13-76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said
subsection;
Response: No trees will be removed or impacted by the proposed
changes.
V\4
3. The development is located such that no portion of the
expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any
closer to the high water line than is the existing
development;
Response: The proposed addition will enclose an existing deck and
will not be any closer to the high water line than existing
development.
4. The development does not fall outside of an approved
building envelope, if one has been.designated through a
prior review;
Response: A building envelope was designated through the original
subdivision approval in 1978. The proposed addition will be within
the approved building envelope.
5. The development is located. completely outside of the
special flood hazard area and more than one hundred (100 )
feet measured horizontally, from the high water line of
the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or the
expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no
increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures
within the special flood hazard area.
Response: A majority of the parcel and the previously approved
development lies within 100 feet from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River, but is not located within the special flood
hazard area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director
approve the applicant's request for Stream Margin Review Exemption
and Subdivision Exemption, once the Subdivision/PUD Amendment is
approved.
APPROVED:
Diane Moore,
City Planning Director
2
4
Exhibit r:
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
Thru: Robert Gish, Public Works Director
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: March 19, 1994
Re: Creektree Subdivision/PLD Amendment, Stream Margin REview Exemption and
Subdivision Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Lot Merger - From the available records, the intent is not clear of the original creation
of Lot 4 as opposed to the current suggestion of combining Lots 2 and 4. It would appear
that Lot 4 was so heavily encumbered with uses other than serving the needs of the
residences on Lot 2 that it was deemed appropriate to create a separate lot for those
purposes. Please note that the language of general note number 9 on the PUD plat
suggests that the ownership of Lot 4 was to remain with the original subdivider. The
request to merge the lots, as stated in the application, would permit the applicants to
increase the allowable developable area for the residences. This may be similar to a
possibility of other applicants returning to the City in the future to reduce easement sizes
for the purpose of increasing allowable developable area. It is questionable that granting
such requests would be appropriate.
2. - Prior to or subsequent with any land use approvals for the Creektree
Subdivision and Condominiums, it is suggested that the parking spaces be required to be
delineated and shown on the plat in order to confirm adequate number of spaces for the
number of bedrooms and space sizes meeting Code requirements.
3. Parks Department Access Easement - The Parks Department must determine if the
access easement alteration proposal is adequate for their needs.
41
4. Stream Margin Review Exemption
a. Fisherman's Easement - The original subdivision plat provides a public use
easement within the riverbed. It is suggested that any land use approvals be
conditioned upon the applicant granting a fisherman's easement additionally to a
distance of five feet from the median high water line along the river bank-
b. Final Development Plan - The final development plan must clearly indicate that
no construction disturbance is permitted beyond the lawn area, onto the river bank,
and must provide protective measures for the river bank.
5. Plat Amendment - Please note that this would be the second amendment to the
condominium plat. The first amendment is lacking from the application submission
contents.
cc: Cris Caruso, Ross Soderstrom
M%14s
6\
_...._.__._Exhibit D
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: March 24, 1994
RE: Creekrrce Subdivision/PUD Amendment, Stream Margin Review Exemption and
Subdivision Exemption
The Parks Department has reviewed the applicant's request for PUD Amendment The only item
influencing the Parks Department is referenced on page 3 of the application, regarding the
"housekeeping" measure to formally describe the City's access easement across Lot 4. We agree it
should be formally describe and has no objection to a twenty (20) foot easement parallel to Lot 4's
northern and westerly boundaries. We do require however, that this easement be formally recorded
on an amended plat. The access easement should also include language to the affect of allowing
vehicular/equipment access, including such vehicles and equipment as necessary for maintenance,
emergencies or repairs to the park, mail, trail bridges or nver. Access would be through the
existing fence and the City agrees to make repairs to restore the fence to original condition.
Recorded 1:22 PM Feb 14, 196;•" Reception (^ Ji,' ie Hane Recorder Exhibit E
313 FaG, 534
SUBDIVISION AND PLANUED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREE%4ENT
CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this %3� day of
1978, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City"), and GUY F. GROVER (hereinafter
called "the Owner") , and ANDRE ULRYCH (hereinafter called
"the Subdivider") .
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Subdivider with the consent and approval
of the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, executicn
and recordation, the final plat and development. plan o:: a
tract of land located within the City of Aspen as shown on the
plat of the Creek tree Subdivision final subdivision and plan-
ned unit development plat (hereinafter "Plat") ; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat,
the proposed development and the improvement of the land
therein, and the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining
or neighboring properties by reason of the proposed develop-
ment and improvement of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the Owner
and the Subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
wHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and require-
ments in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance
for recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are neces-
sary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
'113
1J
!z0N 343 P, cE-535
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16 (c)
of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to
assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be
faithfully performed by the Subdivider.
NOW, THEEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,
the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, exe-
cution and accec tan ce of the Plat for recordation by the City,
it is agreed as follows:
1. Upon the recording of the Plat of Creek tree Sub-
division, Lot 1 as shown thereon shall constitute one single
family residential lot and Lot 2 shall constitute a site for
two (2) structur=s each consisting of two (2) duplex or con-
dominium units, subject to the other provisions hereof.
2. Lot 3, consisting of 0.522 acres, more or less,
shall be conveyed by the City and the Owner to the Subdivider
by the deeds attached hereto as Exhibit A and shall then con-
stitute a site for the construction by Subdivider of a new
club building for the Fraternal Order of Eagles, said building
to be constructed according to the Plat Plan submitted for
the final Creektree Subdivision Planned Unit, and Final SPA
plan for Lot 3.
3. The Park as shown on the Plat, consisting of
1.875 acres, more or less, shall be conveyed by the Subdivider
and Owner to the City by good and sufficient warranty deed
subject to the other provisions hereof.
4. Lot 4, consisting of 0.337 acres, more or less,
shall be deemed appurtenant to Lot 2 for the purposes of
providing access, parking and utilities to Lot 2. The owners
from time to time of the duplex or condominium units of Lot
2 shall be deemed to own equal undivided interests in Lot 4
for said purposes; subject, however, to a perpetual easement
and right of way for the benefit of Lot 3 for the installation
2.
Q30�t 343 ruz 5.130
and maintenance of utilities for Lot 3 and for roadway access
as more fully described in paragraph 13 hereof.
S. Future Improvements - North Spring Street and
Bay Street:
A. Subdivider and Owner covenant and agree that
they will affirmatively consent to and join in the
formation of any street improvement district,
encompassing all or any part of the Subdivision,
that may hereafter be proposed. or formed for the
construction of any improvements within or on North
Spring Street and Bay Street as required by the
City's subdivision ordinance now in force and effect.
Improvements may include, but shall not be limited to
grading, paving, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lighting
and drainage-
B. In the event that the City, at any time or
from time to time, shall construct or install any
street improvements or other improvements required by
the City's subdivision ordinance, as now in force and
effect, without formation of an improvement district,
which improvements service or improve a general area
including the lands within the Subdivision, Subdivider
and Owner agree, upon demand, to pay or reimburse
the City for that portion of the actual cost of such
improvements which is properly allocable to Lots 1, 2,
3 and 4 of the Subdivision.
In the case of improvements to Bay Street, the properly
allocable share for Lot l shall be based upon frontage
abutting Bay Street. In the case of improvements
to Spring Street, the properly allocable shares for Lots
2, 3 and 4 shall be based upon the combined frontage
of Lots 3 and 4 abutting Spring Street. The cost
attributable to the combined frontage shall be allocated
3.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 28, 1977
The HPC discussed graphics and feel these could be used to enhance the appearances of some
building, especially where there is a blank wall. The HPC would Like to see the 10 foot
requirement eliminated. The =ouncil does have the review if all super -graphics. Council-
woman Johnston asked if _here were any day to include iightino in this. Stanford answered
that the sign code does not address lighting other than lichts on signs.
Councilman Behrendt moved to have the Sion code ordinance amended to include elements
3, 4, and 5 of the HPC resolution; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion
carried.
CREEK TREE SUBDIVISION - Final Plat
Bill Kane presented a final plat for consideration, stating that the overall planning Creek Tree Sub
considerations have now been resolved to two issues; one being location of a trail, and
secondly specific Location of the Eagle's building. Creek Tree subdivision and PUD
consists of a little under 5 acres of land and :rill involve the construction of four
new dwelling units, reservation of one lot for the existing !rouse on north side of the
Roaring Fork, reservation of two duplex sites on lot 2; total of five dwelling snits.
1.875 acres will be conveyed to the City, which is the ')pen space dedication and in
exchange for the conveyance of the City's portion of lot 3, which is the new site for the
Eagle's building.
The two outstanding issues to be resolved are the location of the trailieasements and
the location of the Eagle's building. Kane told Council that in adopting the SPA for
the Rio Grande property, one of the conditions was that al. ouildings in the area be set
back 10 feet from the bank to the river. From the way the building is Staked, it look3
as though :here would be an overhang on the bank and would require retention °acilities.
As a design consideration., a big, blank wall would want to be avoided. The SPA plan also
required that fraternal clubs be permitted as conditional. uses; this •ail'_ required a
conditional use hearing !:efore P s Z.
Kane pointed out to Council the adopted City'3 trail plan shows the trail coming down
through Oklahoma Flats and across Bay street to the new bridge location in the area of
Spring street. Kane said the planning office would Like to abandon, the original plan.
for several reasons. One, the objections of the residents of Oklahoma Flats; secondly,
an alternative trail to cone behind the edge of the `rouse and then across the river in
the location of some concrete abutments. This does present serious construction prob:e:-s.
The bank is a straight cl_°` of unconsolidated gravel. The planning office walked a
third alternative alignment going down the west side of the property and then across the
river.
Kane said he felt it would be wise to take both of these issues back to P G Z for final
resolution; the trail location, and the concept of the second unit. Kane said the bicger
concept, trail or no trail, should probably not be debated at this time. Kane said the
developer feels he had a commitment from the planning office to tie the additional unit
to trail or no trail.
City Engineer Ellis issued a :memorandum dated ,November 16th which listedconsiderable
number of iterns ^which had not been corrected. As of this date, most of the items have
been corrected. The majority of those remaining unresolved are of drafting or survey
type corrections; the rignt-of-way on sleeker street has not been shown. This :night
create a problem for the City to guarantee access to the Eagle's, they may have to grant
an easement across the Rio Grande property. The parking lot entrance of lot 3 appears
not to abut on Spring street but rather on the Rio Grande property. The subdivision
agreements stated the City will provide access to lots 2, 3, and J. Ellis said he •would
like to know whether the trail alignment is to be resolved before recordation of the plat.
Third, Ellis requested a greenway and fisherman's easement along those portions of lots
1 and 2 that lie within the river or high •water line to the property line.
Fourth, the drainage improvements have not been shown on the drawing. Ellis said he
had no problems with the utility report submitted by Wright -McLaughlin, but the applicant
had not agreed with it. The parking area grades are quite excessive and need to be
revised. Finally, the dedication language at the present time will be totally revised
to agree with the subdivision agreement.
Councilwoman Johnston asked if there were a trail map to show how this trail linked in
with the system. Kane showed some alternatives, over tleal street and down to the Hopkins
street bridge. Councilman Van Ness said his concern was a huge wall of duplex right
next to Herron Park. Kane said the heighth of the building is set by the plan, which is
28 feet and a 10 foot setback. Ellis said the building envelope is staked at the top of
the bank. Kane stated there is no question there will be a visual impact there.
Councilman van Ness said he felt very uncomfortable voting for this; he does not want to
and up with another building that looks like a wall. Ellis said it would be a good thing
to look at this from the park.
Nick Coates asked if, before this is to be approved, it has to go back to P t Z. Kane
answered there are three things to be considered by P 6 S.; (1) conditional use hearing
to consider actual site and building plan for the Eagle's building; (2) location of the
trail, and (3) request for another unit on the other side of the river. Andre Ulrych
r told Council he was willing to give trail alignment as shown on the map, the trail that
the master plan calls for which ends up in Bay street. The other two options proposed
on the right side of the existing house are on extremely steep land. Ulrych stated that
putting the trail along the property line will take away from the value of the lot.
Ulrych said he is more than happy to give the right-of-way as it exists. Kane stated that
the residents do not want the trail, and with the location of the Italy Cross bridge, it
• does not make sense. Kane said he would like to reserve a trail easement somewhere through
the Creek Tree subdivision. The reason the planning office is pushing for this is that
anyone in the business knows that as a practical matter, to get trails and easements
you have totgot them through the subdivision process.
1'r..
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Creektree Subdivision - Final Plat
DATE: November 23, 1977
On Monday, you will be presented with the request for approval of the final
plat of the Creektree Subdivision. As you will recall, the final plat
procedure is really intended to formalize in detailed legal and engineering
arrangements - those agreements that were consolidated at the preliminary
plat review. The Creektree Subdivision consists of approximately 6 acres
of land and calls for the separate development of two duplex units on the
south side of the Roaring Fork River and one existing unit on the north
side. As of this writing, numerous detailed, engineerino and legal comments
on the subdivision agreement and final plat remain unresolved and we are
assuming that these will be cleared up to everyones satisfaction by Monday's
meeting. At this tame, from a planning point of view, only two major issues
remain unresolved. First is the trail and second is the actual planning and
location of the Eagles Building itself.
Trail
Under the City Ordinance, we are required to have dedications for any trails
shown on the adopted City of Aspen Trails Plan. The original plan for the
trail in this area came from Gibson Avenue on the north side of the river
and then across Bay Street and through Oklahoma Flats. At the public hearing,
at preliminary plat before the Planning and Zoning Commission, this adopted
trails plan alignment was opposed vociferously by residents of Oklahoma Flats
and the agreement for the P&Z Board was to find an alternative location to
the trail. A general alignment east of the existing unit on the other side
of the river was settled upon. But upon closer inspection, reveals substan-
tial number of problems from the standpoint of construction costs, engineering
suitability of the site and proximity to the existing residents. In discussing
the appropriate alignment for this trail with the developers, specifically
Bayard Hovedsen, it was agreed that a better aliqnment could be found on the
west side of the existing house, crossino the river ata low point where a small
wooden bridge could be constructed. In discussing this alignment, Bayard
mentioned that he felt that he would need an additional dwelling on the
other side to provide the economic basis for renovating the existing unit
and completing any landscaping or berming or additional construction that
would be required to screen the residences on the north side of the building
from the trail. In Bayard's mind, the provision of an easement for the trail
should be equated to the approval of a second unit on the north side. Our
response to this is that the addition of the second unit on the north side
of the property constitutes a substantial amendment to the plan as was
presented at the preliminary stage and, as such. would be required to go back
through process and require P&Z reapproval. Bayard argues that the same
thing is true for the trail in that the alignment that was settled upon by
the staff earlier this week was one that was never presented to the P&Z. I
feel that he is technically correct, and that both the trail alignment and
the consideration of a second unit on the north side should both be re-
reviwed. However, I feel that only the particular alignment of the trail
should be considered and not the bigger concept of whether we should have a
trail or no trail has been the City's position right from the beginning of
this subdivision that a trail should be provided on the north side of the
Property and I agree with the applicant only to the extent that P&Z should
have a re -review of the location, but that a trail in one location or another
,1
19
Aspen City Council
Page Two
November 23, 1977
should be granted to the City. To the contrary, the idea of the second unit
is something that is entirely new, has not been discussed before and should
be a matter for some discussion before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In other words, we do not feel that the provision of an easement should
equate to a second unit; but that only the aliqnment of the trail should be
something that should be elioible for rediscussion at this time. Wit h
resoect to this subject, we recommend that the Council condition any approval
on the provision of general language on the plat to say that a trail easement
shall be given on the location to be determined by P&Z.
Location of Eaales Buildine
As you will recall, the proposed site for the Eagles Building sits within,
at this point, City -awned SPA property at the end of Spring Street. During
the SPA approval process, we had specified that fraternal clubs would be
permitted as conditional uses within this SPA zone. Therefore, specific
construction drawings and site planning details will have to be presented by
the applicants to the P&Z in the framework of a conditional use hearing.
In addition, the SPA plan went on to say that all buildings and improvements
on this site should be set back 10 feet from the edge of the bank which drops
off into the Roaring Fork River. This requirement was specified to specifically
exclude the possibility of large and unattractive retaining walls being con-
structed on the bank which would create a clear visual blight for the resi-
dents of Oklahoma Flats. The final olat `and PUD plan that you are approving
Monday, shows the building location immediately adjacent to the edge of the
bank and parking that would overhang the bank and require the construction
of fill and retaining walls. There may be no other solution to this problem,
but it is something that is going to have to be considered in more detail via
the conditional use hearing process and should construction be required as
shown on the plan, then the SPA plan will have to be amended to allow that
to take place. At this point, we recommend the applicants carefully consider
the rearrangement of the parking and building so as . to set all improvements
back from the edge of the bank .
In addition to these outstanding issues, there are some minor comments that
should be noted: 1) Council action should show that this is a subdivision
and PUD approval, that was not clearly noted at the time of conceptual sub-
division, this is a minor and technical point and the aoolication has been
processed as a PUD through the entire process; 2) we should note to you that
the land is zoned R-15 and R-30 PUD to correct an earlier statement at the
time of conceptual subdivision whereas zoning was shown at R-o and R-30.
Most of the detailed comments in review of this subdivision will come from
the City Engineer and City Attorney. As of this writing, Dave Ellis has
indicated to me that he has not received a revised plat which indicates all
the changes that he has recommended since this should be made to comply with
the city subdivision regulations. It is our hope that this plat can be
submitted in a timely way so that Dave will have a chance to review it and
find everything to be correct by Monday. The same is true with Dorothv's
detailed comments on the or000sed subdivision agreement. Dorothv has re-
drafted the aareement, resubmitted it to the applicants and we are awaiting
their resoonse at this time. Again, we hope to have this tied up by Monday
so that you may take action.
lmk
i 1 � •J / ■ � � I O ■ �
c6Z te
_ k�
5Now
w04
• '' � ��w
• �� �� O ! 7 ` -ice •
� ,' � A ` L- � � � � � `,
- n t
p�trC.�N�.C,
•
A 71
t
• • 'r
•••a.I iv I OP., Co - •J -�a ter'• �' .� +��
i L• • - .Lr� '•�.• `•may: f. •% a.: •t•�'i..! r
_-
L.�.^.fv .T^ay'.':; ��� «. -
. 'a •y .✓, w,�P;3A..•..i . .�•� .
.
•� L,' ♦I. ''lil-17.t;*l•ja��dr.
+- a
.•1
IDA
ttA 4
r,,,; .Y•� •-y' � :�� •.w �''-i••�! �- •�'•-•� (� w'i '�•- `�' i. _ r.� i� ��i'J':°-v+s.;»%-"'•�':Jr=•:r-r,1•��,'
fir:, lw•ii .1�•��fT4•••1 ��t rr•�nAyLI �^`r��Sc i. L.L���1r. ._}r + •.�'�•�-t`fl:Y�1r. .=F•l_M^r.•� H. Y
•!ft _ _ [: .�'7�r...: r�•. :�� .� R�.�'-�... ', _'J_� �T•w•y�_ 7�'}•1 <1�Iwv�S. � 'jam , v 3 J •I r•.•S�. !••.I• :i � .i�i�i
✓' � • f1.•'i•«'�*,'_ �' �•�•.r•
� � ••..t, S►'{ •«�il� •�
^ '�„S '��
_ .J t. }•. �j A.•
• _ �'
•.4
�}...�•-w
i•:
T.•i
:r,' F.'..�! ��t�•+ ww.:�r _ r«• K
n•F4 •�• :•y1�.• :�w-S �•11(, :qv.:J •:N.�'•• �. •.f-••Y•� _ .�'�� � �r.I �1�_
a S
-.��•/' a- .. �•
�� .. . ..
-"1
� . _�M�a_.: 5.'Y•t•.n:• _ - t. ,�y� .�.,. N�.1�!- .f (.��M./.�i •r��'i'•v•_
_'s.. r.• -� f�a: •A •• .�.1 �• .•••�•. ��. .�i'.r. �_ •••- �/ .ice. ._�•ti. .. .. J�a. :I�:•{j"'� Y �Ml
.. :�i:-y .tom...' .t .. .� .. i..+. a'�d..�:,P KeT.Li �•Lf-•�...�:�.rj.�•• .. r. .. .�.. rwY: ,,,t.,r •,iM.-.` •!`�.i�c�:.
.'T•j3.!��'a..',�i
• .• .. �
.�'.• + '�••••
'��.� ,�,.�';•�• ...+ �, � �.1.r: :.v:.,. •tC,�"•'s-y�. Mt•w !1•:t-'i'f: �...� •`:�. �/. -�v'� :.K�• �.i• ;!f �±;
I
li
WO
vUMNIM-m-
•
i
j►
•
l '71���"•\': I. �K: .V �Jir T,•
� •• ••f j' • �..J. ..-�,_ �,. .. - ' -
♦• ,. J.��_i�. �•.i!.e'►•"i:I:.l r:.. .
� T� y
.:••may \ _
� -� . ' t J - .�,'•• 7'•..�, ,.y. « •�u' •9 • -.• .1, .'f-
. ♦ ,Y.. '•i• d
,..1
-1 �.,, l
`
'''
- :f.��+�-•••�.- •.
,•,,.-4''7(1� �
�. -�, �'y�� ;
j � �'�; i -,i - «�e
: �s.!'1. �•: + � - 1•t mod` �.."�i,4�t% _ �•%r.'':. , -!' .� •:•.•a:.' :;��I•s., . _
- y • • .• �. •i''=•,,,tea 'yam;% - • s"' - i.w�f T•"!•�1.��:`�• "`' � •;:�:, :�:-:� 7, =..r, - • .•�:; •�-.<;.:w , � , .• =.21'..• -.E '"3'
' .r.. �.1'G�'?'`'�=�t�►=.�-�`-"iIN� ..�1��= '_:• ��±Rr�'.S*/a:t:• _ ..r.• y':.y�,""yi�::..:::�"-. • : : �• . ,2�1.r.- • .4. '�•. . "_4; �':'�q+-• • _ `♦ �Y•
"
i Y '_ fir•* w.•.R'r � �...3
�w:u
.i , �..� -tE �C� •- r••�� �: :r :`i'. .. •w.�• _"ri "Sys'+.-':: +!: .,yam. .«� �;Y :: T•�:
.,- t'.:•. ~
�•s�::`''. ..^,l ��' � w � �. �' �-�•:r.
".' �i�•�►'.
♦ •-'�j•,
'ie•• .�!1� ��'r�
".'. .f'�;.�( .�.. y, •�..•:•--it-..�• „a..•�
''vFr••i=' �.L--_ � "�:{��ra =y:, .ate * .2 •i�,�r'...= ',:
.- :i:� � :•.�+"`-.:,+ram. � mac. �•�. ,
..
a'. �, K�K�x�.�;•....:-
�...;�._ ._�. i•w�.•-�
' •r•�= ;,� ►-,'��{''�.1•
�� ..... ter..-.i— �.-a.,.. .. �.,,... ,e,.».,•.,,.��.:.�' .:1• .-• ��...-
• -ti :. � ; � •�J! :...• .•..:�,,:v:.�,p.:..,,•�r: a,'+ • •.� � •� '
....�
•. ...�•► •f�_•-wl;-��
i : iv.:' � -�',:. � _J ��� oa�
•!.�-i 1 ''��/•'i ���
• _ •tea.• •
�.'.%���, :.': ,•:. .
• • '�i�. • -• •.. .
.-. _
� -
,.
.�i.' � iy •''i2.. :':1. ''
., V:• - .. �= • ,,,:. •w' 'S. ; -• a :: .. _ . � .'r . ':•.' �
��1:'-:'i.�:.• s_,,��,; �.•• J�
�♦
...% . - � " .i... .s -'%' •'�' :.r��.•.�c..r") .
:7. .ate !V'� ys_i=aa •l: ✓
.�� �
_.i-�. •� .. .. .� ♦. .
79
E(Z 0, Qre-
�
Q �
1-74
r,
i
�r4
f
,/. 0 1.. - , -i %A J i) i. • -
.S i b
-t� 3 , � N 11 L -t,) A- vj-,�
2 z
o
q• z ti� z
.3 — �X
Z
. ,
co
i
i�-1 Koz +
1,
e�in
1
8
4 WA- W I I r-r-w W. " 7 %
Cavo�-aqE
So o
4-
40
2.2.7
-------------
44 z4
0
-... � -
I -.- . . . . ..
;. w