HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lodge 1 Zone.1979
"
..~"..v
!,,€ ,.....,
,,-..,,
~~:7~'['/
" ,J0/i
'>_....~ 1/
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Karen Smith, Planning Office
L-l Code Amendment - Public Hearing
September 14, 1979
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
On August 27th the Aspen City Council was presented with a request to
initiate a code amendment to allow single family, duplex and multi-family uses
as permitted uses within the L-l zone district. As you will recall, the Planning
and Zoning Commission had previously refused to initiate that code amendment,
feeling basically that such action could reduce the number of units available
in the short term rental market and further facilitate the conversion of lodges.
The applicant was then required to make application by August 15th and due to
the nature of the notice requirements, was presented with a burden that was
unmeetable before the August 15th deadline. Council considered the applicant's
presentation on August 27th and has initiated the code amendment for the purpose
of getting your formal comments on the matter.
I have included in the packet some of the previous materials dealing with
this code amendment, as well as the revised application letter of Richard
Sabbatini. Briefly, for your review, are some of the pros and cons of the proposal:
1. The proposal may open the way for the condominization of lodges by
making multi-family uses a conforming use and thus raising the possibility
that lodge units could convert by adding kitchens and converting to
single ownership. This may be partially mitigated, however, by the fact
that such conversion which involves reconstruction requires the applicant
to go through growth management approval and seek a quota for development.
It may also be mitigated by any standards that the Board may incorporate
for review of the condominiumization of lodges, e.g., restrictions insuring
that the lodges will not convert to single ownership and be taken off the
short term market.
2. If the proposal did result in a reduction of the lodge inventory, it
reduces the lodge inventory in the very area where we most wanted it
to be concentrated. In one sense an overall reduction of lodge inventory
in the City of Aspen would further serve to balance the imbalance that
currently exists between Aspen and Snowmass. However, over the long
run, the Planning Office cannot recommend that lodge inventory should be
reduced but rather should be preserved as a resource which will become
scarcer as time goes on. Again, the area at the base 'of the mountain
is the best area to locate lodges and hence the designation of L-2 and
L-l zone districts.
3. We had discussed limiting the code amendment to allowing single family
and duplexes as permitted uses within the district. There would therefore,
be very little incentive for a lodge to convert to a single family or
duplex use, while there might be incentive for them to convert to multi-family.
This provision may not work for the applicant in this case since the
applicant was considering reconstructing the eXisting six units in the
form of townhouses.
4. The most positive aspect of the proposal is that it allows a non-conforming
use which is residential in nature to improve.' Residential uses are one
of our most treasured resources serving an invaluable function to the
City whether they are short or long term. In this instance, the use has
been primarily long term and to say that we should not allow such residential
uses to improve is clearly defeating our purpose. The applicant, of course,
should be aware that the condominiumization of these units will be looked
out very closely for their impact on displacement at the time when any
condominiumization application is sought, I want to correct an earlier
statement I had made to the P and Z which was that condominiumization
would be allowed regardless of the use's non-conformity. Ron Stock has
corrected that to say that we do not allow the condominiumization of
non-conforming uses but would allow the condominiumization of conforming
uses. That is another opportunity that the Board may wish to consider.
1""",
~
Memo to Aspen P & Z
Re: L-l Code Amend.
September 14, 1979
Page Two
5. Within the lodge district is is true that the only remaining develop-
ment potential is that existing on the Sabbitini property. We therefore
would not likely see a rush to build single family, duplex and multi-
family residences. Again the main consideration is for conversion.
The Commission may also want to consider an alternative which we have mentioned
in the past but have~tmlynow prepared a draft. That is a provision that would
be a "residential and lodge preservation clause", inserted as a subsection under
the non-conforming use Section of the Aspen zoning code. The purpose of this
section would be similar to one in the County's Land Use Code, that is, to allow
the improvement of residential and lodge uses even though they are non-conforming.
The rationale for this would be that both residential and lodge uses are valuable
resources, in scarce ,supply, and thei r mai ntenance as vi abl e economi c structures
is within the pUblic interest. Approval of any improvements would be by some
special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. This would
allow the use that Mr. Sabbatini has to the extent of the improvements would be
a matter of review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and it is not clear whether
the P andZ or even the Staff at this point would recommend the reconstruction to
such extent that a multi-family structure was converted to townhouses. We have not
thought the amendment through that far and the County does not have any guidelines
to assist in this determination. At any rate, we will bring a copy of that proposal
to the P and Z for your consideration on Tuesday.
Please note that this is a public hearing on the code amendment as it stands
with single family, duplex and multi-family units and that the City Council does
desire, as soon as possible, your recommendation. City Council was impressed by
the need to allow not only residential uses'to improve but also lodge uses and hence
requested this other amendment.
~
~
September 7, 1979
Karen Smith, Director
Planning Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
This letter is submitted to request that the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission recommend for approval of an amendment to the text
of the Zoning Code for the City of Aspen which would make single-
family, duplex, and multi-family residences permitted uses within
the Lodge-One (L-I) zoning district.
This request is made fol lowing the decision of the Aspen City
Council to initiate the above stated zoning code amendment. ( See
attached copy of Aspen City Counci I meeting minutes, 8/27/79. )
The code amendment approval recommendation is requested by me,
as a landowner within the Lodge-One district, to a) low the reconstruc-
tion of six I iving units which presently exist on lots K,L,M,N,O,
Block 77, City of Aspen to create six free-market townhouse units.
At present, this proposed reconstruction is not al lowed as these units
ar a non-conforming use under the zoning code.
The fol lowing information is offered to support the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendation to the Aspen City Counci I for
approval of the above zoning code amendment:
I. Within the Lodge-One (L-I) district, there are presently 310 con-
dominium, townhouse, and apartment units which al I are non-conforming
uses under the zoning code as written, and which existed in their
present form at the time of code adoption. (See Exhibit A) As inter-
preted by the City Attorney, these non-conforming uses cannot be re-
constructed, unless destroyed by an act of God, except in conformance
with the zoning code and those provisions therein concerning lodge
units; specificially, no kitchens are allowed in lodge units. To
comply with these provisions in the zoning code, it seems unreason-
able to require that a person sol icit an act of God, such as fire,
to be al lowed to extensively remodel or reconstruct a building in
need of such action.
2. At the time of adoption of the Growth Management Plan and the
Zoning Code, lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77 was the only parcel of land
within the Lodge-One and Lodge-Two districts with any development
potential, as determined by the Growth Management Workshop. The
zoning, by creating a non-conforming use on the above property,
disal lowed any reconstruction, extensive remodel I ing, or develop-
ment other than a financially impractical 18 unit lodge. (The
Growth Management Plan lodge-unit al location for the entire lodge
one district. )
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its decision of 7/31/79
not to initiate the above code amendment, felt that such action
could reduce the number of units avai lable in the short-term rental
market if existing lodge units were converted to condominiums and
sold. However, with the current price range for condominiums and
townhouses within the lodge-one district, it is most often necessary
to rent such units short-term to defray the costs of ownership.
Also, of the six townhouse units proposed for Lots K,LM,N,O, Block
77, at least four of the units would be sold and are I ikely to be
added to the short-term rental market. It is highly improbable
that a large number of existing lodge units within the Lodge-One
district would be reconstructed and condominiumized if the request-
ed code amendment is approved as most of the lodge units exceed
current maximum al lowed densities.
Your consideration in this matter is apprecl,ated.
".. "'\\
"
i
~,__~.i.n~erElty-;/
""-~c- __
,,- '--- ~c?~
Ri ard E. Sabbatini
cc Ron Stock, City Attorney
,,-,.
~
PUBLI C NOT! CE
Re: Amendment to L-l Zone
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 18, 1979, at 6:00 P.M.
in City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena, Aspen,
to consiper an amendment to the L-l zone district to add duplexes, single family
and multi-family residences as permitted uses. Further information may be
obtained from the Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 225.
/s/ Olaf Hedstrom
Olaf Hedstrom, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 30, 1979.
To be bil led under City of Aspen fund.
.1
._....~ ,.- - '"Co..
iii
II
I' .
MfflL~~~~~~=~- --~~~-
.+..'----+1 ...--.- ."'.--- ----bJJh-L-uf-~n,-.-"n---nnMn
-Iii
-~ n If
.-.""" (, -'!I
.,...~"'"",Ii-n
._ ~1t&bJ, . ~__"
I
/
f
___..,,:2i1
,-,
,~
~
!~
t-1EMORANDUf1
TO: Aspen City Council
Board of County Commi ssi onel's
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
R[: Open Space Advisory Board and Agreement
DATE: August 21, 1979
Amendment to the Joint Open Space Agreement
As you will recall, at a joint meeting on July 23rd, you approved certain
amendments to the Joint Open Space Acquisition Program Agreement which provided
for the inclusion of Snowmass Village in that Agreement. Language was changed
to include the Town as well as City and County, and the composition of the
Open Space Advisory Board was altered to include Snowmass representation.
One point of contention, however, was lack of a contribution by Snowmass to
staff time or funding, meeting that contribution made by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Planning Office. Snowmass indicated a tentative interest in making a
proportionate contribution; I expect a representative to be at your joint meeting
to report the Board of Trustees' final decision.
To calculate a reasonable annual contribution to OSAB staffing, I made the
following calculation:
City/County payment for staff (Karen's and my time)
January through July 1979:
Projected for January - December, 1979:
$2,269
$4,000
35%
9%
56%
100%
Reconmended
Contribution To
OSAB Staff,
($4000 x %)
$1400
360
2240
$4000
Aspen
Snowmass Village
Rest of Pitkin County
Population
(1978 Census)
3,804
984
5,961
10,749
Percent of
Total Population
Therefore, the Planning Office has requested that Snowmass contribute
approximately $400 to the City/County Planning Office budget for Open Space
Advisory Board for one year beginning from the date on which the amended
Joint Agreement is signed. This amount may then be adjusted annl1ally for population
changes with a calculation similar to that above. '
In addition, the City and County established' a $5,000 fund in 1979 over
and above salaries for use in publishing an Open Space t-1aster Plan, hiring a
negoti ator, and other specHi c tasks. The Council and Commi ssi oners mi ght consi der
that Snowmass will be participating in the ,open' space program for one-half year'
in which this fund is effective or you might request that the Town contribute
to any such special fund in the future.
The following a,tnendment is proposed to incorporate this cooperative effort!
at funding the Advisory Board and to formulate a techniCal advisory which takes,
advantage of City, County and Town e!pertise.
Section 5, Open Space Coordinator, shall be repealed and reenacted as followS:
The parties may jointly estaQ1ish and fund the position of Open Space Coordinator
who will act under the di recti on of the Ci ty /County Pl anni ng Di rector and the
Snowmass Vi 11 age Pl anner. The Open Space Coordinator shall parti ci pate in
all phases of the Open Space Acquisition Process and constitute a focal point for
communications, and dissemination of information, among public and private
participants in said Process. In addition, the Open Space Coordinator shall
undertake to acquire rights-of-way for each the City, County and Village when
required for the Open Space or other programs of any of the three.
f"""',
.~
Memo to Council + DOCC
Re: OSAB and Agreement
August 21, 1979
Page Two
Nothing herein shall require the appointment of an Open Space Coordinator and
in the event that either or both of the parties hereto shall determine to not
establish and fund this position, the responsibilities of the Coordinator shall
be undertaken by a technical advisory group, composed of six persons including,
specifi ca lly, the City, County and Town Managers and the City, County and Town
Attorneys. The Director of the City/County Planning Office shall provide
staff for the Open Space Advisory Board 'and such Land Management Committees as
are established. (The staff duties shall include preparation of agendas and
conducting of meetings. ) The Town shall make a financial contribution proportionate
to its population or, alternatively, contribute staff time to assist the Advisory
Board. In addition, the three jurisdictions shall all contribute to any special
fund which might be established for such specific tasks as publication of an
Open Space Master Plan.
(Note: It is requested that the status of the coordinating committee be changed
from actual coordinators to a technical advisory capacity since we have learned
from experience that the Planning Office can do the preparation and follow-up
for meetings itself. A coordinating committee with attorneys, managers', and
planners from all three jurisdictions would be unwieldy.)
Open Space Advisory Board Member, Nominations
At your last joint meeting, you also appointed people to fill four of the
five vacancies for two-year positions on OSAB. For the fifth position, you
indicated a desire to continue representation of Trout Unlimited if they would
provide a specific name. The ToU. Board of Directors reported to me that they
asked Bi 11 Pedersen to continue as a member, if reappointed by City Counci 1
and the Commissioners, primarily because of his familiarity with the Board's
,activity. The Planning Office recommends appointment of Bill Pedersen as an
alternate member for a two-year term.
/""',
/""',
~...
>)
~
.
August 14, 1979
Aspen City Council
Aspen, Co I orado
This letter is submitted to request that the Aspen City Council initiate
an amendment to the text of the Zoning Code for the City of Aspen which would
make single-family, duplex, and multi-fami Iy residences permitted uses within
the Lodge-One (l-I) zoning district.
This request is made fol lowing the decision of the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission not to initiate the above-stated zoning code amendment.
( See attached copy of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, 7/31/79)
Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission decision on 7/31/79; it
became impossible to initiate the amendment as an individual landowner within
the Lodge-One district and comply with the procedural code requirements for
such action. ( Time was not avai lable to obtain signatures from 80% of the
landowners within the district) ,
The code amendment ; s requested to a I low the reconstruct i on of six I i v i ng
units which presently exist on lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77, City. of Aspen to
create six free--market townhouse units. At present, this proposed reconstruc-
tion is not al lowed as these units are a non-conforming use under the zoning
code.
The following information is 'offered to support the Aspen City Counci I's
initiation and approval of the above zoning code amendment:
I. Within the Lodge-One (L-I) district, there are presently 310 condominium,
townhouse, and apartment units which al I are non-conforming uses under the
Zoning Code as written, and which existed in their present form at the time
of code adoption. (See Exhibit A) As interpreted by the City Attorney,
these non-conforming uses cap not be reconstructed, unless destroyed by an
act of God, except in conformance with the zoning code and those provisions
therein concerning lodge units; specifical iy, no kitchens are al lowed in
lodge units. To comply with these provisions in the Zoning Code, it seems
unreasonable to require that a person sol icit an act of God, such as fire,
to be, al lowed to extensively remodel or reconstruct a bui Iding in need of
such action.
2. At the time of adoption of 'rhe Growth Management Plan and the Zoning
Code, lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77 Was the only parcel of land within the Lodge~
One and Lodge-Two d i str i cts with any deve lopment potent i a I, as d,eterm i ned
by the Growth Management Workshop. The zoning, by creating a non-conforming
use on the above property, disal lowed any reconstruction, extensive remodel-
ing, or development other than a financially impractical 18 unit lodge. <The
Growth Management Plan lOdge-unit al location for the entire Lodge-One District)
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its decision not to initiate the
requested code amendment, fe I t that such act ion cou 1 d reduce the number' of
units available in the short-term rental market if existing lodge units were
converted to condominiums and sold. However, with the current price range
for condominiums and townhouses within the Lodge-One district, it is most
often necessary to rent such units short-term to defray the costs of owner-
ship. Also, of the six townhouse units proposed for lots K,LM,N,O, Block 77,
at least four of the units would be sold and are I ikely to be added to the
short-term rental market. It is also highly improbable that a large number
of existing lodge units within the Lodge-One district would be reconstructed
and condominiumized if the requested code amendment is approved as most of the
lodge units exceed current maximum al lowed densities.
In view of the fact that this request for initiation for the proposed
zon i n code mendment has prev i ous I y been subm i,tted to and cons i dered dur i ng
0'< public hearing by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; it is asked that
," ' rrent request for initiation and approval of said zoning code amend-
ment be resubmitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommend-
ation after the August 27, 1979 City Counci I Meeting.
,I"",
-,
In conclusion, it is felt that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code
to al low single-family, duplex, and multi-fami ly residences in the Lodge-One
district would not significantly affect the short-term rental market; and
furthermore would allow the replacement; on lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77 of an
old, non-conforming, poorly bul It st~cture with an esthetically pleasant,
and beneficial use.
Your consideration in this matter is appreciated.
cc Ron stock, City Attorney
Karen Smith, Planning Department
<'),;
Sincereyv,
-.",.--
'~, (~,: ;:~(j; C( ('L
')Uchard E. Sabbatini
./
1'"""
...-,
/-
Exhibit A
L-I Zoning District
Ownership and c.xlsting Development
July 24,1979
NAME OWNER LOCATION 1/ LODGE 1/ CONDOMINIUM OR
UNITS APARTMENT UNITS
I. Aspen Townhouses Central Multiple Lots K-O,BI k70 II
2. Inverness Lodge (Dormez-Vous) Lots P Q,Blk70 24
3. Pines Lodge AI-Zahid Lots R S,Blk70 12
4. Snowf I ake Lodge Goodnough Lots C-I,Blk76 18 18
5. 210 Cooper Condominiums Multiple LotsK-M, B I k76 21
6. Limel ite Lodge (North) Paas Lots O-S, B I k76 34
7. Deep Powder Lodge Ha II um Lots A B,Blk77 8
8. Li me I I te Lodge (South) Paas Lots C-I,Blk77 26
9. The Carriage House Sabbatlni Lots K-O,Blk77 6
10. Aspen Manor Lots P-S, B I k77 25
II. Tlmberridge Condominiums Multiple Lots 1-4,Blk4 18
Eames Add.
12. Lift One Condominiums Multiple Lots 5-11 ,BI k4 31.
Eames Add.
13. Southpolnt Condominiums Multiple Lots (5) 30
14. Chart House Restaurant Lots (4)
15. Blue Spruce Lodge Cantrup Lots A-D,Blk84 15 5
16. Mountain Chalet Melvi lie Lots E-I,Blk84 44 4
17. Hi II s I de Lodge Aspen Sk i Corp/Lots (3)Blk91 15
18. Woodstone (Glory Hole) Cantrup Lots (3)BI kl 07 .93
19. Chateaux Dumont Multiple Lots (4)BlkI07 24
20. Chateaux Cheaumont Multiple Lots (4)BlkI07 24
21. Captain's Anchorage
22. Glory Hole Condominiums Multiple Lots (2)BlkI07 6
23. Two Single Fami Iy Units adjacent to Glory Hole Condominiums and Aspen Alps on
Original Street.
24. Aspe~ Alps Condominiums Multiple See Map 78
25. Manorhouse Condominiums Multiple See Map 9
,i""",
/-,
,..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: L-l Code Amendment Reconsideration
DATE: July 27, 1979
On June 5, 1979, the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to consider
the proposed code amendment brought by a private applicant that would add
multi-family, single family and duplex residences to the permitted use section
of the L-l zone. There was some confusion over the P and Z'S intent regarding
its action at that meeting. The minutes reflect that the P and Z did not feel
that there was demand for such an amendment and did not support the amendment
at this time. However, the tape was garbled and difficult to hear and certain
people recollect that the P andZ had really intended for the Planning Office
to develop more information and bring it back. Please note that the applicant
is asking you to sponsor this code amendment, since private applications for
code amendments may be made only once a year, albeit soon on August 15th.
For the benefit of the new members and to refresh the memories of the
old members, I will include the previous memorandum to the P and Z in the packet.
The P and Z, I think, was interested in finding out the possible buildout
would be in the L-l zone district and how this district might be affected by
the code amendments. I believe that the P and Z was also interested in what the
experience had been with the L-2 zone district since adoption of a code amend-
ment allowing single family and duplexes as permitted uses within that district.
,The applicant has prepared a summary of the buildout in theL-l zone district
for your information. As you can see, there are already a number of condominium
or apartment units existing within this district. This proposed code amendment
would make them conforming rather than non-conforming. We also note from our
GMP public hearing process that the remaining buildout in the L-l was very low.
In fact, it affected only the property of the applicant in this particular case,
Rich Sabbatini. The Sabbati~i parcel has 9,000 square feet potential buildout,
which translates into 18 lodge units. In this case, Sabbatini is requesting
permission for the code amendment so that he can build duplex units or remodel
into duplex units rathe-r than build a lodge. This is the historic use of the
property.
We are bringing this back to you to ask for clarification wh~ther you wish
to consider this amendment further and whether this information is sufficient to
,
help you make a decision. It is clear that the intent of the L-li district is to
prevent the conversion of existing lodges. The affect of this co~e amendment
might be to facilitate the conversion of lodges into condominium Ibr apartment
units. However, we note that such conversions must go through th~ Growth
Management Plan which does serve as a disincentive. And, the P ~ind Z may wish
to simply eliminate multi-family residenc, es as a permitted use and allow only
single family and duplexes on the theory that 'orily in the most r re circumstances
would a lodge with lodge density wish to convert to single famil~ and duplexes
on the same lot. Our experience with the L-2 has been minimal. iTo our knowledge
the only duplex built since the code amendment was passed was th~ Blitz duplex '
owned by the person who requested the amendment. The only probl~m with that is
that the duplex is built almost to lodge density. It mi'ght be aljpropriate to try'to
limit the size of single family and duplex residences therefore. i
. I
-
. ~.
)
,
.'
.1""\
1""\
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
,~' Resolution No. 79- '1
Re: Zoning Enforcement Offi cer
WHEREAS, more recently the Aspen City Council has adopted numerous provisions
to promote the constructi!>n of employee housing o'Jtside the Growth Management
quo~a system, providing ex.emptions from competitivE! reviews in return for
cOl1'll1itments to price restrictions in the low, mode\-at~ and middle income price
ranges. Similar restl'ictions are attached to the conversion of residential units
from rental to ownership status in order to prevent the displacement of low and
moderate income households, and
WHEREAS, as it was necessary to adopt these various Code amendments in order
to promote the accomplishment of the Community's goals and objectives, it is
equa lly necessary to insure that these Codes are enforced fai.rly and comprehensively
to insure that their underlying purposes remain intact. Uniform administration.
..is important also for t~e protection of neighborhoods and..other districts and
the indiyidua1 property owners'within them, and
WHEREAS, current City administration is already overburdened with the
,
daily demands of acceliting applications for building, permits and reviewing 1
construction 'under these permits, over and above the particular and special
conditions of th~se new procedures.
.'
....
"
JI)
.....,..,
.)
.
1""\
1""'\
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
that it does hereby recommend to the Aspen City Council that in view of the
abundance of substantive conditions being attached to new development within the
City and in view of prospective andimminent construction as that occurring in the
Lodge District as well as in Specially Planned Areas such as 'that of the Aspen
Institute, that it is timely tO,consider allocation oT sufficient funds for
staff to administer and enforce these requirements. The Planning and Zoning
Commission further recommends that it is appropriate to identify
staff to be primarily responsible for monitoring compliance with conditions
designed to protect the goals and objectives of the City of Aspe~ Such
staff should be free enough from the routine chores of processing ,new applications
such that they can pursue complaints which may be brought and to perform periodic
checks for compliance with conditions which may be stated in subdivision agreements,
various other special review approvals of this Commission and of the Council,
in planned unit development or specially planned area :agreements, or in Growth
Management applications.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
believes that such a system will promote compliance just by. existence and would
generate a feeling among the general public that fairness in implementation of
local Codes is being achieved.
17IL
Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Co~nission on this fntt day of
July. 1979.
ATTEST:
~.
, ~ G(r~::::-"
a st m, c ~a1rman > --
ASPjI Planning and Zoning Commission ,
.~~)
Deputy City Clerk
-2-
I""'-
,,-.,
,.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RE: L-l Code Amendment
DATE: May 31, 1979
, This is an informational item for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
see if there is interest on their part to process a code amendment adding
"multi.family residences, single family an<;l duplex residences" to the permitted
use section of the L-1 zone. This is identical to the code amendment processed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission last May for the L-2 zone.
.
/
For clarification of this issue, the minutes of the' public hearing on
the code amendment for the L-2 zone district.
-,
,
.
.
-
~
_III"I)..ORI) PueLltlHtN(J eo., DEN.VCIt
j2ecial Meeting
i
)
." J
I"""i
.'-",
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
July 31, 1979
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on July 31, 1979,
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olaf Hedstrom,
;'elton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell, Lee Pardee, Perry Harvey and Roger Hunt. Also
present were Karen Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office and City Attorn'
I,onald Stock.
L-l Code Amendment
',econsidera tion
Smith introduced the item. The P&Z is to consider an
amendment to the L-l zone district to add duplexes, single
family and mUltifamily residences as a permitted use. 'The
request is being brought by Rich Sabbatini who asks that
the P&Z sponsor this amendment. Smith felt that the last
consideration by the P&Z was not clear on their support.
She asked that they consider the impacts in, ,the L-2 distric
since an amendment allowing single family and duplexes in
that zone. She noted a map showing the potential buildout
in the L-l and L-2 district. Currently, the potential in
the L-l district, is for 9,000 square feet which translates
to 18 lodge units; this property is owned by Mr. Sabbatini
who wishes to convert the existing residential units to
duplex condominiums. She noted that this code amendment ,mil
encourage conversions from lodge uses to condominimn multi~
family uses which is not the intent of the district. The
P&Z would have control over this with the condominiumizatic
reviews. She also noted that if kitchens were added, this
\~ould put it under the GMP. She said there have be,..n two
duplexes either built or proposed in L-2 since the amendmer
and she knows of very little other land that has that poter
tial; She asked for the P&Z'S opinion of this amendIT.ent,
Hedstrom asked if the amendment to L-.2 ooened the W'3,y ;Eor
condominiumization of the lodges. Smith'said no, the
amen~~ent merely added single family and duplex, She
suggested adding single family and duplex and not multi:eam:
thereby avoiding that potential ;Eor conversion. she
introduced Rich Sabbatini.
Sabbatini stated that he owns 'Lots K-O, Block 17, which Us~
to be the Pines Lodge. When he purchased the property fiy~
years ago, he converted it to apartments and has rented it
as apartments since. He lives there himself. His intent
in buying the property was to improve it but never intende'
to operate it as a lodge. They are a nonconforming use in
their district. He submitted a list of uses in the L-lzo:
which showed a SO/50 split between lodge units and condomi
iums or townhouses. They wish to build 5-6 'townhouses,
sell three :or four, live in one and rent one. There are
presently 6 units on the property, Smith asked i:l; they
wish to construct three duplexes. Sabbatini said they hav
not decided yet. Harvey,asked the potentialpf the proper
Smith said he could build 18 lodge units ,going through the
GMP. Harvey asked if he would have to go through GMP for
the duplexes. Smith said no since he would not be convert
the use. Pardee said the intent of the L-l zone iE to en~
courage short term uses. He would be in favor 0:1; single
ffu~ily or duplexes if there were a deed restriction ~or
short term. Sapbatini noted there are 250+ condominium~
within the L-l district with no rental restrictions,
Joan Klar entered the meeting,
Anderson asked if they would see this application i:e the
amendment passed. Smith said if he wished to construct
single family dwellings or duplexes or reconstruct the
multifamily, he would not need the review. If he wished t
condominiumize,he would go through the review, She notec
a dilemna in the code; it encourages the construction of "
lodges in the L-l district and discourages the conversion
of lodges uses but the condominiumization regulation dis~
courages displacement of Low, Moderate and Middle income
families. Historically, this property has rented to this
.
,"-"
-2-
~
',':;ecial Meeting
July 31, 1979
8040 Greenline
Yarbrough Single
Family House
( '\
"
Aspen Planning and zoning Commission
income bracket.
Hunt felt they were whittling down the intent of the zone.
Hedstrom said a part of the GMP is to limit the increase in
the number of lodge. He felt this followed this intention
Of the GMP. Hunt felt the intention was to space out this
growth over the years. Pardee felt they were opening the
door for many of the lodge units to be, taken off that markei
Hedstrom agreed with this. McDonnell noted that there are
many lodges in need of repair. She felt this would en-
courage these lodges to convert to apartments.
Sabbatini supported the amendment and noted this is the onl'
underdeveloped piece of property in this zone. Anderson '
suggested allowing this as a conditional use rather than a
permitted use. Pardee asked if the applicant could renovat,
his building. Stock said he can repair up to 10% of the
replacement cost of the structure in any calendar Year,
Anything further must be heard by the Board of Adjustment,
Harvey added that he can apply to the GMP for a lodge,
Anderson again suggested the conditional use approach.
Stock said they could not consider the displacement of
certain income brackets in a conditional use hearing.
Bil Dunaway asked if this is a public hearing, Smith noted
the public hearing was held June 5th and was closed,
Hunt moved not to reconsider the L-l code amendment at this
time primarily because the L-l area has historically been
an area designated for the accommodation of tourists and to
allow a significantly lOwer use in that area puts the
tourist pressure in other zoning areas in the community,
Klar seconded. '
Harvey agreed with the intention of Hunt's motion but felt.
they were keeping nonconforming, long term rental, low
density units in the L-l where Sabbatiniwas attempting to
upgrade his, structure. He noted that any other lod,:re'woulc
go through GMP to convert. Smith corrected her previous
statement to,:'say the public hearing wascnot held since__thi~
is a request to set a public hearing on the amendme~t.
Roll call vote: Anderson, nay; McDonnell, ayei Pard.ee,
aye; Harvey, nay; Klar, aye; Hunt, aye; Hedstrom, aye;
Motion passed.
Smith introduced the application. The current access'is
from the ski slope in the summer. The 'Engineering Depart-
ment noted this was the result of a subdivision that was
approved in 1959 and it was annexed without condition.
The Planning Office recommends that P&Z give special atten'
tion to the questions of'visual impact and integration
with the natural terrain 'from an area and bulk standpoint
and considerations of slope stability. She submitted
photos-from the applicant drawn to scale showing how the
building integrates with its surroundings, Smith noted
that they have not accomplished the soils review and asked
that they table action for this 'input. Hedstrom asked
what they could do for the access, parking and fire access
problems. Hunt'felt they could approach this problem by
limiting the number of people affected. Stock noted ,that:
on the Bliss approval, adjacent to this property, the P&Z'
, conditions of approval wer,e that they use fire resistent
materials or a sprinkler system, place a fire hydrant near
the structure and store a fire hose in the area and ~
covenant of indemnity to not hold the City responsAb:~ mor
any damage, personal or property, in case of fire. "
(-)
-
",
.
,
MEMORAUOOM
. DATE:
July 27 , 1979
(jy~, ~'- .prrJ.Jrr - (jJ(~
~*l1>4~qo+2-)~
~1YtJjfj ~~-th?d, "
'~( ~--
RE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissipn
Karen Smith, Planning Office
L-1 Code Amendment Reconsideration
TO-:
FROM:
"On .June 5.1979. the Planning and,Zoning Commission was asked to consider
the proposed code amendment brought by a private applicant that would add
multi-family. single family and duplex residences to the pei"mitted use section
Of the L-l zone. There was some confusion over the P and Z's, ,intent regarding
its action at that meeting. The minutes reflect that the P and Z did not feel
that there was demand for such an amendment and did not support the amendw~~nt
at this time. HO\'lever, the tape \~as garbled and difficult to hear and certain
people recollect that the P and .z had really intended for the Planning Office
t,o develop more information and bring it back. Please note that the appl,icant
, is asking you to sponsor this code amendment, since private applications for
code amendments may be made only on~e a year, albeit soon on August 15th.
For the benefit of the new members and to refresh the memories of the
. old members. I wi 11 include the previous memorandum to the P and Z in the packet.
The P and. Z, I:think. was interested in finding out the possible buildout
would be in the L-l zone district and how this district might be affected by
the code amendments. I believe that the P and Z was also interested in what the
experience had been with the L-2 zone district since adoption of a code amend-
ment allowing single family and duplexes as permitted uses within that district.
lh~ applicant has prepared a summary of the buildout in the'L-l zone district
for your information. ~oucan see. there are alr~ady "l1umber gf" lCnnoOll1inium
~ a~artment units eXis~in~~~~~n ~hlS d,l stri ct. .This proposed code amendment
woul make them confOnnlll'::l I~-L-l t-i1n neA COllru"l,lI~.g. We also note from our
GMP public hearing process that the remaining buildout in the L-l was very low.
In fact. it affected only the property of the applicant in this particular case.,
Rich Sabbatini. The Sabbatini parcel has 9.000 square feet potential buildout.
which translates into 18 lodg'e units. In this case. S'abbatini is requesting
permission for the code amendment soth.at he can build duplex units or remodel
into duplex units rathe-I' than build a lodge.' This is the historic use of the
property.' "
, We are bringing th'is back to you to ask for clarification whether you \~ish
to consider this amendment further and whether this information is sufficient to
help you make a decision. It is clear that the intent of the L-l pistrict is to
prevent the conversion of existing lodges. The affect of this code amendment
might ,be to facilitate the conversion of lodges into condominium or apartment
units. However, we note that such conversions must'9o through the Growth
Management Plan which does serve as a disincentive. And, the P and Z may wish
to simply eliminate mUl~i-family residences as a permitted use and allow only
single family and dup lexes' on the theory that 'only in the most rare circumstanceS
would a lodge with lodge density wish to convert to single family and duplexes
on the same lot. Our eJl,perience with the L-2 has been minimal. To our knowledge
the only duplex built since the code amendment was passed was the Blitz duplex
owned by the person Ilhorequested the amendment. TJlJt.Q!lJv prq.!~l~ll1with that is
tl}a1:the dupl~x i<: hfli1t ~lmn<:t to lodge density. Itl!l.igh.Lhe.._.ap.~,opr.iate totl'j".to
limlt the size of single family and duplex residences therefore.
, . .
"'~fr"
, .'
'.
Gift
~,
t-
........ e....~~t'." ....~.t.u.
~,
~.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Regular l<lceting
Aspen 1'lannin(] 'a~~d-zonilig".----------r.l~=Y6";=:C97G-==
The Aspen Planning and Zoning COtrunission held a regular meeting on Hay 1 G, 1978
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Hembers presc~t \Vere Charles Collins,
01af lledstrom, Donald Ensign, Frank Daranko" -;~clton Anderson, John Schuhlllacher,
and Joan Klar. Also present were City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall, and Karen
Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office.
Approval of Minutes
Code Amendment
L-2District
Public Hearing
..'
,.,
....
"
"
,
Hedstrom moved to approve the minutes of May 2& 9, 1978
as amended, Baranko seconded. All in favor, motion
approved.
Smith noted the Planning Office memos of May 11 and
April 7, 1978. The P&Z is considering a change in
language of the permitted and conditional uses in the
L-2 zone. Smith noted two conflicting objectives that
the P&Z must consider. The intent of the L-2 district
is tourist oriented. There is very little land left
~n this district. On the other hand, the G}~ reduces
the tourist potential over a long term. Smith did not
feel that such an amendment would adversely affect the
inventory of lodge area available. It would allow less
intensive use in that district. She rec6~~lended i,
change in language under intention to allow the con-
struction of tourist-oriented single family, duplex,
and multi-family units, Under permitted uses, add the
language "single family and duplex". She did not rec-
ommend the six month minimum lease restriction as it
is not within the irt~ent of this district.
Schuhmacher asked the definition of a tourist~oriented
single family. Smith said it meant the unit could be
rented short term. Bal:anko asked if a lesser use is
automatically a permitted ,use. Nuttall said ,no. She
felt that the code change is approl?riate. Collins
asked where the majority of the L-2 district is located
Smith said south of Durant and noted the other sections
ona map.
Rlar felt that in
viable to build'a
allowed to do it.
changed since the
amendment.
a free market system,' if it is more
single family unit, they should be
Ensign felt the objectives have
code was drafted. He supported the
Collins opened the public
comments from the public.
Ma,J;'ing.
Collins felt that the 1.-2 zone was intended to keep th,
tourist facilities near the mountain. He felt that
the small amount of land left in this district ,should
be devoted to tourist f9cilities. Smith noted that
the small parcels left are not large enough to build
a lodge or multi-familyuni ts. l<lar asked if it would
be appropriate for other lodges to eJ~pand into the Ian
that is left. Smith s<iid that would ,be the only alter
native if this amendment is not passed.
hearing. There were no
Collins closed the 'public
Smith noted that inthB L-I and L-2 districts under
minimUIll lot required per dwelling unit, there is no
provision for single family or duplex. She suggested
that they add the language "same ,as Rt-1F". Baranko
asked if there is an F^R in the RMF zone. Smith said
only for boarding houses and offices.
.'
.
'.
.
'.,
,!""",\
~
,......
,.
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning and Zoning
May 16, 1978
-,
Hedstrom moved to 'recommend amendment to the zoning
code in the L-2 zone to reflect cl'l<:mging conditions
since the adoption of the code,to affect the purposes
of the Growth Management Plan, to 'provide greater flexi-
bility for property owners,in that area without dimin-
:j.shing the opportunity for additional touris;taccom-
modations,an amendment to read as follows: under
Intentions, aod "anoto allow the construction of
tourist-oriented single family; duplex, and multi-
family units", and Permitted Uses, Lodge units,
boarding houses, hotel, dining room, laundry and recre-
ation facilities for guests only, single family, duplex,
and multi-family residences, Ensign seconded. Roll
call vote: Baranko, aye; AnderSon, aye; Klari aye;
Ensign, aye; Heostrom, aye; Collins, nay; Schuhmacher,
nay. Motion approved.' ,
Smith noted the Planning Office memos of May 12, 1978,
and a memo from Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector,
of May 16, 1978. The code amendment would change the
language under measuring FAR. The code now could ,be
interpreted to count private balconies and areas under
.a roof overhang in FAR calculations. Meyring has aslced
that they change 'the word subgrade in the definition,
of basements,' Smith noted two ways of amending Section
24-3.7(e) (1) regarding inclusion of areas under hori-
zontal projections in calculations of FAR. Meyring
does not have any problem with the code as it stands
but the Planning Office feels that clarification is
necessary. Meyring f,eels the key word in this section
usable which means any area necessary for the function
of the building (access; egress, etc.). Meyring does
nbt include private balconies. Smith felt it very
important to include exterior stairwells, corridors,
etc. She recommended adding a phrase to the second
sentence of the Section which notes that FAR shall
include any usable area under a horizontal projection
of a roof or floor above except where that area is an
unenclosed individual balcony not used as a passage
way, '
Code Anendment
FAR Calculation
Public Hearing
Hedstrom asked if Meyring has no problem with the
code as it stands, 'why are they amending it. Anderson
' noted that the' code is vague. The Board discussed
a case that came before the Board of Adjustment appeal-
ing that, section of the code that includes thei area'S
unaer balconies ~n the calculation of FAR.
<.Jledstrom was afraid of making the code too specific.
Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times noted the problems
they may have if Meyring leaves and another Building
Inspector interprets th~ code differently, Anderson
noted necessary overha.n<;)'s are often avoided tCl reduce
the. FAR. Ensign noted .tha t an en trance porch is not
counted in FAR unless there is a roof overhang.
Anderson asked that they delete the word unenclosed
from the amendment. Smith supported this. Nuttall
asked that they includ.a balconies ;md patios to in-
clude first and upper floo~ projections,
The Board then discussed how to clarify basements in
the code. They decided tpere,we~~ fitill too many
llnanswered,questions to.:lmend the code at this time.
Ensign moved totnble the code amendment for, measuring
FAR, IGnr seconded. Bnranko ilskcd,that this' be refer-
red to the nuildin<] Inspector, City l\t'l:orncy and the
Planning Office. All in favor, motion approved,
J-
, \\ .
/~\ ,)) _' ~5~\;~\ ~,"", ._-';), if
7"- ./ . \.;l-~/ r)~I' ,: )') BI:~I "v~v:/,,'7 (/11"---:
_;c-;j(;~'~'_ J! /c';<0 ' ~~t/ I ij I *
/-v' ' . 1 -1. I. i 5
/ ,<<)' ',," " b-I~, ,.,+ .~ j r--J()} ! N
,~~~~r:, ,',' "'.J~\)-'_____--- l,~,,,,~ , -~ I:'V ~ r-:l '~ '
", c<f'~ ~.~...-'>--", '" \ '<.' j I i~ I, ~ 1-;,-'-'-~1 ~ .
,'\. ...~ b.~_~..!--", ",' '\.' '-;.. , . I -" · r' I !
.', :?;~\:~(?:- ' ,," , ' \~\\ \:~ ~t/<\, J t::~~h ~<" ,:-:'
~ '<:'::-=-~~ R....~ \" ..; ./.~ , I I & ' ~"
~~ -_'-_ 'Ie ---- {"'-- '"' ' .j .. . ~
.0" _~ ........_ -. '\... ~_ -~../ -.........-~ "-( <.J .. ..
\-~'I:-rr:~-~""'\0 '- /,--' ~ "C; ~
;'l:'"'~";'~"J'r:-,..,,,,"',) ____ _...... ---~-"8- _ ~~ ......" "" I' ">.,..i...]{..~
'... .. r "" _' ~, ' ) -- -.. it . ill ~ AI 11 ,,-." ... e I \ ~~ . ," "
t. ~.. ""f""~-,"s.-:--"'~V" 4 """ '" . .. a. *" C/_,. 'i-.. "'.. "'"~,,:... /.. 0.... .J . p;c.Y~ :.<.',.;...
~ " ...,;',' ("~~' ~~ ~ -~- 10 ~... ''-' ~\i ~ ..;: (ill t.. ;,. ., ~ -
~'ifi~~:~~:~~~_~:~\:~~~~c}/~>T.-;-L. '-r~~",?' "-"'0"r';':~'::.f',\""':~' : . ,0 ~ ,:C~'~'3.,r ' r-,~:
","~:J,::~"..A:f>~:&_(~ t '\J ~~~:(~~,,\(,\,\I t) & e ~.... '.i\-)>~:;. ~9Q.Ql 41\"Q -::~';~lf~~t,';,_~____ t -~. ./ t
;''<-'' ,.:.:,"'" .0f--." . ,.,<_..,.,~"~"""'.\ ,.">~.,, ,'''','' ,'.
"'""~'1>..",.~"''t>~,,",'It,r~''/:'''{-J u'~ $.. /0><" ~'"\.. '\~!l~ti' "t\~t' ~.~" .,"::"" i!1 -------~-...:.;"- ._-t/ '-'
"<"" ~ I"''' ...~,; 1/'1'\ I ". /<' - \ 1'Iu.~'\il':11-"" e' ,~e ~::.2 .." -,\~. ~ \ 'lo \~..,~ ~~~':;" ~,. I'
, "','. 'TII/IA 'f' ~ /... ,<." ,..\ """,\ "\'" , i"'~"' ,c,,;,,~-
""/><"~fJlI/!!\ (;If-,.. ,;/\y;;::': '\ ::~.:~,<.':..'t..\;~,'1::,,:.' il:!,.'" ","l,;:: ~"'S'l /-;q""t\;
;'f('~ ",!.!//(I;'/\ tl/l/l!ir-:--/ /' ~'\.."""''''''''~~~''\..\\$: e:JP.if!'t.~"<f~'" ~"';:-"-..\I::" ;;'" w.\ 'I\.\~. \ ~_........~...-<:. "-\; '.
'"ire .,...,,--.!..1~ (;/",/1 "41 \ 'J'!\.\ .. :.v,;".-'-'-----,,~.r'. ,------ l"'~~ - (( "-
: ,,!>.'C",lIl'-" 1'/;'1 " ..,". ,C ''; '\, ':.'~ -' ,',' ". ,,,'. ,',
,III"".U1fl!' 11\,:;:'.=:::-1 ,"- ";; ___\V2 "';"> ,\',"~ ,II /\ f 9, ' ._~
it;.; ~/j/$c1;'~~:t\ Specially "''z~(f/jd~14i ",):':~:, -~(.j;)' _;,~:~T
l'Area/.' ""-.,> ';:; \\ Planned ,....-\ --~ ii";?f.':. /. '.1':::;/"-:-~'~<.'-:n ,.:-.~'r} .___'-\e'<c::ii;:.~-", ,', ~ ~,c"'f:";,..~'r.;fi':;!"
"Iir'!f'" ',' ~ /~'r7/',:,_ '~',i-4'J",:"",::,:,,:;;f: /"-\ .; '."':<./;A.1'.':<;
I,. """ "./.:' ',", .\\ Area .<"'.,.......,\'i:r;;-'"",-,--~".. .'", ii" . . ,OC! \" 1: \~<.,,::~..,;.:,,-
".~\0:"~\1\~~,,- /)'Wi.. <~jl!~~,"l~:t~~:;.;;'{1J!J.'-';;
<: \' ,~_ '--4'~ \ ~,~:'.
'\Y-:-' ,~ .~ \ \
"
,\
?).o'
, /\
0,'
":<~,
""
,; .
~~ .~~
'--, \C" \ . ," . ".\
'..;~\ ,0\': '\ \ ~::,' <\\ ,-' \
" ,0J.>- /.\;<' '"c."J.'c. \' '\':":"\ ;." <\'~~,;.
~ ..(\~< \~',~ ~:,>:' y\\-- ' { " ..., .,'
,:>. ::'\ '7" }.;..;./~\ \ " ~< / -.\'( . 'd~~~' ,_ "A~~\ \ \ '
:,~",,'~,:.,'., '., ":,:,:,:.,',\,~"d"""",,-,t ':' . ,(}Y \\"\_,~, ~-. ","'\. \~,:~ "~ >"0" ~ . o~(::,\.> \ \', < .. 'h \>A I _....~
c'. - ". '''--i\''''~' ""': d\'..........:-.
> \.'~ ...>It __ \"'" ' '. I \~>\' '\ ~, .. -~', ' .' ~' '~)/ ~r'
'\' '\~.:~. .:.,\\'r<",,;~.~ - ~,_,'~~""""-~\ ",-L~;,..;.,; -- ,,- \ '\.yf \\\\\~.\ :.< \.",< _.'.',..--"""""'.....,'.",'\. (c,': ' '
" .0- 'i ..-',' 'I' r ~ ~ . .-> ' - ......- , ..,;..,~,'.,~\"',',,.
--, ,___'.,:~, i f\, ,_..~ to, \" t '.: . ~..-~~ \,~ _ ",-' ,," " .~ __~" \r, .~ c
...w <, ," t,"f\', '''',-'' ,''0,'' ,'\/',,/"" ,\,;. ,"".
~'''~~:'~;,:,~:.;'~:/./\.~,),~.\',"",.,''',',:~~~''" ,,',",""~ \I..~y~:.~~ ," ~'<,<,,\\. ~~;.. .~\,~:'-:, .' ,,. '\(~-- ' " (:, /.A
< . 0-' \~ .~, -'~', \. / ... \ "" .; ,...........-. "\
\. ,,,..' _", ,,';~ ','I.,.,;~\.,'.:,'.:.,.."'~" \. I...... ~ .' ~.'"
\"....'5:.":,;",, ',- ri"1'~: \. ,"(i\G'\ \: '- \ \' ' ",,-/' d7'
::;,~' ,<\ (t;S)'ti \'> . ,"'\. ,:>~::~-;">:~: \;(f~":;'
,,:~~""':<: " . . v"' i" .,,:' 0, f,_::..Jr w., ,,\.,,~: " ',.'.,,'.,:',,\ _ l,,~~~.,..,\,'.~':_.',.. ':.,",',''''
-.: ',.- .... ;:.':' """,,,,' '\\:~" .- '. "
\;~->: \. '~. \.,' ':>(:,
<::~ . '~','\ ," '~ ~,' <~ ." "'0"" ,'_ '\ \
\: ;-"~ '(fJ-'. <t ,,' ~ ~...,"'-""'; \.\.....~,'
\.::,', ,,'17;,' \\ _,.- ,_ /' ~~('~ ,-""....or;
",' " . \ .,,, 4~ , ,! . '#....' ,r." \ ,;"---:',0 -
.', "~,' c::::\ 11.{})j \"'/""" ~ ~' ,,.-. ,\/
.~ ~'k,~r,: i;. .,~" .",,:1" ~.. ',tf[J '/' \ ~)X\ ,\-t-:;-
'-. I;: \l ':"...!,,):'1-' . ':t/,i;f;? ~""...,&' /'" " J :-- \ ',. \
"",f,r: ;j , '"""'~~ -~'~'"'~'".-./ '.~'
~ - "",^~'@A::' " ,\ \~' ,'.,. ,. ~\:';\::
'", " /~, :"i!.P ".<<' \:\\, ,,' '<r\ \\" ' I.';,/"
,,~ c' /' \,.\ \",; , ,\',1. ,\\ ,>', ,.,.-:." ,:'
',(jJ)' ,~P,2~,"~/''''''' ,;'}",,\ ......,.-$,' -':\ \\' ',/:'C\ ...,>{':"";II,..'\.......,!;;
~' ; '<~,~/-:-:: \,\:."., '.-.>~c"::;~\\ \ \:',\\.,.-."", ~):~\fr:~;:::l,,_>.<~ :'
\,1/ -"'/",,,,,,:"'\1. ,--\"'__ \"\ ,'.'\"\4~,' \-i:;~'<'~'~'"\'~;' '-'.
.'-~~" \\ ",~._~_...'/% ',\~::fJI,,"" \',\\'-\...;,>~,\\.'::-\,o.y-\,.\.,}""\
, ,'I \' ~\........... \ \ ' "'\\' \,/~.,,->:-.:~?:-,~, \\ 'i
, ' , '0o\tf',," ;,\~,:\ \.,~,,,::"'" ','.\ \\ "\'\\ \::,,'
'; //:-:/.' . . \ \;~", .~' .'\ ~.::\!) )< \'
,- ,/-- ,~;,:~ '~,.." - ',,\ ."\ \<.,-; '" < ~
\ />-"'';'~''('\';''.,\ \",- " ,\\\"-C:<\',~ ,.,
\.,.......-__ . ,., '-." ',', "".\ \ \, \~\ I., "\,\
. ' " \" :\\,;:
\;' ",. ", .' Y"" < " I),'~ '
'?rim! '\ \\\~ \ ~':::\\ :.' ,
'1.. '. -.,\ \,\\
',l,
c- ~>
, "
, c
" \ \
"
, '
,,'
" r
,..'<""
""~:'.""
(
~,-..
" .
""<.-:.~ ,-\\ \.
:~::\~ ~.>-\ ?",':~':> ~
'v);' (" \ \
'<i--\", -.\"
\,..... \ \~).
\ \,,\ \. .
~
1',,-,,";<
.'
~"'~'
/''''-;,,:
(' -<,
,--.""-;",-,,,
\\~l_:~">'
-"."
. .~'j\
"
.
";,+.""
,
....1-
f>
o I
12 '
<> I
--.J
~
'"
~
"
'"
..
\
,
i \',;;;Y\-\
! \()""/ \
i~~~~!' \
r I,
If 0Al'\l+te:f\ l' \
II ..a. ...' \
11---- -\
II Hl00f.!i4 1MA~;mI!.\
:'i >>Toe M-L \;"
if r
__' .1..\
..
"
"
'"
, '"
, ~
\~
\ I
\ .
\ \j
\/
\
__,,__._,--.,_..~. -"':1.
"
o
""
;". \,<:c:c:r
-:~ I, \~'.. - ~,", ""'"
, ~ ~(:'~~,
1 .~ \ \';:>
1:1\' \ ..."
.,\. \ \ ~"': ,,:~'
-t-'"
, '\: ,:,%<,;:;:-,.
,< '>
-\.
,
.;;(:Z:1:~2c:!;::
\
,
\
\
,
'.
.
,...,
v
'"
..
'"
"
I
I
I
I
i
I
J
I
"',
'~
.'
,,'
":'.'_'i<'
"'\ ' ,~i;/;t,,~'$f,e;;
,:,..'...,..,,$' /
;,:.~if';i")\O-"""- :
:';:;::-'-'
I
.Ii