The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.700 S Galena St.1984HOLLAND & HART 175 NORTH 27TH STREET BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 TELEPHONE (406) 252 -2166 February 21, 1984 TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 92b -3476 Aspen City Council c/o Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mr. Richard Grice WASHINGTON, O. C. OFFICE 1875 EYE STREET. N. W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 TELEPHONE (202) 466 -1340 TELECOPIER (202) 466 -1354 LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE HOLLAND 6 HART 6 KITE 61B GRAND AVENUE LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELEPHONE (307) 742 -8203 TELECOPIER (307) 792 -7618 Re: 1984 Residential GMP Competition - Request by 700 South Galena Project for Multi -Year Allocation Dear Council Members: Three highly attractive projects are competing for residential allocations this year. At its January 17, 1984 meeting, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored all of the projects above the threshold. Together these projects require a total allocation of only 18 units, which is less than half of the 39 units ordinarily available each year. As of the January 17 units were in fact available (after taking deductions), since a 1981 allocation of 8 Place" project appeared to have expired. the Board of Appeals granted a building pe City Place, thereby reviving its 8 units a number of units available this year. meeting date, exactly 18 into account other quota units to the "Ute City Subsequently, however, rmit extension to Ute nd reducing to 10 the The present residential quota, then, is 8 units short of the total needed to develop the three projects approved for awards by P &Z on January 17. The P &Z scoring on these projects was extremely close (only .9 of a point separated first from last), with 700 South Galena being in third place at the present time. We have filed an appeal with you on behalf of 700 South Galena, which if allowed will move 700 South Galena into second place in the ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET 600 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 2900 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3416 TELEPHONE (303) 575 -8000 TELECOPIER (3031 575 -8261 BILLINGS, MONTANA OFFICE SUITE 1400 175 NORTH 27TH STREET BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 TELEPHONE (406) 252 -2166 February 21, 1984 TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 92b -3476 Aspen City Council c/o Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mr. Richard Grice WASHINGTON, O. C. OFFICE 1875 EYE STREET. N. W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 TELEPHONE (202) 466 -1340 TELECOPIER (202) 466 -1354 LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE HOLLAND 6 HART 6 KITE 61B GRAND AVENUE LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELEPHONE (307) 742 -8203 TELECOPIER (307) 792 -7618 Re: 1984 Residential GMP Competition - Request by 700 South Galena Project for Multi -Year Allocation Dear Council Members: Three highly attractive projects are competing for residential allocations this year. At its January 17, 1984 meeting, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored all of the projects above the threshold. Together these projects require a total allocation of only 18 units, which is less than half of the 39 units ordinarily available each year. As of the January 17 units were in fact available (after taking deductions), since a 1981 allocation of 8 Place" project appeared to have expired. the Board of Appeals granted a building pe City Place, thereby reviving its 8 units a number of units available this year. meeting date, exactly 18 into account other quota units to the "Ute City Subsequently, however, rmit extension to Ute nd reducing to 10 the The present residential quota, then, is 8 units short of the total needed to develop the three projects approved for awards by P &Z on January 17. The P &Z scoring on these projects was extremely close (only .9 of a point separated first from last), with 700 South Galena being in third place at the present time. We have filed an appeal with you on behalf of 700 South Galena, which if allowed will move 700 South Galena into second place in the HOLLAND & HART February 21, 1984 Page 2 scoring. Depending upon the outcome of this appeal, the quota allocations will be as follows: 700 South Galena Appeal Granted Project Gordon Property 700 South Galena Poss Project 700 South Galena Appeal Denied Project Gordon Property Poss Project 700 South Galena Quota Allocation 3 7 (5 short) 0 (3 short) Quota Allocation 3 2 (8 short) We believe the 700 South Galena appeal is meritorious and will be allowed. In either case, however, 700 South Galena will need a small allocation from future years in order to proceed with its development, and if the appeal is granted the Poss Project will also require a future year allotment. In our view it is in the best interests of the community that both of these projects be allowed to proceed. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council exercise the discretion granted it under Code Section 24- 11.3(a) and authorize the construction of an additional 8 resi- dential units. We would submit that the impact of such a decision on the GMP quota system will be quite small, in that 8 units represents only one -fifth (1/5) of the quota available for next year alone, and the Code provides that an excess allotment is to be off -set over the succeeding five (5) year period. Furthermore, an additional 8 units is within the percentage allowed under the above - mentioned Code Section. Finally, the 700 South Galena project will not even be completed until late 1985, and thus will in fact be ready for occupancy as if it had been awarded units in the 1985 competition. All three of the projects presented this year seem well quali- fied, none of them is very large, and it would be somewhat discouraging if (as appears likely) two of the three had to go HOLLAND & HART v February 21, 1984 Page 3 through the costly and time - consuming competitive process again next year. We would appreciate your serious consideration of the proposal that, under the circumstances, an additional 8 unit allo- cation is both justified and appropriate. Very truly yours, Arthur C. Daily for HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS FOR THE 700 South Galena Project ACD /pal cc: J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., Esq. Doremus & Company Mr. Robert Callaway Mr. Alan Novak MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: City Residential GMP Applications - Appeal and Allocation DATE: February 27, 1984 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is fourfold, including the following issues: 1. Forwarding of P &Z's recommended scores for the 1983 residential GMP competition; 2. Analysis of thresholds and eligibility requirements for receipt of an allocation; 3. Review of an appeal of the scoring of one of the applications; and 4. Consideration of excess allotments. APPLICANT'S REQUESTS At the January 17, 1984 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, three projects were evaluated in the 1984 Residential Growth Management competition. Each project was presented and discussed, public comment was heard, and scoring was accomplished individually by each commission member. The three projects are summarized as follows: 1. E. Hopkins Professional 3 free market units, 3 employee units Townhome Complex 2. Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units, 3 employee units 3. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units, 9 employee units 18 free market units, 15 employee units QUOTA AVAILABLE The tabluation of residential quota available for allocation this year (based on construction of units as of January 1, 1984) is as follows: 1. On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution No. 8, Series of 1983. This Resolution had the affect of not carrying over the 119 residential development allotments which remained as unal- located from prior years. Therefore, the City began 1983 with its standard quota of 39 units being available. 2. During 1983, building permits were issued for 29 new residential units. Included within this total were 18 new employee units (17 at Smuggler Run, 1 at Pitkin Reserve) and 11 new free market units. Therefore, 10 units remain available for allocation under the cur- rent competition. Since applicants only compete for free market units, the request before you is for 18 units to be allocated (although the 15 employee units would be deducted from the quota at the time a permit is received for their construction). THRESHOLDS AND ELIGIBILITY To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum of 43.8 points -- 60 percent of the total points available under Categories 1 (Public Facilities and Services), 2 (Quality of Design), 3 MEMO: City Residential GMP Applications Appeal and Al ration February 27, 1984 Page Two (Proximity to Support Services) and 4 (Employee Housing). A minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each of the above four categories is also required for a project to meet the basic competitive requirements. Two additional categories are scored, these being Category 5 (Provision for Unique Financing) and Category 6 (Bonus Points). Neither of these categories may be used to bring an application over the minimum thres- holds, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding allotments. The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows: East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 1. Public Facilities and Services 2. Quality of Design 3. Proximity to Support Services 4. Employee Housing Subtotal 5. Provision for Unique Financing 6. Bonus Points TOTAL Gordon Property PUD Average 7.17 11.58 6.0 20.0 44.75 -0- 1.78 46.53 1. Public Facilities and Services 10.08 2. Quality of Design 13.83 3. Proximity to Support Services 3.0 4. Employee Housing 20.0 Subtotal 46.91 5. Provision for Unique Financing -0- 6. Bonus Points 0.5 TOTAL 47.41 700 S. Galena 1. Public Facilities and Services 10.83 2. Quality of Design 12.83 3. Proximity to Support Services 6.0 4. Employee Housing 15.67 Subtotal 45.33 5. Provision for Unique Financing -0- 6. Bonus Points 1.17 TOTAL 46.50 Since all three projects were awarded points in Categories 1 - 4 in excess of 43.8, all three projects have met the eligibility requirements for allocations. i:Ii]Wii The scoring of the 700 S. Galena project has been appealed by Art Daily, Attorney for the Aspen Mountain Lodge ( "Applicant "). The appeal is filed under Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Code which provides for appeals based upon either "denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its scoring." This appeal alleges abuse of discretion by two individual commission members, David White and Roger Hunt. David White awarded 14 points for the Applicants' employee housing pro- posal when the criteria established by Section 24- 11.6(e) called for the MEMO: City Residential GMP Applications Appeal and A` vocation February 27, 1984 Page Three award of 16 points. When contacted for explanation of his rationale, David explained that he was dissatisfied with what he perceived as an unfair advantage which the applicant had over the other projects since the employee housing portion of the project was located off -site. Since the applicable criteria do not distinguish between on -site and and off -site housing, the Planning Office agrees that the award of only 14 points was an abuse of discretion. We recommend that the Council adjust the point scores accordingly. Both David White and Roger Hunt awarded 1.5 points to the applicant in the subcategories of sewer service and storm drainage. The criteria established in Section 24- 11.4(b)(1) for these subcategories reads as follows: "l Point - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvements by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general." "2 Points - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area." The City Engineering Department reviewed the application and testified that in their opinion improvements to sewer services and storm drainage facilities proposed by the Aspen Mountain PUD would improve the quality of service in the area beyond that level required to serve the develop- ment. The Applicants' 700 S. Galena project is an inseparable part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. This point was clarified in writing by the Applicants prior to the P &Z's scoring of the application. When contacted for explanation of rationale of these two scores, David indicated that the scores related to his dissatisfaction with the off - site location of the employee housing. He wanted to reduce the score in some way to reflect this dissatisfaction and he chose sewer service and storm drainage. Roger Hunt explained that he considered the Applicants' argument that 700 S. Galena was a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD and the neighborhood improvements were attributable to both parts of the project to be parti- ally invalid and he decided that he bought that argument only halfway and therefore awarded only half of the point. The Planning Office has considered these arguments and concluded that the arguments are broader than permissible under the established criteria resulting in an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we recommend that the Council adjust the scores accordingly. The following is the adjusted score which we recommend for the 700 S. Galena project: 700 S. Galena 1. Public Facilities and Services 2. Quality of Design 3. Proximity to Support Services 4. Employee Housing Subtotal 5. Provision for Unique Financing 6. Bonus Points TOTAL Average 11.17 12.83 6.0 _ 16.0 46.0 -0- 1.17 47.17 If the Council accepts either of the Applicants' appeal issues, a) em- ployee housing, or b) sewer service /storm drainage, the "adjusted" rank- ing of the three projects will be re- established as follows: MEMO: City Residential GMP Applications Appeal and F 'ocation February 27, 1984 Page Four Points 1. Gordon Property PUD 3 free market units 47.41 2. 700 S. Galena 12 free market units 47.17 3. E. Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 3 free market units 46.53 At this point the Council has two choices under the provisions of the City Code: A. Award the 10 units of quota available to the applicants in the order of ranking. This would mean Gordon Property PUD receives an allotment for three (3) units, and 700 S. Galena, seven (7) units; or B. Section 24- 11.3(a) permits the Council to award development allotments in any given year in excess of the quota established by as much as 20 %, eight (8) additional units may be awarded. Such excess would subsequently be off -set by a reduction in the quota available in successive years. Therefore, if Council so chooses it may approve all three projects since it happens that the total number of free market units requested is eighteen (18). EXCESS ALLOTMENT ISSUE We have only received a formal request for excess allotment from both the 700 S. Galena and the East Hopkins Professional Townhome projects. Since the Code provides a vehicle to permit Council to approve all three projects, we would like to make the following points: 1. There is limited quota available this year (10) relative to the quota established (39). 2. Actual growth over the last two years has only totalled 39 units, including the 17 units in Smuggler Run Mobile Home Park. 3. We do not consider the 119 unit total which was not carried forward from 5 previous years to be a significant factor since that total resulted from the fact that previously employee housing was not deducted from the quota. Therefore, had cur- rent policy been in effect during the prior years, no excess units would have been available for carry over. 4. Consideration should be given to the merits of the two in- dividual projects. a. Approval of full quota for 700 S. Galena project would facilitate the ultimate development of the Aspen Mountain PUD which has its own growth consequences. b. Approval of full quota for the East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project would finally accommodate the unique professional office /residential use which Bill Poss has been working toward in three previous GMP competitions. In each competition, the threshold point score was reached. Currently, the quota for the three free market units in- volved in this competition is the final allocation neces- sary for the project. 5. This year's competition was exceptionally close. If you accept the Planning office's "adjusted" ranking, there is only 0.88 points difference between the three projects. 6. If the lodge is approved, it will take several years of future quota thereby reducing that available for small projects such as the East Hopkins Professional Townhome project. 7. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their regular meeting on February 21, 1984, considered and aqreed with the above six MEMO: City ResideVz ial GMP Applications Appeal and _,,,,, ocation February 27, 1984 Page Five points. They felt that all three projects were quality projects. They recommended eight (8) units of quota be subtracted from the coming year's allotment and awarded as needed to 700 S. Galena and the East Hopkins project. They further recommended that such excess allotment be contingent upon complete submittal for Building Permits no later than August 1, 1985 by these two projects (i.e., four months short of the Code provision of 2 years to obtain a permit). PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends that you take the following action: 1. "Move to approve the appeal of scores awarded by the P &Z in the Categories of Employee Housing, Storm Drainage and Sewer Service for the 700 S. Galena Project." 2. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution awarding three units to the Gordon Property PUD and seven units to 700 S. Galena." 3. "Move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution awarding eight units of excess allotment from next year's quota as follows: a. 5 units to 700 S. Galena; and b. 3 units to East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project. Such excess allotment shall be contingent upon complete sub- mittal for Building Permits no later than August 1, 1985, and reduction of the 1984 quota to 31 units." MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: 1984 Residential GMP Applications DATE: January 17, 1984 Introduction Attached for your review are project profiles for three residential GMP applications submitted on December 1st of last year and the Planning Office's recommended points for each application. The three applications under consideration are as follows: 1. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 2. Gordon Property PUD 3. 700 S. Galena Quota Available The tabulation of residential quota available for allocation this year (based on construction of units and expiration of projects as of January 1, 1984) is as follows: 1. On April 25, 1983, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolu- tion No. 8, Series of 1983. This Resolution had the effect of not carrying over the 119 residential development allot- ments which remained as unallocated from prior years. Therefore, the City began 1983 with its standard quota of 39 units being available. 2. During 1983, building permits were issued for 29 new resi- dential units. Included within this total were 18 new employee units (17 at Smuggler Run, 1 at Pitkin Reserve) and 11 new free market units. Therefore, 10 units remain available for allocation under the current competition. 3. During 1983, the 8 free market units awarded to the Ute City Plact project expired. These 8 units should also be available for allocation this year, making a total of 18 units available. However, the applicant is currently disputing the expiration, asking Council to extend the time deadline for the project. Until such time as this matter has been resolved, the status of these units for allocation purposes will be clouded. 4. The summation of the quota calculation for this year's competition is: Annual Quota 39 units Construction During 1983 (29) units Expired as of 1/1/84 (8) ? Quota available as of 1/1/84 10 or 18 units The total quota request for this year is as follows: 1. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex 2. Gordon Property PUD 3. 700 S. Galena 3 free market units, 3 employee 3 free market units, 3 employee 12 free market units, 9 employee 18 free market units, 15 employee I \ / 'Y 1984 Residential GN. Applications January 17, 1984 Page Two Process The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on January 17 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested assignment of points to each application. Next, each of the appli- cants should be given about 15 minutes to present their proposal to you. It is important during the applicant's presentations that you limit their remarks only to description of the project as it has been submitted to the Planning Office, along with any technical-clarifica- tions which you or the staff may request. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the applicants' proposals. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 43.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2, 3 and 4 to meet the basic competitive require- ments. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 3.6 points Category 2 = 4.5 points Category 3 = 1.8 points Category 4 = 12 points Applications which score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an applica- tion over this minimum threshold, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding the allotments. All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment, will require additional review procedures. Specifically, the addi- tional reviews required for each project are as follows: East Hopkins Professional - Subdivision exemption to Townhome Complex condominiumize the space and thereby assure the accessory status of the resi- dential space and to allow the construction of multi- family housing GMP exemption for employee units Exemption from parking re- quirements Gordon Property PUD - Full PUD /subdivision GMP exemption for employee units 700 S. Galena - Condominiumization GMP exemption for employee units Full PUD /subdivision Prior to the issuance of any building permits, each of these procedures must be accomplished by those applicants which receive development allotments as a result of this process. It should be noted that in the case of the 700 S. Galena project, the level of development proposed exceeds the L -2 zoning requirements for the 21,600 s.f. site and may only be permitted as part of the 514,078 1984 Residential GAS�Applications January 17, 1984 Page 'Three s.f. Aspen Mountain PUD. Twelve (12) units with twenty -four (24) bedrooms and a total adjusted floor area of 21,073 s.f. are proposed for this site as a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However, if the multi - family development plans were based solely on the 21,600 s.f. site, Section 24- 3.7(k) would permit no more than one bedroom per one thousand square feet (1000 s.f.) of land area, or 21 bedrooms. In the event 700 S. Galena is awarded an allocation and subsequently the Aspen Mountain PUD is not approved, the development plan would have to be amended by reducing the number of bedrooms. Such a re- duction cannot be permitted at this point because it is more than just a technical clarification since it would have the effect of raising the project score for 700 S. Galena in this competition. Any reduction in free market bedrooms would increase the percent of the total development devoted to employee housing. Planning Office Ratings The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applications as a recommendation for you to consider. The majority of the staff assessed the ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored each proposal. The following table is a summary of the Planning Office analysis and ratings of the three projects. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. All three projects meet the minimum thresholds within categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, that being 30 percent of the possible points in each category. The East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex and the Gordon Property PUD also meet the requirement of 60 percent of the total points available in the sum of categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is 43.8 points, the planning staff awarded these projects 44 and 47 points, respectively. However, only 43 points were awarded to the 700 S. Galena project. Planninq Office Recommendation In recognition of the fact that the quota available is limited and in dispute, the issue will be decided by Council and since Council has reserved the right to allocate quota in any event, we do not recom- mend that you deal with the allocation issue, bonuses or future allocations at thie time. Your recommended scores will speak for themselves. Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the - Planning Office has the following recommendation: Gordon Property PUD: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments.and approve the project. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments and approve the project. 700 S. Galena: If you concur with the points recommended by the Planning Office, the project falls short of the 60 percent threshold required and must be denied. Proximity to Provisions Public Facilities Quality Support Employee for Unique Bonus Total Application and Services of Design Services Housing Financing Pts. Points E. Hopkins 7 11 6 20 - - 44 Professional Townhome Complex Gordon Property, 10 14 3 20 - - 47 P.U.D. 700 S. Galena 8 13 6 16 - - 43 All three projects meet the minimum thresholds within categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, that being 30 percent of the possible points in each category. The East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex and the Gordon Property PUD also meet the requirement of 60 percent of the total points available in the sum of categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is 43.8 points, the planning staff awarded these projects 44 and 47 points, respectively. However, only 43 points were awarded to the 700 S. Galena project. Planninq Office Recommendation In recognition of the fact that the quota available is limited and in dispute, the issue will be decided by Council and since Council has reserved the right to allocate quota in any event, we do not recom- mend that you deal with the allocation issue, bonuses or future allocations at thie time. Your recommended scores will speak for themselves. Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the - Planning Office has the following recommendation: Gordon Property PUD: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments.and approve the project. East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex: We recommend that you concur with our point assignments and approve the project. 700 S. Galena: If you concur with the points recommended by the Planning Office, the project falls short of the 60 percent threshold required and must be denied. R' APPEAL OF 1984 RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Arthur C. Daily, Attorney for the Aspen Mountain Lodge ( "Applicant ") DATE: January 31, 1984 RE: Abuse of discretion by Planning and Zoning Commission ( "P &Z ") in its scoring of Applicant's 700 South Galena project in the 1984 Residential GMP Competition held on January 17, 1984 EXHIBITS: A. P &Z Residential GMP Points Allocation Tally Sheet. B. Planning Office (Richard Grice) Memorandum to P &Z dated January 17, 1984. C. Applicant's "1983 Residential GMP Submission" dated November 30, 1983, comprised of 124 pages of text and Appendices A -E. D. Joseph Well's Letter of Clarification to Sunny Vann dated January 17, 1984. 1. Statement of Appeal. Pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Code, Applicant hereby challenges and appeals to the Aspen City Council the 46.5 total score awarded to Applicant's 700 South Galena project by P &Z on January 17, 1984. As grounds therefor, Applicant argues that the P &Z (or one or more of its mem- bers) abused its discretion in scoring said project in several categories by improperly applying the Code criteria which pertain to such categories. 2. Specific Abuses: (a) Employee Housing Scoring: The criteria contained in Code Section 24- 11.4(b)(4), when applied to Appli- cant's employee housing proposal, result in a minimum award of 16 points. One Commission member (David White) awarded only 14 points in this category, on the grounds that the proposed housing is off - site. The applicable criteria do not distinguish between on -site and off -site housing, and individual P &Z members are not given the freedom to make such arbitrary distinctions. Instead, the above - cited Code Section states that points shall be assigned according to the described formula. In other words, P &Z has no discretion in awarding points in this category. The Applicant qualified for a minimum of 16 points and Council is hereby requested to increase Mr. White's score in this category from 14 to 16 points and to adjust the resulting P &Z subtotal in the Employee Housing category accordingly. Please note that the Planning Office Memo, and all other Commission members, correctly applied the Code housing formula and awarded 16 points in this category. (b) Public Facilities and Services Scoring. Code Section 24- 11.4(b)(1) states that the P &Z shall score a project in this category according to the following formula: "l Point - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general ". "2 Points - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area ". And then each of six (6) services (water, sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, parking design, roads) must be scored pursuant to this formula, with a maximum of two (2) points available for each service. The Applicant's 700 South Galena project is directly linked to and is an integral part of its overall Aspen Mountain PUD, and the P &Z's scoring in the "Services" category must be based on the Applicant's commitments to upgrade the sewer and storm drainage systems in the neighborhood (in the words of the Code, "in a given area "). and yet two Commission members (Roger Hunt and David White) each awarded only 1.5 points to Applicant in the sewer service and storm drainage subcategories, while all other Commis- sion members awarded the proper 2 points. Since the Applicant's proposed improvements to the sewer and storm drainage systems will in fact "improve the quality of service in the given area ", the Applicant has clearly earned the maximum 2 point score in each of such subcategories. Here again, the Code language allows P &Z no discretion in awarding points in these areas -- if the Applicant has met the Code criterion, it must be awarded the full 2 points. Council is therefore requested to increase Mr. Hunt's and Mr. white's scores in these two (2) subcategories from 1.5 points to 2 points, respectively, and to adjust the resulting P &Z subtotal in the Public Facilities and Services category accordingly. 3. Conclusion: In some GMP scoring categories discre- tion is clearly allowed. In others it is not. The essence of Applicant's challenge is that the P &Z exercised discretion in its scoring in two categories in which the Code specifically prohibits the use of discretion. This constitutes an abuse of discretion by the P &Z, and represents the very reason the Code empowers Council to review and amend P &Z GMP scoring. Council is therefore requested to amend the Applicant's total score to reflect the two (2) subtotal scoring adjustments discussed above. -2- Exhibit A. • C N v O a (+ fD a O d N Z rD m rD 0 Z O N N J O Z D rD 3 o rr a < z o _ D n < < C IA n Q 7 Cf n• O m m m z 7 rD N rn 3 a C CL L/ (D Z n r9 N -1`- £ 0 a a � { Ll 1 n I- ro a O Q (D V .TJ O V m --1 v� t— co m w A M (4 0 m z -i CD v n ip r O N A —I £ O r z N _ a a m r c) m l O 3 — C-) m a z CD c z r n z 3 N N Z t N (p d O Q w ) O a -i m n z Z I M D _ rD w a ro c r (D (D rD t0 � 7 _ to S Vf rD O -ir- b n Z w 3 O m O N CL w O 0 w N N C Q C O O -i rt --A a n r r Exhibit A. • C N v O a (+ fD a O d N Z rD m rD 0 Z O N N J O Z D rD 3 o rr a < z o _ D n < < C IA n Q 7 Cf n• O m m m z 7 rD N rn 3 a C CL L/ (D Z n r9 N -1`- £ 0 a a � { Ll 1 n I- ro a O Q (D V .TJ O V m --1 v� t— co m w A M (4 0 m z -i CD v n ip r O N A —I £ O r z N _ a a m r c) m l O 3 — C-) m a z CD c z r n z 3 N N Z t IICII; IIIhI�(D- I C �wW D N 2- J� 0 a co a 1 m w v O Z C1 O" d � D- O O C- co ` p -� C <_ -) O x O Cl Sa -i m N O Z (D M n O C l< Z r o N m. a n .. O N O 3 > a a -0 o a Z n r o o r Z a rr O r+ f x N -{ v o N rD < v 3 a n GD 0 - a r o C{ n . a r O (D m 0 � o (D �+ z z -1 -a � N N O N x m n n n n r m c m rD m m v cD c> O O m O z � z m v m Ln N N O N n .� i I 3 Ol Ol t0 A IICII; IIIhI�(D- I C �wW D N 2- J� 0 a co a 1 C1 O" d � D- d C- co ` p O O (D O O O (D ('7 O v C O x O Cl Sa -i m N O Z (D M n (D n x O O rD c C l< Z r o 7 D m. a n .. O N O 3 rD t0 -0 o 'o "o Z n .Z] O (D D n Z a rr O r+ f x N -{ o N � d o N rD < 3 a n GD 0 - a r o C{ n . a r (D m 0 m 3 m z (D �+ a r r N x m IICII; IIIhI�(D- I C �wW D N 2- J� 0 a co a 1 rD IICII; IIIhI�(D- I C �wW D N 2- J� 0 a co a 1 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III GRAY A. YOUNG FREDERICK F. PEIRCE 4 r LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 February 16, 1984 Aspen City Council City of Aspen c/o Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office ATTN: Mr. Alan Richman 530 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -2600 A"PEN riI KIN CC) PLrt.NNII G JF: i' E Re: Poss GMP /Ute City Place Extension /Lodge GMP, Appeal Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Bill and Jayne Poss, who have finished second in the growth management allocation scoring for residential proposals for the current year. Because of an appeal by 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt. Lodge) the Posses are in danger of being moved from second in scoring to third, and with the twelve units sought by 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt. Lodge), the Posses would be in danger of not getting their allocation of three units, which would scuttle their whole project, which previously received a commercial allocation. Our purpose in writing is to suggest several approaches that would result in the Posses obtaining the allocations that they otherwise appear to have obtained, so that they may proceed with their relatively small project. Part of this is to request that City Council formally consider, pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(a), allocating eight units from future years' allocations to this year so that the Posses may be able to complete their project. The Posses' project involves three offices, three free market residential units, and six employee units on three vacant lots in the C -1 zone on East Hopkins across from my office building. The Posses intend to reside in one unit and have their office in a commercial unit, and to have the other two free market units similarly serve local residents who would reside in a residential unit, and have an office in the corresponding commercial unit. Six employees will also be housed on site - -so there is a 2 -1, employee -to -free market, housing ratio. v.ar AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Aspen City Council February 16, 1984 Page 2 The Posses have had several applications, all of which so far have been approved. Their application was the first mixed -use application under the GMP, which under the present code required that they compete at different times for commercial and residential allocations. They have received all necessary approvals and allocations to date and the sole remaining item is the allocation for the three free market residential units in the current competition. Absent an allocation granted to another in 1981 (arguably expired) , for this year's competition there are only 10 rather than the normal 39 units available. The competition was close this year between the Poss project (East Hopkins Professional Townhome Complex) for three units, the Gordon property for three free market units and 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt. Lodge) for twelve free market units. Gordon finished first in the competition and thus would receive its allocation of three free market units. If 700 South Galena's appeal is allowed, and we believe that will be discussed at your meeting of February 27, it would then finish in second by about .5 of a point, and would thereafter presumably have to seek your discretionary exercise of future allocations, since there would not be available an allocation from this year sufficient for its twelve units. If The Posses finish number two and the appeal is disallowed, there is sufficient allocation for their three units. But, assuming that the 700 South Galena (Aspen Mt. Lodge) appeal is allowed and they finish second in the scoring, the Posses we formally request that you grant an additional eight units, which is within your discretion and within the percentage allowed under Section 24 -11.3a of the Code, so that each of the three projects can be completed. While we are arguing really only for Bill and Jayne Poss, presumably Aspen Mt. Lodge has to seek similar relief. The competition this year for the residential spaces was particularly close and all three of the projects clearly met the threshold. Current scoring is Gordon, 47.4; Poss (East Hopkins Professional Townhome Project), 46.8; and 700 South Galena, 46.5. Even if 700 South Galena's appeal is allowed, the projects will be very close -- within .6 of a point. The argument in favor of granting the units from future years is, of course, addressed to your discretion. Bill and Jayne have been working on this small project that AUSTIN McGRATH & .JORDAN Aspen City Council February 16, 1984 Page 3 w� would assist them to carry on Bill's architectural practice in Aspen and to reside and remain in Aspen for some time. They have a great deal of costs and fees involved in the project. They believe it is a desirable project from the City's standpoint as well as their own. It involves a unique combination of residential and office use, combined in the C -1 district, not only to provide some employee housing, but to provide their own residence as well. Since the project has received City approvals before, those approvals and the ongoing nature of the project have necessitated additional expenditures. To lose the project by losing an allocation at this late point in time when they otherwise clearly meet the threshold would be extremely unfortunate for them. It is important to note, from the standpoint of your discretion, that this year's allocation is small - -only 10 units instead of the normal 39 because of other deductions from the quota. It is also our position that there are eight additional units available for your discretionary awarding pursuant to Section 24 -11.7 of the Code. Ute City Place, which received an allocation of eight residential units in 1981, failed to obtain a building permit within the two year period required by that section. Recently Ute City Place tabled their extension application under that section before City Council and sought an extension of their building permit from the Board of Appeals, which was granted. In our view, however, only City Council may grant a GMP extension. Section 24 -11.7 specifically states that "the failure to obtain a building permit within a two Year time PBrio on the eeU—restricte portion of the project will cause a of the allotments, both the deed restricted and non -deed restricted, to automatically ex ire" (emphasis added). There is some indication tat administratively the planning office and building department reads a failure to obtain a building permit as not encompassing a situation where an applicant has filed appropriate papers for a building permit but a permit was not issued within the applicable time. Whether that is the situation or not with regard to Ute City Place is in some dispute. In any event, it appears to us that under your code the allocations for those eight units has expired and therefore, rather than granting units from the future, you could discretionarily rule that there are eighteen units available this year since Ute City Place's allocation has expired. AUSTIN Mc GRATH & JORDAN Aspen City Council February 16, 1984 Page 4 r^y It is somewhat hard to make an argument based upon opposing someone else's allocation, such as is the case with regard to Ute City Place. We would rather not see, all things being equal, them lose their allocation if indeed they have proceeded apace. On the other hand, we would also like to see all three of the applicants who finish above the threshold within tenths of points of each other get their allocations. We hope you appreciate that the detailed and overlapping nature of the various City requirements means sometimes that taking food out of one mouth enables another to live. But of course, we'd rather that there be enough food for all. In any event, our specific request is that if the Aspen Lodge appeal is allowed and the Posses are changed from second position to third position, that the City allocate, pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(a), eight additional units from the future use quota to be offset within the next five years as provided in the Code, so that the Posses may complete their project. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By J. Nicnolas mcurath, Jr. JNMjr:lns CC: Mr. Joe Wells (700 South Galena, Aspen Mt. Lodge) John D. LaSalle, Esq. (Attorney for Ute City Place) PROJECT PROFILE - 1983 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION American Century Corporation, Community Savings Association, Alan 1. Applicant: R. Novak_ and Robert Callaway (John Doremus and Joe Wells) 2. Project Name: 700 S. Galena /Aspen Mountain PUD 3. Location: 700 S. Ga 4. Parcel Size: 21,600 s.f. 5. Current Zoning: 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: Contingent upon approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD, otherwise, 21,600 sq. ft. At a 1:1 FAR with a total of 21 bedrooms. 7. Existing Structures: 8. Development Program: 12 unrestricted units in a 21,073 s.f. multi - family structure with 24 bedrooms. 9 two bedroom low- income restricted housing units are provided off -site. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Conceptual PUD /subd ivi sionj Exemption from GMP for employee units Condominiumization. 10. Miscellaneous: Project PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 700 S. Galena RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS 1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 12 points). Date: January 17, 1984 The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. a. Water Service (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the heeds of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating I Comment: Applicant` indicates that if the Aonp_n Mountain Lodge ig not built, the 12" water main and new fire hydrants for Galena G rppt will not hn installed. Therefore, this project will not result in imorovempntg for the service area. The water system is adequate. b. Sewer Service (maximuti 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and, if a public sewage disposal system is to be used. the capacity of the system to service the develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1 IComment: Applicant indicates that if the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not built, there will be no sewer system improvements. The existing system is adequate to serve this project. c. Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 1 Comment: Applicant indicates that no additional storm sewers will be in- stalled without the Lodge project. Sewers currently in the area are adequate. 1'a(c 1 wo Residential GMI' SCoriny d. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major- equipment to an existing station. Rating _2_ Comment: Applicant indicates improvements to service area which would occur without the Lodge development would be limited to an additional fire hydrant. e. Parking Design (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off - street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating 2 Comment: 24 spaces (one ner bedroom] are required by the erode. 40 underg o nd spaces will be provided,__ f. Roads (maximum 2 points). Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Rating —1_ Comment: The road sys;pm s_ - .i=_ adeSiuAte 7a9 handl � ion�l traff' wi thont al rye t�df flC_PattE rllS�,_.slddj, StYPPt mi1Pa mainfPnannP, An „nreaulated pa k!rg_10>~._and. a._slumbeLDf Cttrb rifts will he eliminated thereby reducing traffic conflicts. Subtotal g 2. Quality of Design (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- Indicates an excellent design a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height and location) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2 Comment: The massing, articulation of units, and materials create a desirable transition between the proposed hotel and high quality residential units to the southeast. The scale is compatible with other units in the area. Page Three Residential GMP Scoring b. Site Gesiyn (maxinwoi 3 points). Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy. Rating 3 Comment:. With parki_p undez.ground, 40% of the site will be extensively landscaped and fenced with wrought -iron and stone creating a high quality image. Also, the_anplicant has committed to particiopating in streetscape improvements via the Lodge Improvement District. c. Energy (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating _2 Comment: solar orientation_is maximized h a ina w'11 be asgicf -pri by in- sulation exceeding co de-requirements and state -of= the- ar�"in____;mnM__ece�cy input technology_ However, a MqYi�O_Us�rgd ect P_r4gesed_for this sitp found thdre to be insufficient solar gain. u. Trails (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. Rating 3 Comment: Theft wilt be diz ttv finked? to a m_� __ycle _—�� Z or_padtp c�ri a. h. t,'ail_ which_ circles_ the_ 790 Galana_project_ e. Green Space (maximum 3 points). Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on the project site itself which is usable by the residents of the project and offers relief from the density of the building and surrounding developments. Rating 3 Comment: Code requirements for open space are exceeded by 158. Subtotal 13 3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial locations and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: a. Public Transportation (maximum 3 points). 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from an existing city or county bus route. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of an existing city or county bus route. Rating 3 r® Page Four Residential GMP Scoring b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum 3 points). The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in town. 2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. 3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance of the commer- cial facilities in town. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. Rating 3 Subtotal 6 4. Employee Housing (maximum 40 {,oints). For purposes of this section, one (1) percent of the total development shall be based solely on the ratio of the number of deed restricted bedrooms in the project to the total number of bedrooms in the project, provided, however, that the floor area of the deed restricted space in the development must equal at least fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the non -deed re- stricted portion of the project. For the purpose of this section, a studio shall be considered a three - quarter (3/4) bedroom. a. Low Income (2 points for each 5 percent). Rating 16 Comment: 18 low inc,6me- Lrooms and 24 non - restricted bedrooms. 18 _ 42 (total) 0.428. The floor area of the employee units is 10,710 s.f. or 508 of the 21,073 s.f. of the South Galena project. b. Moderate Income (2 points for each 10 percent). Rating Comment: c. Middle Income (2 points for each 15 percent). Rating Comment: Subtotal 16 l 5. Provisions for Unique Financing (maximum 10 points). Rating 0 Comment: No unique financing was proposed. Page Five Residential GMP Scoring 6. Bonus Points (maximum 7 points). Comment: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 (The threshold is 43.8 points) Points in Categories 5 and 6 TOTAL POINTS Name of P & Z Member: Planning office 43 3 Rating n ,I Exhibit D Doremus &company 608 east hyman avenue • aspen, Colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866 January 17, 1984 Mr. Sunny Vann Director, Aspen Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Sunny: My letter is to clarify certain aspects of our residential GMP application for the 700 South Galena Project. As you know, 700 South Galena is part of a larger PUD submittal currently under review by the City called the Aspen Mountain PUD. As your office has pointed out in its review of 700 South Galena, in order to proceed as presently proposed, the project must continue to be included in the overall PUD. Separating 700 South Galena from the other projects in the PUD would require redesign of the building to bring the project into compliance with the area and bulk requirements of the underlying zone district. Since the project as proposed is therefore linked to the City's review of the overall PUD, we believe that 700 South Galena should be scored by the P&Z on the basis of the commitments contained in our application as written. Specifically, we believe that the commitments to upgrade the water, sewer, and storm drainage systems in the area as contained in our residential application will improve the quality of service in the area and therefore assure that we receive the maximum score of two points in those categories, rather than one point as recommended in your scoring. Further, we believe our clarification will strengthen our ability to obtain the maximum score as indicated in your recommendation for the categories of fire protection, trails, and open space. Mr. Sunny Vann January 17, 1953 Page 2 In the event we subsequently fail to receive approval for other projects in the PUD, which in turn affects our ability to implement these commitments, we are aware that GMP approval for 700 South Galena may be subject to reconsideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission as provided for in Section 24 -11.7 of the Zoning Code. If we can offer further clarification on this matter, please call me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Joseph Wells •' Z N. O_ Q N N_ Y U E m V N H Z J co Z CL O_ 1 � a Z Q W U F O F- W J W l.7 J W M N N i S 0 J ro C, 3 a FQ C) N' C c7 N � J al O Q d L tr Ol al i•- Ol Z- W O a N tl1 N C U W C > > C7 a a co N O\ L ro r U a 1 C v ro c� U) 0 O r N v w d I ro a/ Q •r co >Iro I� r 4 c O l0 • +i a/ 3 L Qi N O al C V H N ro 7 M "1 ro CL m N al J L r L a1 d J F- O co V) N N. Q d Y U O H r co •r 1 � a a) r N N M CL c 0 ro C c N N 01 al O C L N Ol al OI Ol a N tl1 r C U N > > a a L N L L ro Y U a f a) (L) L O U N N Cl L O1 O1 N p1 d w •�+ gg ro ar •r aJ N (U i. a) Y 'O a� U Y y O L L ro O ro N + •r ro O ? •� 3 N N w d W- . v a N N a o c u b a w ea O• H �' VIII J F- O co V) N N. Q d Y U O H r co •r L � a a) r N N M CL c 0 ro C c N N 01 al O C L N Ol al OI Ol a N tl1 r C U N > > a a L N L L ro Y U a f a) (L) L O U N N Cl L O1 O1 N p1 d w •�+ gg ro ar •r aJ N (U i. a) Y 'O a� U Y y O L L ro O ro N + •r ro O ? •� 3 N N w d W- . v a N N a o c u b a w ea O• H J F- O co V) N Q >> Y O H r co •r � a N r N M CL 0 C U 01 • •O aJ O tl1 U L V1 4 4 O a N p1 •�+ ai ro ar aJ C L L r• 2 N W H U' ro ' cr ai c u . v a, N J F- O co V) N i tD N Jj N tti -4 -H b m ri r-I > d FC Q U � ,r 1 1 1 1 ml ml '0I �1 1 1 1 "I of b N W v m r4' Q) m a ro Q ro w4 rt m w 0 N N -P c l4 m ,m �v io rn c of 41 d N N N S4 3 N N E b LO O N c N O rj t0 d ' N CJ M m .� N N CO J N y Ol d L r-• G1 � d W LI W ' N Y J f.. d .J 4J J J .� W u u C) H C N N Q •> N Q G/ O r N W a £ H A C LD Y W ~ N W F-• L O 4N L (D E- - U Q Q Q ~O C L n .L n EE rn U CJ :3 E. 0 c u E N = F- .0 N C U •r. c .. O u F- z - _, E .o o .n �+ •r 2 U ++ d C d �... W N u c c i J c O JQ i ' C 7 N.-•� r0- d4 aJ E a E N O O oT J o• £ O H > > ~ W 1- X d U r . O c n L O M LLJ 7 N d N A W 1O C U d DJ c0 O vet . 0) cc d M ct N 47 d I 4� Z N. O II VIII C� Q N V1 N N N N N N f 1 m •r •r N r-1 Q 6! co J Z � d O L z ¢ ••r • E C) t- W J W Q. S QQ N ' C E 3 d F- K N. C U N � Of Ol O Q d N N N N N N N Z. M M W M to l� •r _O O O1 V Q V E C > > th a v W N CNW C O. I r O 1 '1 ro G Ol '-I ro c� y O O r V W I �I L v Q OD > d 1� r C O ko 4J 3 L Gi O OC d C •r V � N A fh � Q d N N W i N d J N. II VIII C� Q J N. II VIII -III Q N d N N N N N N 1 111111 •r •r I r-1 6! co � L G7 ••r • N y 0 C E O C c N V Of Ol O C N N N N N N N M M M M M to l� •r 6 O O1 Q V E > > to a v L N C O. 4 O E Q L O c4 N fV N M N n N N N N.. Of I0 � CA d C N N N N N 01 N M N M M M Y •O Z U W am V' O A J N. II VIII -III Q d VIII 11 N 1 111111 •r •r I J N. II VIII -III Q d u , •r •r 6! co L G7 ••r • N y 0 C E O C c N V Of Ol O C i d d N O1 •r O1 N N U V N l� •r 6 O O1 Q V E > > to a v L N C O. 4 O E Q L O O 3 >> N U N N n O L Of r Of I0 � CA d C W +, EE 01 •r Q1 N (U L N Y •O Z U W am V' O A G/ ++ r Ip O ? 3 N N W d q' N N a .o a u va J II VIII -III Q T J Q T p •r 6! co V1 ••r y 0 E O C U Of O N O C cu 6 O O1 Q V L to L N C O. 4 O N O a O 3 >> N L 01 r C � CA •10 +, d 01 •r Q1 •r C L L Z N W �•-� V' cr p• N M M .•1 J 4 O C) a] V) N i N M r n ' M rl rl b v 4 co IDI I I I of Q C W � r M ,M V: ID H - Ul ul U) 3 c .� • Lf) d cr M M l0 ri m s O d C •E M M 10 ID dam �T b !h N M M l0 l0 Vim' 01. 1. 1 C N N O J N N Ol d f.. C ' W N , Y J F- a F. a+ J J ..Cr Of to to W N r Q ti C 1 1 •,y W 42 r U O r- . m W A W F Q Z > L c m V) = ca z n-. N N O •r r b N N p •'• LL p p _ N .o u W �- y L W p 3 o 0 L E� L) v 1- p in L n O. o O. EE 1 m c0i E � _ y LD ' O _ d N C U '•C' C O F- F Z � 7 E Fr U .Z-. 0. w- N 4 � O � ~ 2 U N ..C-. d C D_ F Z U .��- 7 N +-Ci L r J C O W C iT+ r E N 'D •D Q •^ �CL �-. .p . a E.0 I J V = E O p ~ W F- X d U O ~ O C M LU •7 N d b W L O m co O v0 A n o- m • O O O d O f D o D rD T D rD v n _ c* n x (D O O n c n D u O O (D n n D o In rD rD W T 0 C-) v x O C a 0 O N o N c m o 0 D T O T ct T n a rr h 9 N N � O O c T W T < CD O n n --1 o a � r .-r w C O 3 fD E9 o' m T w Ii III II_k_ I; m 0 ( l ^L E m ? rn t )y T !. m L w7 cm -i m N 0 m z D r c-� CD 0 x 3 a z D b m m m z --I D r r 1 N x m m -i rD v a rD i U W v O T o -D C < C) O O n -a n r o o r CD + o to 0 O Z T Z —I N C N C) � r c m m m m O O T b 7J 7J N z c i m a m W N N O N —I n o rn 0) A n o- m • O O O d O f D o D rD T D rD v n _ c* n x (D O O n c n D u O O (D n n D o In rD rD W T 0 C-) v x O C a 0 O N o N c m o 0 D T O T ct T n a rr h 9 N N � O O c T W T < CD O n n --1 o a � r .-r w C O 3 fD E9 o' m T w Ii III II_k_ I; m 0 ( l ^L E m ? rn t )y T !. m L w7 cm -i m N 0 m z D r c-� CD 0 x 3 a z D b m m m z --I D r r 1 N x m m -i rD v a rD i U v o i N Q , � c '> 0 Q v 3 CD N 0 V) f O] V) N ro J Z E a O � Z Q W U � O F- W J W Q Q F- O Q 3 a F O C' N C7 Z W D N W C M � L r N 1 i.1 _y S / U F- �>1' Q J > F m CD i �] O] f� ) C d � E I N to N O C C U L N N a N r c U v) v) O c v E > > N N N O O V d) L i. M O t N U) a) L O i M d U In N O L Q) 4- O N In C L- L L E R v O L M C Q) N L N m N L r a 3 O N T N O )O a) +i m O N C L S- F- > 3 N N W d d' Z In W F- O U d rtl W N O 7 d d V a N 4- O' r0 U N O � K d a .i N