HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20080929
THE CITY OF ASPEN
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
5:00 P.M.
/-~
I. Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle)
Conceptual PUD Resolution #74, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle) -Conceptual Planned Unit
Development -Resolution No. 74, Series 2008 -Public Hearing (continued from
August 25~n)
MEETING
DATE: September 29, 2008
SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report outlines the changes to the development proposal since
the August 25~n hearing also included is a comparison between the original proposal and
the current submission.
APPLICANT /OWNER:
PFG Aspen Walk, LLC (404 Park Avenue) and
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (414
Park Circle)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
Randy May, RSMay & Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision and Lot 5, Sunny
Park Subdivision commonly known as 404 Park
Avenue and 414 Park Circle, respectively.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the residential multi-family (R/MF)
zone district with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) overlay. 404 Park Ave. contains 14 free-
market dwelling units while 414 Park Circle
contains 1 I affordable housing dwelling units.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicants are requesting to develop a
residential multi-family building containing
sub-grade parking, 18 affordable housing
units and 14 free-market residential housing
units.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended Conceptual PUD approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council
require the Applicants to revise their plans
prior to a final PUD Application.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the City Council
Conceptual PUD approval.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Since the application was last heard by the City Council, the Applicants have amended the
proposal. At the previous heazing major issues that were raised included: breaking up the
mass/size of the building and looking at creative ways to accommodate pazking. Changes from
the August application to what Council is reviewing include:
A Reduction in Dwelling Units. The proposal now contains a total of thirty-two (32) dwelling
units rather than the thirty-eight (38) previously proposed including six (6) fewer affordable
housing units for a total of eighteen (18). The project still maintains fourteen (14) free market
residential units. The Applicant is also requesting to pay acash-in-lieu payment for some
required affordable housing.
Chanties to the Off-Street PazkinQ. The proposal includes the same twenty-eight (28) parking
spaces for the free-mazket dwelling units. The proposal has reduced the number of parking
spaces from twenty-five (25) to twenty-three (23) for the affordable housing units. The
Applicants are also proposing two electric cars to be available for use by the affordable housing
residents.
A Reduction in Floor Area. In the initial application provided to the Community Development
department, the Applicants requested a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.56:1 (51,040 sq. ft.).
Additional redesign now has an FAR of 1.25:1 or 40,968 square feet. In par[, the reduction has
been accomplished by removing square footage associated with both the free-market and
affordable components of the project. The Applicants are asking for 1.28:1 or 41,951 sq. ft. and
will be requesting this number at the hearing.
Massing Chances. The single structure has been replaced by two structures separated by a
courtyard. The cover to the parking access ramp cover that provided deck space for the
affordable housing units has been removed and an at-grade patio is proposed. Additionally the
building is located further from the shared property line with the Tailings Condominiums
creating a setback from the shared property line of approximately thirty-four (34) feet. There
have also been additional changes to exterior materials.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicants, PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) have requested approval to demolish two existing buildings containing a total of
twenty-five (25) dwelling units (11 affordable housing and 14 free-market dwelling units).
The Applicants would like to redevelop the two (2) lots with two (2) new multi-family buildings
containing eighteen (18) affordable housing units (six studios, six 1-bedrooms, and six 2-
bedrooms) and fourteen (14) free mazket residential dwelling units for a total of thirty-two (32)
units. As shown in Figure 1, the buildings are proposed to contain:
1) A shared sub-grade parking garage for the dwelling units. Vehicular access to the
property and the garage will be from Park Circle on the northern end of the property
adjacent to the Tailings Condominiums. The garage will provide a total of fifty-one
(51) pazking spaces: twenty-three (23) for the affordable housing units and twenty-
eight (28) for the free-mazket residential units.
2) The next level is garden level (partially above and below grade) and contains five (5)
free-market residential units and six (6) affordable housing units.
2
3) The third level is above grade on all sides and contains four (4) free market
residential dwelling units and six (6) affordable housing units.
4) The fourth level contains five (5) free-market residential dwelling units and six (6)
affordable housing units.
Figure 1: Building Section of the Proposal
----'~
_~
- ---'~
-~
- __ __ ~ __ ~-o
-- ~ ~~
__
Win,
Dimensional Requirements:
The existing development includes eleven (11) affordable housing units with a total of 5,624
sq. ft. of net livable area and fourteen (14) free-market residential units with a total of 9,424 sq.
ft. of net livable area. The redevelopment would provide eighteen (18) affordable housing units
at 12,006 sq. ft. of net livable area and fourteen (14) free market units at 29,932 sq. ft. of net
livable area. Table 1, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project.
The highlighted cell is the proposed standard that is requested to exceed permitted requirements
for the underlying zone district.
3
CII9t811A~~ P'r4 _ ~+
~,
~' ~ ~ ~
uremetit ~
3te eitt~ - remen _-
"` - l~i~
q
` ~x w 414 Park ~` .._
~ 4 -- _ =~ p
4 ~
= ~ '
~
' Entire P~rolect
.~ ~
_____
="
` '~ - ~`
.
~
m• a. - -
Minimum 5 Feet 3.33 Feet
Alternative Front (formerly 0) (Corner lots aze required to provide one front yard
Yard Setback meeting the minimum setback and one at 1/3 the
required front yazd setback)
Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yard Setback
Minimum Reaz 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yard Setback
Maximum Height 32 Feet, with the exception of 32 Feet
elevator shafts
Floor Area Ratio 1 25 1 0{40~~~ ~ 1.25:1 or 40,968 sq. ft
(FAR) ~~`S3' ~ ~~'I~S~4~
~~~~'
or-4i,g5i sq ft.-
Regn" "
The proposal presented before the Council is to demolish the existing affordable housing units at
414 Park Circle (Lot 5) and the free-market units at 404 Pazk Ave. (Lot 3). There are two
different types of mitigation provided for the demolition of the existing affordable housing and
free-market residential units. The following two sections aze divided to address each type of
mitigation provided.
Demolition or Renlacement of Affordable Housing:
Any existing affordable housing is required to be replaced when demolition occurs. The number,
size, and type of units can be changed; however, the minimum number of employees previously
housed is required to be housed in the redevelopment. In the original application, the information
provided by the Applicants on the number and type of units calculated to 16.75 employees
housed; however, since then the housing director, Tom McCabe, has noted that the existing type
of units aze different than originally submitted which changes the number of employees housed.
Based upon his research, he has stated that the Smuggler apartments should be considered to
house 17.5 employees per Resolution No.14 (Series of 1991 -Exhibit L). Mr. McCabe has stated
that the official count should be eight (8) studios, one (1) two-bedroom, and two (2) three-
bedroom apartments (Exhibit K). The current land use code calculates the amended mix at 18.25
employees housed rather than 17.5 employees; however, the previously mentioned resolution
states that the building mitigates for 17.5 employees.
The Applicants based their required replacement affordable housing on 16.75 employees housed
and their unit mix (5 studios and 6one-bedrooms) is noted in Exhibit I. This new information
changes the mitigation requirement for the existing affordable housing units and cannot be
accomplished by the unit number and mix outlined by the Applicants. Council will need to
decide if the number of emnloyees to be housed is 17.5 or 18.25.
4
The existing affordable housing units are Category 1, considered "low-income level" in the
Employee Housing Guidelines and will be replaced with a mix of Category 2 (lower moderate-
income level) and Category 4 (middle-income level) units.
Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing:
For approximately twenty-seven years, the City has required a certain amount of affordable
housing to be developed when existing free-market multi-family residential dwelling units are
demolished. The basis for this requirement was the observation that as existing multi-family
units (which had ofren served as housing for local working residents) were demolished and
replaced, the new units no longer housed local working residents. The latest modification to this
requirement occurred as result of the moratorium in 2006 and became effective in June of 2007
(Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007). For afree-market residential multi-family project that is
demolished, a developer has two mitigation options. The redevelopment proposed by the
Applicants is now through the 50% replacement option rather than the 100% replacement
option.
• One option is to replace one hundred percent (100%) of the units (as well as bedrooms
and net livable area) of the previously existing building as Resident Occupied (RO)
affordable housing; the remaining development on the site may be free-market as long as
there is no increase in the number offree-market residential units that previously existed.
• A second option is to replace fifty percent (50%1 of the existing units (as well as
bedrooms and net livable area) of the previously existing building as Category 4
affordable housing; the remaining development on the site may be free-market as long as
there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units that previously existed.
Additional mitigation (for the 50% replacement option) is required when the net livable
area of the free-market component is increased from what previously existed. When
additional area is proposed, thirty percent (30%) of the increased net livable area (which
has a finished floor at or above natural or finished grade) is required to be mitigated as
affordable housing.
The existing free-mazket building contains fourteen (14) free-market residential units, twenty-
five (25) bedrooms and 9,424 sq. ft. of net livable area (as outlined in Table 2). Fifty percent of
the previous amount of units, bedrooms, and net livable azea is required to be developed as
affordable housing: 7 dwelling units, 12.5 bedrooms, and 4,712 sq. ft. of net livable area. The
proposed mix will meet the 50% replacement standazd. The units will be deed restricted a mix of
Category 2 and 4.
5
Table 2: Existing Free-Mazket Residential Component
Unit: Type Existing Units ~msting l~fo: of Bedrooms Existing Net ~.ivable Area
studio 4 4 ?*
1 bedroom 2 2 ?*
2 bedroom 6 12 ?*
3 bedroom 1 3 ?*
4 bedroom 1 4 ?*
Totals 14 25 9,424*
Notes: *Only a total net livable azea was provided by the Applicants for the existing units.
Table 3: Affordable Housine Mitigation for the Free-Market Units
Unit Type Unit Count v Employees Net Livable Bedrooms'
Housed Area
studio 1 1.25 501 1
(1 x 1.25) 1@501
1 bedroom 0 0 0 0
2 bedroom 6 13.5 5,103 12
(6 x 2.25) 3@850
3@851
Totals 8 14.75 5,604 13
Additionally, the Applicants have proposed that the expansion in free-market net livable area
(from the 9,424 sq. fl.) that previously existed, be mitigated by a cash-in-lieu payment rather
than additional on-site (or off-site) affordable housing. An additional 3,019 sq. ft. of net livable
area is required to be provided as affordable housing due to the proposed increase in the size of
the free-market component of the project. The above referenced number is reached by the
following calculation:
29,932 (total free-market net livable azea proposed)
- 9,424 (existing sq. ft. mitigated by proposed on-site 50% Replacement
affordable housing)
-10,442 (garden level's finished floor level is below grade and not counted)
10,066 sq. ft. (30% of 10,066 sq. fr. is required to be developed as affordable housing)
10,066 sq. fl. x .3 = 3,019 sq. ft.
The land use code allows an applicant to request of City Council acash-in-lieu payment for
mitigation required with the expansion of the free-mazket component. The code also allows the
units to be provided on or off site. The Applicants aze requesting to pay acash-in-lieu payment
for the 3,019 sq. ft. required to be provided for affordable housing as a result of the expansion of
the free-mazket units.
6
Staff comment: The City Council will need to determine how many employees are currently housed
in the Smuggler apartments (17.5 or 18.25). Staffrecommends using the existing codified numbers
of employees housed for unit type to calculate the current number of employees housed. The
replacement number could potentially be met with additional reconsideration of the unit count and
type by the Applicants. The affordable housing mitigation required for the existing free market
residential units: 50% replacement of the number of existing units, bedrooms, and net livable area
is currently met.
The Applicants have proposed acash-in-lieu payment for the 3, 019 sq. ft. of net livable area that is
required to be developed as affordable housing due the expansion of the free-market component.
This can only be approved by Council. An option that could be considered is to allow the additional
affordable housing be developed off-site rather than on-site to allow for an overall smaller project
at the subject site.
Additionally, the land use code requires that "each (affordable housing unit be designed such that
the finished floor level of fifty (SO) percent or more of the unit's Net Livable Area is at or above
Natural or Finished Grade whichever is higher. " As shown in the elevations in Exhibit N, part of
the finished floor of the affordable housing units located on the garden will be below Natural or
Finished Grade. As such they will not meet the design standards.
Parking:
With regard to the off-street parking, following is a table to explain the parking requirement for
the project. As mentioned under "Notes" for Table 1, an existing deficit is allowed to be
maintained when a property is redeveloped; however, this deficit is only for the previously
existing number of units and any new units are required to meet the off-street parking standards
unless granted a variation in the requirement. In a PUD, the minimum off-street pazking
requirement can be established as part of the Final PUD. The Applicant proposes a parking
allowance of twenty-three (231 spaces for eighteen (] 8) affordable housing units with two of the
stalls being used for electric cazs.
Table 4 outlines the parking requirements of the project as it is currently designed. Some of the
stalls are proposed in a tandem configuration. The Applicants are proposing to purchase two
electric vehicles to be used by the affordable housing residents. With two (2) parking stalls being
used for the electric vehicles, twenty-one (21) stalls are left for the residents' personal vehicles.
Two (2) parking stalls per free-market unit are proposed.
7
Table 4: Off -Street Parkins Requirements
.ai8tin =lievelo went
.. u' ~= ~.r. .:_
.Unit maces Spaces Unite ~ j~aces „ r
~
Total Re aired. Proxidel Ttital Re uir~ _
+~d. M-
New Dwelling Units 0 0 0 8 9 9 9
(AH
414 Park Circle 11 16 10* 10 15 14 0
(AH) or
10**
404 Park Ave. (FM) 14 22 5* 14 ?*** 28 ?***
or
5**
Notes:
* The existing number of spaces: 10 spaces for 414 Park Circle and 5 spaces for 404 Park Ave
may be maintained when the existing units are redeveloped.
** This lower number is allowed if the existing parking deficit is carried forward.
*** No bedroom counts were provided for the proposed free-market units.
Staff comment: Council requested that the Applicants be more creative with their proposed off-
street parking. Providing electric vehicles for the use of residents is a step forward. Council will
need to determine if approximately one parking space per affordable housing unit is appropriate.
Overall Comparison of Project Changes:
The following information is provided for Council and compares the changes in the project.
Table 5: Affordable Housing Units
~sistmg Formerly -` t
u x~~~ail ` ' - re
F ._
Proposed
Pra~posal ~
B~vveeii=P`srnt~r
and Current
Pro osal
Number of Units 11 24 18 -8
Net Livable Area 5,624 16,127 12,006 -4,121
(sq. ft.)
Table 6: Free-Market Residential Units
STAFF COMMENTS:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
Both lots currently have a PUD overlay on them. Any development (or redevelopment) is
required to be reviewed and approved prior to development being allowed to commence. The
purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in
the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a
greater variety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with
existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the
underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity
to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and
innovation, but does not allow vaziation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants are
requesting to vary the allowable maximum floor area for the site, minimum setbacks and
minimum off-street parking spaces for the affordable housing component of the project.
Specifically, the Applicants are requesting the following dimensional standards be approved for
the project:
1) An Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.28:1 or 41,951 sq. ft. of floor azea rather than the
1.25 or 40,968 sq. ft. permitted for an increase of 983 sq. ft. to raise the garden level
affordable housing units further out of the ground.
2) An Off-Street Parking minimum for the Affordable Housing component of twenty-three
spaces.
Separate from the PUD amendment is the request to provide some of the required affordable
housing as a cash-in-lieu payment.
The intention of Conceptual Review is to discuss the initial threshold issues relating to a lazge
development proposal, and to evaluate the suitability of a development project on a particular
parcel of land. The review enables P&Z, Council, staff, and the public to review proposed land
uses, use mixes, access and infrastructure issues, and other threshold issues at a basic level
before a full fledged development proposal is brought forward. By identifying the issues at
Conceptual Review, the Applicants are able to address them as part of the Final PUD
Application when more specificity in unit counts, site design, azchitecture, and other land use
issues (such as new zoning, growth management, etc.) are addressed. The Conceptual Review
also allows for initial identification of questions and concerns relating to development on any
given parcel.
9
In this case, the Conceptual Review allows P&Z, Council, staff, and the public the opportunity to
identify threshold issues relating to appropriate mass and scale, the appropriate amount of
parking, and give the applicant direction on architectural and design characteristics as well as site
planning.
Staff is supportive of affordable housing development within Aspen and recognizes the
importance and need for it within the community. Staff also recognizes that the Aspen Area
Community Plan notes that "housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the
community" as well as "preserve and enhance our sense of community" with infill projects. It
also states under the Housing section of the AACP that "each potential affordable housing site
has an optimum development potential" and "site planning should be driven by the physical
character of the land and character of the neighborhood." Finally, "Housing policy should
emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community, not just units."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Applicants have reduced the overall size of the project by reducing the number of affordable
housing units provided on site and reducing the overall size of the free-market component. They
have also broken up the mass of the structure and started to get more creative with off-street
parking. These are all steps in the right direction; however, Staff still has concerns about this
PUD proposal.
The project does not currently meet the required on-site affordable housing requirements. The
Applicants do not meet the required number of employees housed (either 17.5 or 18.25) for the
replacement of the existing affordable housing. Additionally, Staff does not support acash-in-
lieu payment for the affordable housing mitigation required by the expansion of the free-market
units. If the additional square footage cannot be accommodated on site, Staff recommends that it
be provided off-site through alternative development or buy-downs.
As noted earlier, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to make a recommendation of
approval for the projects as it is currently presented. Staff, however, recommends the following
changes to the proposal:
• The Smuggler apartment's number of employees housed should be 18.25 employees.
• Cash-in-lieu payment should not be permitted for mitigation required for the expansion in
size of the free-market units; however, off-site location should be considered.
• The proposed affordable housing units should be redesigned to meet the code which does
not allow the garden level apartments.
• Refinement of the design, as presented, should continue.
The resolution included with this is written in the affirmative, approving the Conceptual PUD as
presented. If Council agrees with all of part of staff's previous recommendation, the resolution
will need to be amended accordingly.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District and the Parks
Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been
included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
10
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the
Conceptual PUD for Aspen Walk."
CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria (provided with 8/11/08 and 8/25/08 staff memo)
EXHIBIT B -P&Z Resolution No. 14 (Series of 2008) (provided with 8/11/08 staff memo)
EXHIBIT C - P&Z minutes: April 15, 2008 and May 20, 2008 (provided with 8/11/08
staff memo)
EXHIBIT D -Public comment from Nina Merzbach dated May 15, 2008 and Mike
McCollum/Shael Johnson dated May 20, 2008 (provided with 8/I 1/08 staff memo)
EXHIBIT E -Supplemental Memo dated May 7, 2008 from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
(provided with 8/11/08 staff memo)
EXHIBIT F -Supplemental Renderings updated July 24, 2008 (provided with 8/11/08 staff memo)
EXHIBIT G-Application (provided with 8/11/08 staff memo)
Exhibit H -Memo dated August 14, 2008 from Cindy Christensen (APCHA employee)
(provided with 8/25/08 staff memo)
Exhibit I -Correspondence dated 9/14/08 from Randy May, Aspen Walk project manager
Exhibit J -Survey Results on Current Tenants dated 9/10/08
Exhibit K -Email from Tom McCabe dated 9/11 /08
Exhibit L -Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991
Exhibit M -Memo from the Housing Board dated 9/29/08
Exhibit N -Supplemental Renderings dated 9/19/08
RESOLUTION N0. 74
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ASPEN WALK, COMMONLY
DESCRIBED AS 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
Parce[ ID:
2737-074-04-705
2737-0741-04-701
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by Stan
Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD); and,
WHEREAS, an application was submitted to consider both lots as one site to be
redeveloped with amulti-family structure containing twenty-five (25) affordable housing units
and fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standards meet the
underlying zone district standards of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district with the
exception of Maximum Height, Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Minimum Setback and
Minimum Off-Street Parking; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public
hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and
relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on April 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the
public hearing to May 20, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the
public hearing on Aspen Walk, reviewed the proposed changes of the project and design which
included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and twenty-four (24) affordable housing units
and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application
by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be reviewed by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Community Development Director, Planning and Zoning Commission
and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 11, 2008, the City Council opened a
duly noticed public heazing to consider the project; and,
WHEREAS, on August I1, 2008, the City Council at a public hearing on Aspen Walk,
reviewed the project and design which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and
twenty-four (24) affordable housing units and continued the hearing to August 25, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, at a continued public hearing the City Council
considered the application and upon the applicants' request continued the public hearing to
September 29, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, on September 29`h hearing the Applicants presented an amended
application which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and eighteen (18) affordable
housing units; and,
WHEREAS, at the September 29`h hearing City Council considered the amended
proposal and approved the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application by a to
L-~ vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval, granted by City Council, shall only grant the
ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD and the proposed development is further subject
to Final PUD review as well as additional relevant land use review approval pursuant to the
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the development review standards for Conceptual
PUD have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen City Council approves the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the project known as Aspen Walk, subject to the
conditions listed in Section 1 below.
Section 1:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the
Commission and City Council, allowing for the development of eighteen (18) affordable
housing units and fourteen (14) market rate units. Additionally, the Final PUD may be
submitted with the following dimensional standards as requested in the application:
• The Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 41,951 sq. ft. or a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.28:1.
• The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator
shafts) feet as outlined in the application.
Page 2 of 5
• The Minimum Off-Street Pazking standazd for the affordable housing units shall be
23 spaces for the 18 affordable housing units and the Applicants will provide two
electric vehicles for the use of the residents of the affordable housing.
2. The Final PUD's design shall be in substantial compliance with the conceptual PUD,
inclusive of the proposal of two structures and a shazed underground parking facility.
The Final PUD application shall include:
a. An application for Final PUD application and the proposed development is further
subject to Final PUD review as well as associated land use review approvals pursuant
to the Municipal Code. Apre-application conference with a member of the Community
Development Department is required prior to submitting an application.
b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD.
Section 2: Buildine
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building
permit is submitted. Clazification and code compliance on the shazed property line, exiting from
the basement gazage, exiting from the market rate units, existing from each story, elevator
openings, accessible parking spaces, accessible entries, and the 2003 Efficient Building Program
is required.
Section 3: Engineerine
Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department.
Resolution of the proposed land swap (approximately 618 sq. ft. of public right of way for a
certain amount of private property) shall be resolved prior to Final PUD application. Stonn water
drainage fees may be applicable to this development proposal.
In order to achieve the ROW swap and accomplish the pedestrian connectivity and appropriate
traffic calming for the project, the alignment of Park Ave & Park Circle intersection needs to be
consistent with the Park Avenue Pedestrian and Transportation Plan. This includes shifting the
roadway and installing sidewalk on the west side of Pazk Ave. It also includes a speed table and
associated crosswalk just south of the intersection. A traffic impact analysis will be required for
the project.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
Provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide 50% replacement for the existing free
mazket units. Acash-in-lieu payment is permitted for the 3,019 sq. ft. of affordable housing
mitigation required for the expansion of the free-mazket units. The existing affordable housing
units to be demolished shall be house _ employees.
Section 5: Fire Mitieation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Page 3 of 5
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Section 8: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
Section 9: Exterior Lightine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees
The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of
building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 11: Parks
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. Final
layout of the plantings within the public right-of--way require Park Department approval and
shall meet the comments from the Parks Department during the Development Review Committee
meeting.
Section 12•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 13:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the City Council at a special meeting on September 29, 2008.
Attest:
Page 4 of 5
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Page 5 of 5
~~
September 14, 2008
Jennifer Phelen, Deputy Director
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 south Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Walk- Revised Submittal for Conceptual PUD Review
Dear Jennifer:
Please accept this summary, and the attached revised conceptual plans for the Aspen Walk project, as
our submittal for the public hearing scheduled for September 29th, 2008. As you are aware, the City
Council continued their review of this project from their regular meeting on August 25`", where they
provided specific comments, and direction, related to potential modifications in the overall design of the
project. These comments substantially mirrored the recommendations provided in the staff report for
that meeting, which were the following:
1) Reduce the floor area of the proposal.
2) Reduce the mass of the structure by either developing multiple building on the site or breaking
up the mass of the structure.
3) Provide 100% of the off-street parking required for the affordable housing units.
Members of the Ciry Council articulated their concerns regarding the design of the project by providing
direction to 1) reduce the amount of square footage for both the free market units and the affordable
housing units, 2) be creative in our approach to providing parking that will work for the project, and 3)
reduce the mass and scale of the project.
As we have discussed, our previous project design anticipated meeting the 100% replacement criteria
outlined in the land Use and Development Code. These replacement requirements, along with the
development of adequate free market units to support this amount of replacement, necessitated the
project design which had previously been submitted. In order to adequately address the comments
received from staff and Council, our current project design has been revised, and is designed to meet
the 50% replacement criteria outlined in the Code. The following summary identifies the substantial
design changes in our project, along with, outlining the calculations used in meeting replacement
requirements under the 50% replacement option.
PROJECT MODIFICATION:
1. Reduction of mass and scale
a. Overall project net livable square footage has been reduced by approximately 15%, or 7,482
square feet. this has been done by reducing the number of affordable housing units to 18,
with a reduction of 4,121 sq. ft., and reducing the square footage of the free market units by
3,361 sq. ft. We have kept the number of free market units at 14 and simply reduced the
average size of unit. This substantial reduction in overall square footage has allow us to
explore several options to reduce the mass and scale of the project.
b. The project design has been broken into two, smaller, separate buildings from the previous
design of one larger building. These buildings remain located over one underground parking
structure, however, they are now separated by a courtyard that is a minimum of 20 feet in
width. While there will not be a lot line between these building, this separation maintains
the typical separation between buildings that is seen in this area when adhering to a SO foot
setback from lot lines. This provides for buildings that are more in line with the scale of
buildings that are currently located in the surrounding neighborhood, and the typical
separation that is seen. While separated, we anticipate that the exterior architectural
treatment for both buildings would be very similar in relation to the materials used, and
architectural detailing.
c. Entrances, elevators and stair towers have been recessed towards the middle of the
buildings so as to provide a substantial relief to the facade, thereby breaking up the
horizontal plane of the individual buildings into even smaller elements. These recessed
elements are approximately 15 feet back from the main building facade.
d. Exterior materials for the buildings have been modified to reduce the mass and state of the
stone base and timber elements. The stone based has been modified so as to use a cut
stone file which will maintain the appearance of stone, but reduce the apparent mass of the
buildings. Along with this, we have reduced the size of the timber elements on the upper
portion of the buildings. Additionally, the deck railings have been re-designed so as to
reduce the visual appearance of their size.
e. While we have maintained the ramp to the underground parking garage in the same
location, we have removed the element covering the garage ramp that had been proposed
as a common patio deck for use by the affordable housing residents. Instead, we have
moved the wall of the building on the east side of the property closest to the Tailings units,
further away from the property line, and angled the corner of the building so as to create an
on-grade patio area for use by the affordable housing residents. These changes result in the
new building wall being located approximately 34 feet away from the property line. Our
previous design proposed the closest point of the building to be 15'-6" away from the
property line in this location. As a reference, the existing building wall along this property
line is 37 feet away from the property line.
f. A major portion of the third level element for the free market units has been stepped back
away from the main building wall by approximately 15 feet so as to reduce the visibility of
this element from a pedestrian level.
g. As a part of the reduction in building size, we have also been able to pull the building away
from the setback on the west side of the property so as to no longer encroach into the
setback in this area. While There may still be some benefit to both parties to pursue it, the
land swap that had previously been anticipated, is no longer necessary for our project to
maintain the established setbacks on the property.
2. Floor Area Ratio
As you know, our previous proposal had a Floor Area Ration of 1.42 to 1.00. With the
reduction of the 7,472 square feet of net livable space, and the re-design necessary to break
the project into two separate buildings, our current proposal has a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
to 1.00, meeting the requirements of the underlying RMF zone district. We would like to
explore with staff an alternative design that would allow us to raise the buildings a little
further up out of the ground by approximately SO-12 inches, still meeting our height
requirements, however, resulting in a FAR of 1.28 to 1,00. We feel this would substantially
improve the units located on The garden level, while only being a slight variation from the
underlying zone district. As has been indicated previously, with this review being processed
as a PUD, this would appear to be one of the dimensional variations that maybe considered
by staff and Council.
3. Parking
a. As stated previously, while the building above has been separated into two smaller
buildings, we have maintained the underground parking garage beneath the entire project.
As such, our current design allocates 23 parking spaces for the 18 affordable housing units,
with 2 of these spaces being shown as tandem parking stalls, and 28 parking spaces for the
14 free market units, with 3 of these spaces being shown as tandem parking stalls. While it
is understood that the Code does not recognize the use of tandem parking stalls in meeting
Code requirements, we believe that it is an appropriate application for this project and
would request that the staff and Council consider them in their review of this PUD
application. With consideration of the tandem parking stalls, this would provide an increase
from one stall for each affordable housing unit in our previous design, to 1.25 stalls for each
unit, while maintaining the potential for two parking stalls for each free market unit.
b. As an incentive to affordable housing residents to reduce the dependency on individually
owned vehicles, we are also proposing to provide two, enclosed, heated, electric vehicles as
part of the common area amenities of this project. These vehicles would be owned and
their use managed by the Home Owner Association for the affordable housing units, for use
by the residents.
c. In combination with the increased ratio of parking spaces, and the availability of the
affordable housing residents to have access to two electric vehicles, we believe the parking
provided in this project will adequately service the residents so as to be a substantial
improvement over the substantial parking deficit that exists on the property.
4. Replacement Calculations
a. As previously outlined, while the number of units, size, and type of units can be changed,
the existing number of 16.75 employees housed on the 414 Park Circle properly must be
replace when demolition occurs. Our current design proposes to accommodate this same
number of employees by allocating 6 of the one bedroom AH units to accommodate 10.50
employees (6 x 1.75), and 5 of the AH studio units to accommodate 6,25 employees (5 x
1.25), for a total of 16.75 employees.
b. Under the 50% replacement option, the existing 14 units, 25 bedrooms, and 9,424 square
feet making up the 404 Park Ave. units, requires that 7 units, 12.50 bedrooms and 4,712
square feet, be developed as part of this project. To meet this, we are allocating 6 two
bedroom units and one studio unit of affordable housing in the project. This gives the
project 7 units, 13 bedrooms, and 5,634 square feet (6 x 850=5100 and 1 x 534=534).
c. The above calculations are accommodated by the current affordable housing unit mix of 6
studios, 6 one bedrooms, and 6 two bedroom units.
d. Additionally, under the 50 replacement option, additiona! free market, net livable square
footage is required to be mitigated by providing a method of mitigation for 30% of the
additional net livable area, above what exists on the property, whose floor level is above
grade. Our current design has an increase of 9,624 square feet that falls into this category.
This is arrived at by the following: total free market net livable=29,932, deduct 9,242 for the
existing, deduct 10,884 for below grade = 9,624 square feet of additional. 30% of this total
would is 2,887 square feet to provide as mitigation. Based on the previous reviews, this
additional square footage cannot be accommodated in this project and still accomplish the
goals outlined by both staff and Council. With the support of APCHA, we are proposing to
meet the mitigation required for the additional free market square footage via the cash-in-
lieu options outlined in the Code. It is our understanding from the information received
from staff the amount for providing mitigation under this option, assuming it is approved by
the City Council, would be the following: 2,887 sq. ft. divided by 400 sq. ft. per employee
7.22 employees, wRh this number of employees being multiplied by the per employee
amount outlined in the APCHA Guidelines for a Category 4 ($130,213.00), giving the project
a total for the cash-in-lieu method of mitigation of $940,137.86. The Category 4 amount is
utilized due the Cade requirement of providing Category 4 as mitigation for expansion of
existing free market square footage.
5. ExistingTena~
a. As part of a joint effort, a survey has been distributed to all of the existing tenants for both
the 404 Park Ave. and 414 Park Circle properties, in an attempt to gain more information as
to what might be required to help accommodate these residents this project moves
forward. As of now, we have received a total of 11 responses, with the results provided in
an attachment to this summary. An effort is being made to contact those that have not
responded, and any updated results of the survey will be presented at the hearing.
6. Affordable Housing, Sales vs. Rentals
a. In further discussions with the APCHA Board, they have identified the need for "for sate"
affordable housing units, as a higher priority than rental units. It would appear from the
results of the survey of existing tenants, this need is reflected in the responses received to
date.
As outlined in the above information, this project has undergone substantial modifications in an
effort to address the concerns of staff and City Council. We remain committed to this project
and continue to believe it presents substantial benefits to APCHA with the addition of new
affordable housing units to the existing inventory, while providing an upgrade to the existing
structures on both properties.
Please wntact me to discuss any questions that might arise during your review of our
documents, so that we may address them prior to the hearing.
Thank you for your continued help on this project.
Sincerely,
~~ ~ ~~
Randy 5. May
Project Manager
~x{1ig~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing Board
FROM: Cindy Christensen
THRU: Tom McCabe
DATE: September IQ 2008
RE: SURVEYRESULTS FOR JOINT VENTURE
ISSUE: City Council had requested information on the current tenants of 404 Pazk Avenue and
414 Pazk Circle.
BACKGROUND: The attached survey was hand delivered (placed on doors) last week to the
tenants of 404 Pazk Avenue and 414 Pazk Circle. The cover letter asked for return of the surveys by
the end of September 8, 2008. Six surveys were received from the 404 Park Avenue (free-mazket
side) and five from the 414 Pazk Circle (Smuggler Mountain Apartment side). The results are stated
below;
404 Pazk Avenue:
1. How long have you been a working resident in Pitkin County?
Over 4 years
1 to 4 years
5 (with one person noting over 25 years}
1
2. Do not own property or a home elsewhere.
No
Yes
5
1
3. How many months do you live full-time in Aspen?
At least 10 months out of the yeaz. 6
4. Do you currently live in deed-restricted housing?
No (>
5. How many persons are in your household?
t
18 years or older (2 people)
Two children under age 12
Children under 12 years old
One
3
3
2
3
6. What is your current rent or your share of the unit's rent?
Current rent is $1,725 per month
$800+ per month
$800+ per month
Prefer not to answer
$400 to $800 per month
$400 to $800 per month
7. If the building you currently reside in is redeveloped, would you be interested in a unit in the
new building?
Yes 6
8. Is it important to own the unit you live in?
Yes
9. What size unit best fits your needs?
One bedroom 2
Two-bedroom 2
Two-, Three-, or larger unit 2
10. Please rank how important the following features are to you when considering where to live.
Don't want
Very Important Important Indifferent this feature
Number of bedrooms 3 2 1
Location 3 3
Parking 2 3 1
Energy efficient appliances
General design/construcL 2 3 1
Storage 1 4 1
Price 4 2
Proximity to transit stop 3 2 1
Deck/outdoor living space 3 3
2
11. How many cars do you own?
None 1
One 2
Two 3
12. If one pazking spot is provided with your unit, how willing would you be to pay extra for
additional spots?
I would be very interested. I
I would be somewhat interested. 3
I would be willing to give my spot up. I
One spot is enough for me. 1
13. Should community or privacy take precedence in the design of Housing in Aspen?
Community and neighborly interaction 4
Privacy I
Not answer 1
14. Would you be willing to provide financial information to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority?
Yes
6
15. Would you like to receive additional information on the possible redevelopment of these
properties?
I would like help in the relocation process. $
I would like to be qualified for affordable housing. $
I would like to seethe plans for the new building. 5
I would like to receive pricing information. 6
414 Pazk Circle:
1. How long have you been a working resident in Pitkin County?
Ovar 4 yeazs $
1 to 4 years
2. Do not own property or a home elsewhere.
No 4
3
Yes 1*
*Undeveloped property.
3. How many months do you live full-time in Aspen?
At least 10 months out of the yeaz. 5
4. Do you currently live in deed-restricted housing?
Yes 5
5. How many persons aze in your household?
Children under 12 years
Children 12-18 years old
Persons 18 years older 1 2 1 1 1
6. What is your current rent or your share of the unit's rent?
$200 - $400 per month 4
$400 - $800 per month 1
7. If the building you currently reside in is redeveloped, would you be interested in a unit in the
new building?
Yes 5
8. Is it important to own the unit you live in?
Yes 4
No answer 1
9. What size unit best fits your needs?
One bedroom 4
Two-bedroom 1
Two-, Three-, or larger unit
Notation was made that the one-bedroom should at least by 600 square feet.
10. Please rank how important the following features are to you when considering where to live.
Don't want
4
Very Important Important
Number of bedrooms 3 2
Location 5
Pazking 3 1
Energy efficient appliances
General design/construct 4 1
Storage 4 1
Price 5
Proximity to transit stop 3 2
Deck/outdoorliving space 4 1
11. How many cars do you own?
None 2
One 1
Two 1 *
Three 1 **
Indifferent this feature
1
*One of the cars is a work caz
* *Owns a business and keeps equipment and vehicle downvalley
12. If one pazking spot is provided with your unit, how willing would you be to pay extra for
additional spots?
I would be very interested. 1
I would be somewhat interested. 1
One spot is enough for me. 3
13. Should community or privacy take precedence in the design of Housing in Aspen?
Community and neighborly interaction 4
Privacy 2*
*At least great insulation for sound proofing.
One person marked both.
14. Would you be willing to provide financial information to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority?
Yes
5
15. Would you like to receive additional information on the possible redevelopment of these
properties?
5
I would like help is the relocation process.
I would like to be qualified for affordable housing.
I would like to seethe plans for the new building.
I would like to receive pricing infom~ation.
Jennifer Phelan ~" `~g~
From: Tom McCabe
nt: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:35 AM
"'i o: Housing_Board; Housing
Cc: Chris Bendon; Jennifer Phelan
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi everyone,
Over the years I have heard the amount and type of apartments at the Smuggler Apartments represented as different
mixes of bedroom counts. Some of the bedrooms are apparently so small that not everyone agrees they should be
"counted" as bedrooms.
Due to AspenWalk and the need for us to know what the official count is for mitigation, I looked back at some records
and found the following which I want us to "officially° represent as the count.
These apartments are represented on record as 8 studios, 1 two bedroom, and 2 three bedroom apartments that
mitigate for 17.5 employees in a deal done in 1991. I have passed the information to our partners at AspenWalk and
with this email have passed it onto Com Dev.
If the subject comes up, use the recorded count above as the official one.
Thank you.
\ fiom McCabe,
Housing Director
~~ g ~~`~ r
RESOLUTION N0. 14
(Series of 1991)
A RE6OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING HOUSING MITIGATION FOR THE 1990 GMP APPLICATION FOR 409
EAST HOPKINS, THE NORTH SO FEET OF LOTS D AND E AND LOT F, BLOCK
ee.
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990, the City Council of the City
C~
~,
of Aspen awarded commercinl/office development allotments for
1990 pursuant to Resolution No. 58 (Series of 1990) under the
growth management quota system ae set forth in Article B of
Chapter 24 oP the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the development project known as 409 East Hopkins
was awarded 1990 commercial/office development allotments in
addition to an excess allotment from the 1991 commercial/office
growth management development quota; and
WHEREAS, the development applicant for 409 Eaet Hopkins must
mitigate affordable housing Por 20.4 employees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council initially rejected the affordable
housing mitigation proposal as offered by the developer of the
409 East Hopkins project and was provided direction by the City
Council as to other preferred methods of mitigation as authorised
under Section 8-109 (J) oP Chapter 24 oP the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has now requested that the City
Council approve an affordable housing mitigation method by which
it shall deliver to Pitkin County, on behalf oP the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority, an existing apartment building at 414
Park ircle known as the Smuggler Mountain Apartments, mitigating
__~
17.5 mployees and further requesting that it not be required to
mitiga a for the remaining 2.9 employees; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority, at their March 13, 1991
, Board meeting, voted to recommend to City Council the acceptance
of the applicants mitigation proposal conditioned upon the
payment by the applicant of $25,000 to the Aspen Pitkin Housing
Authority for improvements to the Smuggler Mountnin Apartments
and the County~e acceptance of ownership of same; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners have
entered into a contract whereby the County shall accept and
obtain ownership of the Smuggler Mountain Apartment building;
attd
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners have
entered into a Management Agreement with the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority for the management oP the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments; and
` WHEREAS, the development applicant has also proposed to deed
restrict 409 Eaet Hopkins in favor of the City and, thus reduce
its affordable housing mitigation requirements by prohibiting the
use of or establishment on the premises of any food service or
restaurant operation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the development
applicant's housing mitigation proposal to be fair and equitable
and consistent with the mitigation requirements contained in
Section 8-109 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY,THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that in accordance with Section S-
109(J) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Coda, the following afford-
able housing mitigation method as proposed by the development
applicant for 409 Eaet Hopkins is hereby approved and adopted as
follows:
1. The applicant shall convey or cause to be conveyed the
Smuggler Mountain Apartment building located at 414 Park Circle,
Aspen Colorado, to Pitkin County by April 29, 1991, thereby
mitigating 17.5 employees.
2. If the County does not take title of 414 Park Circle
(Smugglet Mountain Apartments) by April 29, 1991, than this
housing mitigation approval is null and void.
3. The applicant shall pny $25,000 to the Housing
Authority for improvements to the smuggler Mountain Apartments on
or before April 29, 1991.
4. The County shall execute ceea rastriccions,
satisfactory to the Housing Authority, Yor the apartments thereby
deed restricting them to the APCHA low income, Category 1 housing
guidelines.
5. The applicant shall execute a deed restriction in a
form satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority restricting the 409 East Hopkins devel-
opment in Favor of the City so as to permanently prohibit the
utilization of any net leasable square Footage for use as a food
service establishment or restaurant. The deed restriction shall
reduces the appllcation'e original requirement of 4 employees per
a 1000 square £eet to 3.7 employees per 1000 square feet thus
reducing the applicant's total housing mitigation by 1.7
employees.
6. The deed restriction, as specified in paragraph 5
paragraph 5 above, is removed with the consent of the City Council
v of the City of Aspen and a restaurant or food service establishment
is proposed and approved for the premises, the applicant shall be
required to mitigate for affordable housing in according with the
Affordable Housing mitigation guidelines then in effect.
7. The deed restrictions as identified herein shall be
executed prior to and as a condition of the issuance of any
building permit(s) for the 409 East Hopkins development
Dated: , 1991.
William L. skirl ng, M
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held ~~/~-u~t C-1tJ o7`J , 1991.
~~~~Z~~
Rathryn Kochity Cler
above, will be removed by the City Council of the City of Aspen
if a restaurant or food service establishment is proposed Por the
premises, at which time the applicant shall be required to
mitigate for affordable housing in accordance with the Affordable
Housing mitigation guidelines than in effect.
7. The deed restrictions as identified herein shall be
executed prior to and ae a condition of the issuance of any
building permit(s) for the 409 East Hopkins development.
Dated: ~~~ ~~ , 1991.
_ William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting city Clerk do
certify that the foregoing ie a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City,~~C7ouncil,, ,of I the City of Aspen,
- Colorado, at a meeting held / PLII/t-(...~../ ~ 5 1991.
~~~~
Kathryn Roch, City Clerk
F
~~~~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: city Council
FROM: Housing Board
DATE: September 29, 2008
RE: ASPENWALK/APCHA JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
As the primary advocate of the creation and oversight of Aspen and Pitkin County's workforce
housing programs, the Housing Authority Boazd of Directors has worked diligently with our
AspenWalk partners to bring proposals to the City Council that optimize the provision of new
workforce housing consistent with all the oft stated and published realizations by the City Council,
that housing is among the top, if not the top, need of this community.
Among the concerns that Council has expressed about this proposal and which, thus far, has
resulted in a loss of six units for workers, there remain two that the APCHA Board would like to
formally express positions on.
First, the APCHA Board is entirely satisfied with the design of the few garden level units in this
proposal, and is satisfied that each unit has walk-out access and abundant natural light that conform
to the Housing Board's desires to provide a pleasant place to live. Technical machinations about
how to count above and below grade square footages are not what the board is focused on, livability
is.
Second, the APCHA Board has surveyed the existing tenants to confirm., overwhelmingly, that the
expressed need by the tenants is for ownership units. Also, the provision of ownership units as a
way to vest our workforce in the community is a strongly expressed desire of the current Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Additionally, the Board feels very strongly that mixing rental and for sale units in the same project
is undesirable and most always results in disadvantages for the renters and conflict between the
renters and owners that result in a less than enjoyable living environment for all. The Internet is
replete with examples of such difficulties and the lawsuits that result from such mixing.
Sheri Sanzone
Marcia Goshom
Kristen Sabel
Ron Erickson
Jennifer Hall
ti 21918 OaVllOlO,'N3dSV _'~ w ~ ~ ~a ~ °
a < ~ ~ ~a?~ ~ s;~rn-siav'anvmtve~e a:}' um 3m ~
~_ ~ ~' l~8~ ~~~5 ~ sirn-NOtswaens~tavaxrENns w ° ~~ ~~ k
~a a~m~ ~ ~
~a? ~ ~~ °~~,~ ~~d ~ ~IIbM N3dSb ;~~'`°` ~ 00a~d~cga~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
a
i
~ §S
~ 6
3 's o S ~
m ~_gg
~ 6 ~ m
0 ° SS~~
~, ~° A W ~~
~ ~a ^° ® 66gg9§L
w
~ _ ~ W Y Y C
c .. ~ ~ 'a w a w ~ &
a 7'2 2'2d°d 3 8898 ~ e
S °~ [eyy F
~ ~ 84 g ~ ~ ~ L
x u ~I i I 9~~1 I ~ ~ ~ 1~1:~~ g1 Yf~ ~1 ~ 1~1 3 '~ p ~ ~ 9~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ i f °
,~~: 444# 411544i~~€stt€s9 f1~1R49i~~~lx~la~#g~~ iSl~illl 9 t : ~§ ~t 9 i ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- ,.. 11,1i sft1si4119394s14 &i€4Mr°f1.lt.estir ......a:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "
:, `. , t
g ~ II g ~ ~
~y qq Seeeeeeeeseei
r~ e - ~~E~~l~~g#a~~~~f€t $!#~#~~$#i~FQ1QQQQQQQQEQQ!#~1~ B
' 1i'~reE4EE4eE4t1€EE 1tz4:oalE14ng11a,5,6S1a,#t.44dr.E rN3 i ~o ~ g ~ ~ 9 ~ $ C
~~ ~ 4 ~~ ~,~#4 i 110~~ ~ ~~0 ~~
.~.
s # ~ in t14939t4Q1t~4t1i91a1.41Esa444 11Q4t31s1~ sEtiJa4e
#
~'~tw1
~' Rg ~ O N ~~ F
,~ ; ~ 9 ~ ggfR11S 9 9 ~ ?°
~ o E[ (~#~~~~~~~ 11l~#~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~td~dit~gdfli ~E~~~ ~ a !~ ~ o p:
J m Q e1
1 t 1
J Y '
O ia13 SeeEar arfc~Qfs€e4F~~3l~ecse~aEc,2~ta@~€~€: ~ t ~~~! ~~) ,I
°; ~ Q5 Qf Q ~Qt31# ~1131Q ~
t rW ~ w ~ s ~~~ ~6~1 ~4~i1s~ 311#ot $l~U~~ ~ ~ ~ €~ § 1
N x U c41. .Ene4.E .°ml. eseQ € a i
C~~g" 4 i{ e(i 4 yf Q[~¢qa a~yfi biz Fe` y 3gBg J~~ ~i~ p~#~3~ ~ F9$ ~ ~ ~ e°' ~~ E ~ i4 ~~
~W, ~553~~5~~53 }~~~lIS~~PlEFE4F~~2~1;1~@a~E~~I~ ~i~4 ~~isii§
~ ~ ~ 335.4a5s4i€ sEl9ffe139!!s€x@R[lh4R@4eF191i 3141195{4x1 ~ ~ ° ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 3
A~ _ I ~ ~
,~ 3~~~ ~ r
~ ~~
~~"'~ `y ; :. 1~9it~~3d~![ ~~~;!;~i1~~~ss flg~~i~~f X13 ~~~ ~$$~3 ~- ~- ~'
~ : _. 777t~ FEs4E 949s1E43 4:95x41 Ef4R14s€s 9.r 4ss i7ae5 1
'` '.~ EglE~pi # qt~ fj~ ~@@gSgQg 1. ie 7 n 3 f~SE
_,:~fi, m ~ Ye~l~iaE71 jx1#y~#~E19i@@Qf p1~#5 { yQe~t9g~iyiyYl 11f1pi@ ~~
' ~ #~ , l14~711~~~1ii!!E1!!1lEfl~~3xx4~~'9~l~xpxl°l!t ~i717~~~
Q4s5Q15411r4s4e;~~E1+5?sa4f§4E6~sEf€.(:Q 1Qi Sidii9e
o ll
Wyo 3R 5stB5E.3a336etatEaa'eae5xi5itt esE3stl.3t1sai8dea64if 0- e $ s ~ ~ 1 Q ~ °d i ~ 5 E Q o
`~ 3 W
-6 t ~ g ,, e i 2 4 p g 0
§3 °aa ~ ~a~i ~ d~s~xi~'i~ ~~ e~ ~ § ~x7 t~T~ ad i ~P! tQ3 ax9e ' 0~$ s
~ ~~o ~~~a ~ ~ ~8'~189i l~~3~51#~iat~%%~~~#~slS~~~~{~~~~~~1~IE~~~IIx3 °' I I ~ I I~ I I I I~ I '~ 1 ~
z
0 ~ ~ rc a ~ e 3113131 ffS653°4452fi..5E 1t5a83Eta6#x~x33#3 ixa65Eef1stl s
Q~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~~ g m ~ ~i~x ~~ sxx b m x ~ ~ ~ I~ I ~ 3 3 ~~ W
' ~
[ 3° 3 4 ! x E d
w•5 0 f~ Y U
z ~ 3 ~ ~spaa~ 9 ~~~i~~~~~~~~~~i~+~~~i~~~~~i'~ii8~l~~~~~ ~99~ta3~~~
g § a ~ ~~ k°~~#~ ~2Fk9 m 151 15r5111df81f5id 4 x 5 x x 1Y4x3tx4tf 3e1RfsE94ai33 t ;
p ~m~ ~ ~ ~ _~~~~~~~~~ ~~Ii~~1111~I~~ ~
~5~ I
a~ ~Z .~~~~ ~~~
-~ ~ ~
140~d0~® ~,oo
~ ofi~
C ~ $
N ~ ~ ~ o0
N J
:'l
fi~~
e;g
€'s
§$
~~
:s~
~ ..
" ~ %~-~ ~
,.s
~€a
~'' ~~~
fi~
~ €.
~b.r° fiaa
•v+5'e
~~m"~ .~
~£ax" ~ss
~ Ft E~y6
~"r° ~~~~
s~
Asa a"-8 e=~~`
y ~.m- csF
uorsrarp4nS u~xO~ Xs~d ~'uvnS
t X07
~P
~~~
roe
P ~
0~0
pe°°~~
~ y.
~ o ~~
~~ Q
D
OlO7'N3dSY
ZL918 ~~ `'''i'
E 1A'1__ ~g(~YaJ{7Nbd~Nf1+ a~,,, ~'e,_
~1~M N3dsd ,.
21918 OO`IbOIOJ'N3dSV w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
Z s z
~ rc ~^R• ~ Elpl-SIdV 3AVJRIVd'P "~~'~^ u N a
zi 1 ~'^ ~a^~ SLO7-NOIS1NC19fK7MVd ANNf1S nt?. w ~ 6~ ~~ ~ }.' }' ~"
I~{te u- ZuZ_
pY(~ ~ EP~d ~~yCR ~F:.~s ~9H 0N~0a0 103
\~ u, &&&RR N_RFFiAA~ ~ ~IIdM N3dSb .I. aa~~~ucg~~~~UUUUU~~ ~
Li
1
~~
~~~
~.~~
,,9z ~ i
~ o
i
v ~~ ~1
\ ~9~~
y
~ -1
I~
~~ ~ ~~
el
~\
~~
I
~~~
,~
. ,~~
i'~ ~>
i
I
m
1
I I
~~
L1
~~
q o
^~
y
}
za
a=
a<
w~
~~
W
~~
~~
I
y°~ ; I~'a
eQ
R
~~~~ ~ I ~
i
~ ^~ ~I i
,A
_- - ---
y~9 W~
e°
~1
\~1
~\ ~ ~
~
<= <
S
m ~
~~
~ !
~~~~~
&8~ ~s~
~a` q
~ Z1918 OUV~lOIOJ'N3dSV
ElAI'SldV 3AV 71LVd8
SLOI'NOKWO8f1S JIMVd ANNf7S
+ ~
8 w w
~ ~ ~m uN
~ ~
S ~
~ a ~
O
~
M
~ ~
~a< ~e Z
~~ ~
6
~~~~ #
~~ ¢
~~~d ~ ~IIbM N3dSb r`
- ~
ma a~ ~ u~
~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~ ~ $
~ Q
~
--------- ------~ o
c~-
------_
---
-- -
3
,
I _
-- -
_ --------------~- --~ I
1
I I
x~l
~~
ff ~ ~g
I
d 3 ~ ~ I
I
I I
I I
AAA ___ _ ____ _ ,
~ ~
~ I
If
_
3 ___~
_J r •
~J ~~ °
~
I I
I
I
I I
I
~
I
~
~ s
-- _
~
I I
I
~~ I , I t
I 3
I
.. 3
~ o I
1
,I
I
I ~
.~
~ 3
~'~ ~
' I ~
I
I
3
________ _
~___________
__-f ~~ ~ ;
`
`
I I
I
I
I I
I
s
3
~
~_____ `
3 `~
~ 3 I
1
III f
~
~
I
I
3 1
3 j ~
I I I
~ I
I
~ ~ ~ I I
J
I
i
I I
-1a ~
i~ ~ _
'~~- a
k' ~-_-~- 3
-------__ I
1
U
J
~~ ~
~ -- ...
o
~ 3
I
I
,
lll
a
I I
& ~
3
~ ~,~~\ a
~ ~ f
I
i
~
~.
l~m
~ __
____ I
I I
I I ~ ~
~, ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~
I
~ I
I I ~~~
~ q~,
_ __~ _ ~ ~ ~
______,~~_ _______________
~"'" I ~
~
~~
I I I
~
~ I
L X
d'P -_ - ~
I
I I VV
I ~
I I
- --
c I
. -__ ~ I
~...\~~ I fl I
~I
~
~ ~ ~
9
I
1 I
~~~ ~ ~ I
I
I I
` ~
~~ I
~ 9~~ ~ ~~ ~
~
1
~ /
II
O i~`YJ
\ ~ '
'
\\ \
\
\ a~ ~
~' ';s I I
8
~ I
~
\ \
` r~-1
;
s';
it -
~`j s
V r I
I
\ ~
~
\
` \
I
I
\ o o
`
~ \
~~E 1
I
I
~ ~ I I
I
N
I
I
I
I
s
\\ I
.\
. \ \ I I
I
~
\
\\ \ II I S
I
\~
`~
zd ~ ~
~~~' ~"a
'
a= ZL9L8 OOVM
strn-s~v OIOJ'N3dSV
anvrava~e
-:
~ J >~ ~
~ ~'
~
~
~
<_ ~ ~
8 ~
+^ sioi-raswaens~avau~ttans ~
~
~
~D~ a~
~~~ ~ ~6
~._ ~
~Ilt/M
N3dS~d z''# ~®¢~maS3~ae
~~
~
~
~
~
am' ~ ~
~ ~
d ~ ~ ~
~
s c ~
_ __ o
- -; ~ _ _ _-
~
I ,",
..
"
~~ - - ~ I
L1'1 I I
~
I
u
u
~~
~
~9g85
I
4
I
~® I
~5 I
I e~$
8 ~ ..__
+
~ ec 9. 4
" 3
°°;'S ~1
4 I
~
'I ag e~ 6848 ~~ I ~
~
v
I it~ ~ l7 th ZCi JLL ~~LL~{{
~i ¢~S
9 ~" I ~
~
1
m
W
g
h i I
I I N~
Nu ~LL Or: ri
~
' N
I ~('~ Z(y j
I
C
Rl (
3
J
Q
~
I ~
j ~a
~
c
_g
I
m 5. ~
~
~
(..
> LLV ~~ N~
`" ^~
y LLB 9 ~
111
C'
-____ J„~%~4 U
,.$ II
m
~ 9 _ ~_ _ _ IU
J
I
I ~ 9
~"e
m
c~ I ~ -
9 _
~~~ n1
e
~
4'
® y
~
P r ~D
~ i
i i
I I ~ =
-_ _-
+ I
J 1
~ I
c4 e ~
s I
...
~ I
ipt PBI
§~ 'A
I
I
c4
H0
~g~
i
~
1 ~
e '
E..
~
~ 9
,:,
s
!
~e8
~
~ 3
~ ~ ¢ I ~
I
I
~ a
I
~
~
a
~
~ \ ~ I I
~ g
c
\\ ~
21918 pQVNOl07'N3dSV «? w ~ ~_ a ~ o~ N
i { „~a 3 ~e a~as~~ ~ ElO~~yJy'3nV7MVd4 _,_:.s~ ~~ ,~
Za < ~ ~ $~ a1a^ einl-NpISINO9f1S )ILVd ANNflS ±,r ~ ~ ~ ~- ~- ~ ~, }'
~a~ ~~ °~~a~ ~~~~ ~ ~IIdM N3dSd ~'° ~ maa~~ -~~u. ~~ ~ g
0m m ~ m m
.III ~, _ ,
~ .
. ~- -
_ ~- - _
e
-i _ _ ~ -
I
~I I
I I ~ ~' ~ ~
I I
I ~
I I
~T I I
I I
I II
11
\1^
\ ~
~ ~
I I
I
I
I
I I 9
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
~ mo I I
\ ~ I I
\ \
\\
3
W~®
~e
J m
W
~D
~I
V~ `8~ ~° ~~ `f V - I I
I I re qp~y $gr ~'
~
9 I I~
~y9
^^ ~
F3
S N
I N LL ~ LL ~
LL
5
9 (
(~~7
~"
I p
c
-ta U
I ~~n ~
=r as a~
I Qv v U
I I OLL W(~(''yy
I ~~ zap
l7N ~
I I c0
~0 ~M
-
i I
I
~ _
$
~
_
V% ~Q~ LLr
,~_ e
a ~ A _ _ -
~ ~ ~ ~
E ZL9L8 OOVlIOIOJ N3dSV w ~ ~ (V7
°' 2 u ~ ~~~~ k SlOI'NdSWO6fIS JONd ANNfK a
r"s ~ ~~ ~~ l' !
k' u~ $
a ~ ~.
~~ - ~~8 ~
~a~ ~ ~~~:~ ~~~ ~ ~IIdM N3dS~d =`:''` eta ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
"
___- - - ~
9
-~
_ _
-1L
A A A ~ III
~9ffflg r ,n ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~T I ~
~~
~ Nr ~
O" w" ~-~
~'(~ Z ~ ~
'J aG
~r a~ ~w
Qv ~ V'^
I ~I
I i
OLL wLL
~~ Z~
LL~ LL~
J
r--
$ i III ~\
I l
I I ~ ~
d
1
y
C
I
\ "9
~ \
w
~a
~:
~"e
_! m
V I \~
- ~~
Z ~ ~ A ~r ~S~g ZL9 LH W~OO1O~,1„QJ• • W J J .y~~ ~ ~ Y O Z
<= ni $-~ ~;i~ EJAI-SldV 3AV 7111Vd@ l u u ei ~ ~ S
~,S ~i$ p ~R~ 5101'NOISWO6fK )IM+d MIN(1S o 3Zm ~ZVm y • i
bW ~ ~z o'(~~& ~ ~~ y B••~m6V~ Vy~ ~ y
~ ~ ~~ .~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~IIb~M N3dSb~ ~ ~ e~~s~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
I
z
d
J
a0
~-
~~
,,W
V~Q
~~~ q
ST ql
~~8 ~,~~~
1
w~
i~.
~y
la
~a
}1
~~p7'N3d5M
ZL9L8 ~~ a~ ~
E 1o1N ' ~gn ip1Yd /.NN
~' N3asa
~1~dM
8~
J~
~yl~.
i
I
1
1
1
l
I
_-
1
~~~ 11
I,~'~. 1,
~~ - ~~ l
l'
~,
l'
:~~
,~
gb ~
r ~ 1
~ 1
I
,,
,`
I
I
~~
I
1
I ,
~~~ ~~~~
T
~~~~ o ~~
~~
~~~~~.~
~,
q I 4
~ A vY @lh ~~. t c~
,~
,~
,t
1\
1'
~a
~~.
4
1
I
1
I
1
1
I,
I
~,
~.
~~
~y
r~
~~
~,~
~~
~~,
I
1
I
ti
~`
~~
~~
I,
I,
I
i ~
1
~ ~ ~_
s~~ ~~
~
- ZL918 OOVMOIOJ'N3dSV
-
-
~
W W J _l q ~ rc
~ Q°
Y
~~
1
~-
m~
~~ ~ ~_
~S
~
~~BR ~ sio
i
swvanv~ave9
s~ni-NO~nwans~ava.wNns
~ ~r o ~'~ ~'~
~
a z ppp
p
6 is mama,
m
m.~m u, g
Z
~
~ ~ ~~ ~~~:~ ~ :,~ ~ ~IIb~M N3dSd ~
e
ed~~~C~~~~~~~
~
I
I
I
99 I
~J° 2~ I ~P
x ~~_ ~A I
~
~I~
~I ~ I II {I
S
I d$$
I
I
7 I
~ I I
~
~l
,I yII r
jlr~~ 1 ~iy
~
i
I P.S.
1 I
I I
I
L. ~~- ~ Ili 'I ~ ~j ]]]7L~ ~!
I ICJ ~ I ~ i~ ~, ~
~
I ~I
I II 1 ~I
I
I I
I
I
. II
I x~T+-
~N~
3--
-
__a -
~ LI ~ I
III IILI. I " "~ A I 1
t
I
~
~
i
I
I I I
j
^Fri
i
~ I I I I 1
I
~ ii ~ J
J i I
` ~ i '~ 7
I~ '' ~
I
I
y -
T~
I II I ~Ii II ~ ~~ ~ I
I
,,
II I
I ~1 1 I
~
~
I i
~ III I.
~
,
~ ~I
~ ~
V ~I
I
I
~
~ ~
I
I
~
III ~ ~
~rf ..
~
~ III I ~I
If,
I I
-
~_
I r .r'i ~
I
~ ~
~
~~fi I_~
~
li'
I ~II~ ~
I
- ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~_~ I
I
~ I ,
~I I ,
~ I I ,~ III .~_ I
II
I I
~ I l I ~ ~ ~; I
I ~, IIII ~~~ - I
, I I F y I
~ ~_
I
I ~j ~! I C I I I t ~-
O
--- I i _. Q ~ I
_.I
I I
>
I W ~ ~_ _
-
r
I
Q
III I~
I J
W
~..
I_'i it .Yi
i
i I
I
= j I _
i w
it fl ~
I I ~ ~ I ~ ~. I ~
I I I I
~ I tr=1 I
tl ''~ I
~I o
I ~ III
~ ' ~
~ I
Ili i i ~ _~
II~~
Y
~
I --.
'I it ~ ;_-i
li II ' _
Y
K
III ~ i~ i i ~-~' I I
I ~ o I,, I
I
1 m o
i
I
I I I 1 I
~
~ ~
~ W 0 i 'I ii II I ~ 1 '~
I
~I
II W fl
I
I I I
_.I
r
~
~ I ~~
W
~ II
I
,
I
,' rll III I
I ~\
L~
~
~ ~~ I I
1 I ~ ~ ~
I 19~i ~ Ijl II II ;II, rrt-~
I
I
I
I ~
I ~ ~
L --
~ -'i I
~
J
I ~ I S
I,
I it ~
.III -
II
I
~ ~
~:
y
_~ __ =
~
A ~ I
III
~
I
V
~
I --i I I
II
I
I,
I
III
I L I ~ _~~ I
~
I L
~
I, I I I I
i~
t
"
_ I I I I
I 1
.1-
o-
I
~
=
I
~ I -~il ii- I i l I -_-!*~ I
~„
'
I
I
I I I ~I
~I
i
-
I
,
III ~ i
l
~
} ,
w
I
i I ' ~i
' I -
-~
~
8 ~
~
~
~ ~
~~
I
~, y
x
,
y
l
L
I +C
!~
~~
i
I_ I Ir 11~~ ~~
t-~~
' r
~s~~1
yyy~
I r
1 ~
SPY tN
I
a
C
I I l ~r IiLI F -a ~nl
r
~ I
i i_ ~~~~> III
i~l r I I
II
~I~i~
I
~ ~
I
r~
I ul,;_
~~ I
'
III
' i~ I
,._.
~
,
I I I ~ i
I_-~--~ I-w, _~
I - r - '1
~
1
I
_,
I
V
I I I
I I
I
I
I
p9 99
~IAo Z a X q aIB
~ ~ ~ ~Io
~ °c
~
Y
4
~'a~~~ ~'~ga'~
q r
r i-~
7,~d$Y 1
O'er y
L~9£~~ ~~aaNµns
~'- N~a~
~Q ~k ~ ~ ~'
~~ ~ ~'~
1
~~
1 '
1
1
l 1 ~'
11
1' 4
1 I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'I
z i
~ ~
~~ g
==
~ ~
a-~ ZL918 OOV~10107'N3dSV
-
~
w u u ~
~
M
zd
~~ ~~ 8
$
~8~
~ ~
~~~ s~evanvxavaro
c~.rn
sLOi-r+oiswaens~avaurr~ns ~~ w ~~ ~~ ~ f)
L <
~a~ ~
~ +
~~~~a
~~~~
~
~II~dM N3dSb
~
~~aa~~~c~~~~~~~ ~
$( 3
QQ
~ .
Q
~ m m
r ai m ~ 6 b
~
~ ~
~
~ ..~~11YIIyyg
' IS dlll ~
~ jl~
I IC
I
1
I
t
I ~
I
I I ~I I ~~~~ I. .~
I '
I
I I I ~I I
~ '.
'
~ ~1
I
_
" Q
I
I
I
I I
~ __
I
,
I
I I I
i I
I I~ i I I ~,
eel ~, _
___
I
t _
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
II
I
II I
j I I
I'
"- _ I 1 ~
~
{
d
-, I
I I
I
I
I
~I
I
4 I
J I
I
I
~ I
I
I
~
I 1 I y
I.
c
I 1 I~
I I ~
~
~ ~
~
~
' ',,
'~
W
J
I
{ I ~I Ili I I III I W
J)
___ I
_- N
I ~ ~
1 I I I i II I w
I I
I I
I I ~
~
W
J
I
~ m
I I. - - I I~ j
~ I Q o
p _I
-{ Ii
I
I~ i ~ II
I
~___
- _
__ J
_
1
_ j
I W
Q A
I ~~ I ~
y~ _
- -' I ~~
I
I nM
K
. _. I
y I L _
I
I I I
I
11y ~ Z
1
I I I I I I
W
I
F-
N
Q
W
' z
O
I N
W
J
- I Q o
l
n
.
a- ~
oll
I ~~
¢~
M
^~ ~
~
_
E
~~asv
21918~_~~ae~
~s ~ s~?~Qensx~r+a aru+
~ ~ ~a. N3dSd
~~$~~ i~~~ {} ~1ldM
Pq g S
a~~.~ 5 :~
S
p
i!
L 0
iV
n
I ~ ~~ Q ~
i~
i j
: 1 ~
~ ~~=~ ~5
~gf~ ~ Z19t8 OO1RIOl07'N3dSV
rn-s~ev3nv~ava~e
s~ w J
u ~
~
~
~
~,
~F~ ~ .
SlOI-NOISIAIOBM JIYVd NJNl1S
r o ~~ ~ ~
./^~
Z A
~Ilb'M N3dSb'
~" ~~11 I~ u~
yy W
9R
~ A ~
a ~ ~0 ~ ~$
~
I ~I ~
I ~ I
I I I I '-
~~
~
~
I I ~
~
+
I ~ ~ ~:::: ' I
Oa A is OR
3 3 3
a 3 3 I ~F a Wq ~~. ~~
q ~I ~fl 1 31 wl
31
~I
I I I 1
~ I I
m 1 I I I
.o-R ~R
I
pm v
x, ~,
~ ~a ~a
J ~
~
~
¢
w~ wr
~
o
~a, W
~
~
~ Z
~ 3 3
3 i 3
3 z
~
I ~I I
1 ~" I +-
~ I ~
z z
I
(]e oe
-1 = i J =
~ ~ ( m @
$ 3
b
~
I
~ 3 3 3
I
3 3
I
b I
I
I I
¢ a
a Y
¢
a
a
a m I
3
t
~ ~ I I t
I 1 I I
I I
I
~_
S
i
I i
a
c
I I i ~I wl ~
~e ~~
~~ ~~ ~0
E$ t
W~. g~. ~~
s