The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.533 W Smuggler St.A10-97 (2)2735-124-10-001 A10-97 533 W. Smuggler Design Review 56&04\luci 9-9 I S R l.. --7f1gf.'g#.5.M--I--Il-*... --1.'I"....-I'*3: r- -â€¢,NFsÂ·Met-~ "i|".8,-A-~-4 -AW ~IrÂ·Â·(50*y Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee 075-0 6Â° Â·Â·63860-043 HPC -63885-268 Public Right-of-Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit -MR01] Use Tax 1 0000-67100-383 Park Dedication 15000-63050-480 AH Commercial 15000-63065-482 AH Residential County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit -63805-034 Flat Fee -63820-037 Zoning -63825 -038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer 00115-63340-163 City Engineer 62023-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health 00113-63815-036 County Clerk 00113-638 12-2]2 Wildlife Officer Sales: 00113-63830-039 County Code -69000-i 45 Copy Fees Other Total Â£15 0~c~ Name'fl (/N1 -f-*8 /92Â· 1 Cp Re c -4- S Date: 9~/80 Check: 9377 Address: 54 n P /-j \/#i,~ri,1(<-74 Â·2<Â·10[ejectÂ·. / ' 2 ease No- A /0 - 97 Phone: : C: / I No. of Copies CAS] )AD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O SPEN DATE RECEIVED: 2/18/97 CASE # A 10-97 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Mitch Haas PARCEL ID # 2735-124-10-001 PROJECT NAME: 533 W. Smuggler Design Review Project Address: same APPLICANT: Patrice Kahn Address/Phone: P.O. Box 7665, Aspen 81612 OWNER: same Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: Janver Derrington Address/Phone: 520 E. Hyman Ave. 925-5590 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450. # APPS RECEIVED ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval 11$414=ill 11/2 Iddith -fi Ai~A 'I ' - 1.-0 14- Ae< PRAC Wi~ EYes E]No CC C]Yes C]No , CC (2nd reading) E]Yes [3No REFERRALS: U City Attorney U Aspen Fire Marshal U CDOT U City Engineer (DRC) El City Water U ACSD Il Zoning U City Electric U Holy Cross Electric El Housing El Clean Air Board U Rocky Mtn Natural Gas U Environmental Health m Open Space Board E Aspen School District El Parks U Other: U Other: DATE REFERRED: INITMLS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinance(liSE!29Â® # 0-99- tZ*Meb Date: 9<149-9- Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: ju~l,Imp INITIALS: /0'fpr- ROUTE TO: DESIGN REVIEW A'EALS COMMITTEE MARCH 27. 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with members Gilbert Sanchez and Roger Moyer present. Members Bob Blaich and Dave Johnston were excused and Jake Vickery was absent. Other staff present were David Hoefer and Chris Bendon. 533 WEST SMUGGLER David Hoefer received notice and the Board has jurisdiction to proceed. Hoefer explained to the applicant a quorum consists of 3 members and a full board is 5. He said regardless of the size of the board at least 3 votes must be in favor of the appeal. The applicant may wish to continue the meeting until there is a full board. Steve Buettow disclosed a conversation with Janver Derrington regarding the comments from the last meeting. Hoefer stated from a legal perspective, there is no problem. MOTION: Roger Moyer moved to continue the 533 West Smuggler Design Review Appeals Committee Meeting to April 10, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 3-1. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 1 DESIGN REVIEW ......~'EALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10. 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow opened the regular meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Dave Johnston and Jake Vickery present. Other staff present were Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Julie Ann Woods. MINUTES MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the minutes of February 27,1997. Dave Johnston second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 533 WEST SMUGGLER Gilbert Sanchez stepped down. Mitch Haas, staff, explained this Committee found that the applicant did not comply with the "inflection" standard on 1/27/97. He said the applicant has made a number of revisions and staff felt these changes still have not complied with the "inflection" standard. The applicant is requesting a variance based upon the design more effectively addressing the issue or problem given standard or provision. In staff's opinion, the "inflection" standard is intended to respond to the issue of new construction over-shadowing or dwarfing adjacent, existing structures by not respecting (responding) to the design, mass and scaled closest to the proposed building. Haas said this Committee has to decide if the new design more effectively addresses this issue than would a re- design. LIe summarized the changes made were the location of the entire structure moved as far to the West side (5' side yard) as possible while maintaining the minimum setback requirements. He continued that this shift enabled an extension of the front porch to wrap around the side to the portions of the adjacent structure. Staff finds it still doesn't comply with the "inflection" standard because the standard requires the one story element be 12' in depth from the side and this is 8' including the over-hang. Charles Cunniff, Architect, stated they were trying to comply with the "spirit" of the ordinance without necessarily being able to technically comply with it 100Â°/0. He said on the average there is more of the "inflection" than needs to be applied and they did not want to mirror what is across the way. He said the standard calls for a dimension and did not want to convolute the design just to comply with the ordinance. 1 DESIGN REVIEW Ill EALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10.1997 Bob Blaich asked if the sketch on the far right was the original proposal. Cunniffe explained his client wanted a "french country design" and were trying to pick up some of the shapes o f the house next to it. He said the house next door had far less "inflection" with a variance to the over-hang and set back line. Blaich asked i f the client was going to occupy this house. Cunniffe replied that it was not certain at this time. Haas explained that the variance had site specific constraints. Blaich said the scale of the house and the one on the corner was what was of concern. He stated the encroachment of this other house could be more than was expected. Cunniffe commented that the model depicted the context with what could be done. He said if someone else develops the parcel, that was what could happen within the code. Blaich said the block has a certain amount of integrity (in terms of architecture). He noted the "french country" goes against the neighborhood especially with the materials used. Roger Moyer asked Cunniffe to describe the neighborhood. Cunniffe said it was an eclectic neighborhood with very modern to Victorians inappropriately added onto, to low design content buildings. Moyer asked Amy Amidon if part of the design application process included a written statement of how their design worked within the neighborhood. Aniidon answered that was in Ordinance 35 which was dropped when Ordinance 30 was adopted. Jake Vickery questioned the number of feet from the other house. Derrington said it varied. Richie Cohen, public, stated that his interest in this project varied, at one time owned the house that was being demolished and lived in that neighborhood for years. He said there was a variety of properties all around this house which reflect the character and part of the charm of the West End. Cohen did not think the intention of Ordinance 30 was to create a series of look a like Victorians or modern houses. His interest was also that of a Realtor as part ofthis transaction. He asked for approval of the variance. Vickery stated the design met the intent of the Ordinance. The applicant moved the house as far as he could to the opposite side as the existing one story house. He said there was a generous side yard set back and 1 6'/2 feet to the property line from the 2 story element of this house. Vickery noted that he did not have a problem with this project. 2 DESIGN REVIEW lii i~EALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10. 1997 Haas noted that staff was mandated to work within the "letter of the standards" and the Committee was to act within the variance criteria. (He personally agreed the intent was there). He said the variance criteria does not ask ifthe intent is being made. IIaas stated there were 3 criteria: 1. the design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to, 2. deals with site specific restraints and 3. the hardship. Cunniffe stated there was sufficient set back. Vickery supported the variance based upon criteria #1. Johnston appreciated the porch with a solution that worked. He said the model may not be accurate, but understood the intent. Blaich asked the purpose o f the tower. Derrington answered that it was a stair tower with a powder room. Cunniffe said the tower was a feature to keep it Victorian. Blaich noted the variance was not the problem, but felt the house would look bigger built, than the model with the materials used which will dominate the neighborhood. IIe said the issue was not the design which was a dis- service to the neighborhood because they have done other houses that work in the neighborhood. Cunniffe commented they would continue to work with materials. Buettow noted that they have tried to be in compliance with the constraints. Moyer felt the house was charming but it did not belong in Aspen. He stated that the Committee would place itself in a very dangerous position voting in favor of the project. Moyer commented that Ordinance 30 came about for this very house but maybe Ordinance 30 is not strong enough to deal with houses like this and the McCoy houses. He said ifthis were a HPC project, Cunniffe has addressed the one element, but what about the one long wall on the other side. Buettow replied that it certainly brings back the appropriateness of materials and shapes which reflect the guidelines of Ordinance 35. Cunniffe said they might want to consider victorian sandstone and rather than stucco from a different country. Moyer thought that every person building a home in Aspen should consider how their house will work in the context of the area. He gave an example of a man who came to town, spent $8,000. on a an architect and was turned down by HPC for his project. Moyer continued that he took the man on a tour of the town and the man said he had made a big mistake and three years later still has not built on his lot. He said it was an amazing experience for him. Cunniffe noted that it was not neo-victorian. Moyer said that would not happen. 3 DESIGN REVIEW A. :EALS COMMITTEE APRIL 10. 1997 Blaich noted that people who come and live in their own houses have more tender loving care put into them and the house fits into the neighborhood. He said the spec houses are the ones that do not fit into the neighborhood and sit vacant with for sale signs. Cunniffe invited the Committee to look at the house after it was built and realize that they listened to the Committee' s comments and the house then got better. Buettow commented that Cunniffe's other houses in the area had been done well. MOTION: Jake Vickery moved for the Design Review Appeals Committee to approve the request for a variance from the infection standard (Section 26.58.040B) for 533 West Smuggler finding that the design currently proposed meets standard #1 the design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to and deal with site specific restraints of the inflection issue. Dave Johnston second. Steve Buettow, Jake Vickery, Bob Blaich and Dave Johnston for, Roger Moyer against. APPROVED 4-1. Vickery discussed the vagueness of the infection standard. Blaich noted that there should be serious consideration ofthe reworking of Ordinance 30. Julie Ann Woods replied that they have heard that loud and clear on Ordinance 30. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk A work session on Water Place Housing foloowed the DRAC meeting. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner 11~ /7 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directof- -gs]/ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~~AJ_, RE: 533 West Smuggler Street, Appeal of "Inflection" Standard (26.58.040(E)) DATE: March 27, 1997 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "lf an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board f-DRACJ pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board." The applicant is requesting a variance from the "Inflection" standard (described below) in order to allow the proposed design of a single-family dwelling at 533 West Smuggler Street. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." APPLICANT: Patrice Kahn, represented by Janver Derrington of Charles Cunniffe Architects. BACKGROUND: Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a residential unit at 533 West Smuggler Street for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Inflection" standard, Section 26.58.040(E), which reads as follows: If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1) story in heightfor a distance of more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. It is the Planning Director's interpretation that this standard requires that, in those areas where the house to the east of 533 W. Smuggler is one (1) story, all adjacent portions of the house proposed for 533 W. Smuggler must also be one (1) story for a distance of at least twelve (12) feet inward from that portion of the proposed structure closest to the shared lot line toward the opposite lot line. On February 27,1997 the DRAC found that the design, as then proposed, did not comply with standard 26.58.040(E), and must be redesigned to comply with said standard. Since then, the applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed design. Staff continues to find that the revised design does not comply with the "Inflection" standard; however, the applicant has requested that the DRAG review the revisions and consider granting a variance. Before taking into account the design revisions, the standard under which the requested variance is sought must be pointed out. The applicant is seeking a variance from the "Residential Design Standards" pursuant to a finding by the DRAC that the proposed design "more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to." In staff's opinion, the "Inflection" standard is intended to respond to the issue of new construction overshadowing and dwarfing adjacent, existing structures by not respecting or responding to, through sensitive design, the mass and scale of the portions of the existing structure that are closest to the proposed building. In considering the variance request, the DRAC must decide whether or not the proposed design more effectively addresses this issue than would a redesign that meets the standard. The Proposal The applicant has, as mentioned above, made a number of revisions to the proposed design since the February 27, 1997 DRAC hearing. Most notably, the applicant has shifted the location of the proposed structure as far to the west as possible while still complying with the minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. The lot adjacent to the proposed five (5) foot setback is vacant. This shift enabled an extension of the one-story porch on the front (north elevation) of the house so that it wraps around to the east side of the house and provides a one-story element adjacent to the one-story portions of the existing structure on the adjoining lot. This porch would, it should be noted, be set back ten (10) feet from the shared property line. In effect, the closest two-story element of the proposed structure would be approximately twenty-seven (27) feet away from the one-story portions of the existing structure on the adjoining lot. The reason that this revised design still does not comply with the "Inflection" standard is the fact that the one-story element (porch) of the proposed structure would have a depth ofjust six and one-half (6.5) feet, as opposed to the required twelve (12) feet. The applicant points out the fact that the distance from the easternmost portion of the one-story porch to the westernmost portion of the porch is some twenty-six (26) feet. However, as staff notes, the one-story element of the proposed building closest to the adjacent structure has a width of only six and one-half (6.5) feet. The twenty-six (26) foot width is arrived at by wrapping a one-story element of six and one-half (6.5) feet in width around a two-story section of the structure. Although granting of a variance based on the circumstances of one specific situation should not be construed as a precedent for granting similar variances (i.e., based on same design standard or variance criterion) in other situations with differing circumstances, the applicant has requested that a particular case involving a variance from the "Inflection" criterion be brought to the attention of the DRAC. The particular case of interest was located at 923 East Hyman Avenue (Schrager House). In 923 East Hyman case, the applicant was granted a variance permitting a one-story element of seven (7) feet in width for the length of its entire east facade. While this project was granted a variance from the inflection standard, the variance was granted "for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints," namely, a setback requirement established in the contract to purchase the property. The lot now in question, 533 West Smuggler Street, does not contain any unusual site specific constraints that require a variance for reasons of fairness. Rather, the site in question has inherently more flexibility than most lots because both it and the adjacent property to the west are vacant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC review the proposed design and site circumstances in order to determine whether the proposed design "more effectively addresses the issues" that the inflection standard responds to than would a redesign that meets the standard. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package {fxlt'BIL.Al rn March 17,1997 1--1 ARCHITECTURE Design Review Appeals Committee PLANNING ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERIORS City of Aspen, Colorado re: Re-submission for appeal review residence for 533 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: Following your review and rejection of our previous proposal as not conforming to the side yard Inflection Standard of Ordinance 30 on February 27,1997, we have revised our proposal. We took your suggestion to study extending the one story porch element back around the stair tower and revised our sketches and the study model to show it to the City Planning staff. We had a meeting with them on March 7 and discussed the merits of our proposal. We have pushed the house to the West as far as possible, which allows the porch roof to be 8 ft. deep at the stair tower and still fit inside the required East side yard setback. The staff commented that this does not technically meet the minimum 12 ft. depth in their interpretation of the Inflection Standard. However, we pointed out that along the street frontage elevation, the width of the porch is now 27.75 ft., narrows to 8 ft. and then widens to 11 ft. at the point where it is parallel with the back edge of the one story garage of the adjoining house. Thus, the average width (depth) of the proposed one story element adjoining the neighbor's house is equal to or greater than the minimum 12 ft. standard. We believe this is in compliance with the spirit and intent of the side yard inflection standard, if not the letter of the technical interpretation by staff and is deserving of a variance by DRAG. Particularly in view of the precedent set by your having granted a variance for the residence at 923 East Hyman in August of 1996. In that proposal, the street elevation one story porch element was interrupted by a two story element toward the front of the lot which extends 17 ft. back before a 4 ft. deep stepped- down one story roof element is introduced which then extends on back to a one story element, which is a roof deck over the garage, similar to our proposal. The two story element at 923 East Hyman is only 9ft. away from the adjoining one story element on the lot to the East as compared to our proposal of 15 ft. at the narrowest point which is 56 ft. back from the front (street) property line. At the closest point to the street, the two houses in our proposal are 50.5 ft. apart. We believe this is much more gentle on the "streetscape" than the one which you granted a variance to last August. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â· 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 GA In consideration of the above, we respectfully request that you grant a variance to the side yard Inflection Standard for 533 West Smuggler at your next meeting on March 27,1997. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, O-GÂ«- Ja0er Derrington, AIA Binclosures DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 377 SILVERLODE DRIVE 533 WEST SMUGGLER.............................................................................................................................................3 926 EAST DURANT -BRASS BEn MINUTES...................................Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·7 8 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with members Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, and Dave Johnston present. Members Bob Blaich and Jake Vickery were excused. Other staff present were David Hoefer, Sara Thomas, Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Julie Ann Woods. 377 SILVERLODE DRIVE David Hoe fer asked the applicant if the notice was posted 5 days prior to the hearing. David Panico said it was noticed. Hoefer expressed the committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Sara Thomas, staff, stated the applicant requested a waiver from the Ordinance 30 Standard to the garage setback requirement. She explained this was an uphill lot and visibility from the street is very minimal. David Panico, architect for the applicant (Alice Brien), stated the lots were minimally buildable lots in this subdivision. He said the access points were tortured at the downhill side of any of the grades. Panico said there would probably be other requests similar to this one because ofthe steep slopes. He noted for the garage to meet the intent of Ordinance 30 a vast amount of excavation in the front yard would be necessary to get the driveway low enough to gain access to it. This would also create a "pit" in the front yard and the residence was about half o f the allowable FAR. Roger Moyer asked i f this was part o f Williams Ranch and was a photo available for the approach to the site. Panico said it was part of the Williams Ranch and supplied a photo. Moyer questioned the only approach to the house being underneath. He asked if the garage was protruding from the house or was there a portion o f the house above it. Panico said the portion was above it and the site plan shows the one story garage with a deck on top. He said the entry is on top of the garage. Moyer said the application did not seem sufficient. Gilbert Sanchez asked why the garage was located in the center of the lot because it seems like a large amount of excavation. Panico said he was trying to break the 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 house into two separate elements because the house has no yard and this was a way to create an exterior private area. Moyer asked the commission and staff how these Williams Ranch lots would be handled since there would be more ofthe requests to this committee. Panico explained the design is almost dictated by the restraints of the site and the top of the roof would be all that would be seen from the street. Dave Johnston said this clearly does not meet Ordinance 30 but questioned the appropriateness of the height on the site. Steve Buettow asked i f the driveway already existed. Panico said it was already cut in as part of the plat. Buettow stated there were three elements, two of which were very nice and one garage protrusion. He noted the garage being seen first, was one o f the reasons that Ordinance 30 came about. Panico noted the garage was turned at an angle so it is not the first thing that you see but rather the main element of the residence is seen. Sanchez agreed with Johnston about the impact not being significant. He said the excavation in front of the bedroom window seemed unnecessary because it was the only flat area on the site. Buettow said the presence o f the street scape with a dominant garage in front is for this committee to decide to approve or not. Panico commented there were extenuating circumstances regarding this house and Williams Ranch with a convoluted evolution of Ordinance 30. Sara Thomas explained the free-market portion of Williams Ranch is not subject to Ordinance 30 as it applies to floor area, however it is subject as far as the design review standards. Unfortunately this was not clarified when David Panico brought in a permit for the lot next door and it went through without having the design review standards applied to it. Thomas brought this to Panico's attention, but he was three days away from submission. Panico stated that the person has to be in the residence by October 1. MOTION: Dave Johnston recommended the Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that the garage must be setback ten feet from the facade of the house for the property located 377 SilverLode Drive, finding that criteria "c" has been met. Gilbert Sanchez second. Roger Moyer, Dave Johnston, Gilbert Sanchez for, Steve Buettow against. MOTION APPROVED 3-1. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 533 WEST SMUGGLER Gilbert Sanchez stepped down on this issue. David Hoefer stated the applicant supplied notice which complied with the jurisdictional requirements of this committee and may proceed. Mitch Haas, staff, explained there was an oversight in the packet and the elevations included are incorrect and the revisions are replaced in the new handout. He said the "inflection standard" of Ordinance 30 which deals with one story elements of an existing structure and the element of a proposed adjacent structure. Staff felt that all elements o f the proposed structure next door to an existing one story structure should also be one story for a distance of 12' toward the opposite lot line. Haas stated if a standard is up for interpretation, it would be best to refer to how that standard has been applied in the past. He referenced Jan Derrington's model to show where the one and two story elements are used. He pointed out the portion of the house (model) that does not meet that standard. Janver Derrington, architect for applicant, stated there was at least one project that was approved. He said a duplex at 1225 Snowbunny Lane went through after Ordinance 30 was adopted. He commented that the interpretation seems to have evolved since then. Derrington expressed the open area and two story element (a stair tower) with steep pitched roofs which is encouraged by Ordinance 30. He noted the footprint of the house is much smaller than the one next door that occupies three lots. He said that since the lot has huge spruce trees, the house is in scale in that setting. He felt that the application of the standard complied with the reasonable intent. Moyer asked for photos of the entire block. Derrington supplied the photos with the opposite side of the street also. He said there were 4 lots in this Carrish Subdivision. Moyer said the verticality o f the house is still unique to that block. so, at present it is out of character and even with a new house on the corner. Buettow asked i f the corner lot house would be demolished. Derrington stated that it would and since the lot had such huge trees on it, the new structure would probably be vertical also. Buettow asked if they were at the maximum height with this house. Derrington replied that they were slightly below the maximum height 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 with the cupola. Haas stated the real intent of this standard was so that a new house did not "loom" over the adj acent house by size and scale. Johnston said from the model the entry looked very small with the two masses on either side. he commented that the mass down-played the entry. Amy Amidon gave background on Ordinance 30. She said that this was one of the very few provisions (especially in the West End) to protect Victorians from becoming overwhelmed by the new construction. She stated that the interpretation should not be changed across the board for this standard. Moyer responded that this is the reason we have Ordinance 30 and it does not meet the standard. Buettow said that when Ordinance 30 was originally discussed the "inflection" referred to street scape. MOTION: Roger Moyer moved that the Design Review Appeals Committee find the design as proposed does not comply with standard 26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code and must be redesigned to comply with said standard. Dave Johnston second. Dave Johnston and Roger Moyer voted to approve and Steve Buettow denied. MOTION, APPROVED TO DENY 2-1. Moyer asked Amidon i f the applicant could come up with a solution without a complete re-design. Amidon answered i f the applicant could find one of the three standards to comply with then maybe a compromise could be achieved. Haas stated they would work with the applicant. Derrington asked if the roof element was the reasonable approach because he was not sure what was expected. Johnston did not mean it as a directive, but was open to any discussion. Moyer noted it was up to the applicant and not to this committee to re-design. Derrington asked i f the element had to be inward 12' all the way from the side yard to the back of the garage area. Buettow believed that was the motion. Moyer said that the project should take on the character o f the block and asked i f the material to be used was stucco. Derrington affirmed. Moyer felt stucco did not lend itself to the character o f Aspen. Amidon said that i f they met with staff, and the re-design met the standard, the applicant would not have to come before this committee again. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED Steve Buettow stepped down. David Hoefer asked for the posting o f the notice. Augie Reno, Architect for Silverstream, provided the notice. Hoefer stated that the notice met the requirements and the committee had jurisdiction to proceed. Julie Ann Woods, staff, explained the Brass Bed Lodge has been an on-going project that was recently approved by the Board of Adjustment for a carport at the rear o f the property. She continued that they were also approved by the City P & Z for a change in use (from 29 units to 6 units) and a voluntary ADU. She said they wanted to make some changes to the exterior elevations of the existing building and realized that the building did not comply. The window standard and the height measurement were the reasons for the Ordinance 30 Review. Woods stated the building is non-conforming to the Ordinance 30 height standard and the way that height is measured. Hoefer stated that this committee could review the height standard even though the building existed prior to Ordinance 30. Moyer said since this committee could review the height standard, then the applicant would not have to go before the Board o f Adjustment. Woods commented the changes to the building will make it look more residential, adding more windows. Reno introduced Rob Tobias, Silverstream Representative, and noted the building has been vacant since it was constructed 8 or 9 years ago. He said the project will enhance the neighborhood once completed. Reno said in 5 or 6 areas the glass exceeds the 9' and 12' band area. He noted the property has nice views and the big band on the building blocks the views. Reno commented the purpose of Ordinance 30 was to prevent the large plate glass walls from the 1 st floor to the 3rd floor. He said the amount of glass proposed, 3' would be the maximum with those elements broken up by the balconies and the band. Reno stated that the glazing does not start until 9' from the floor and is only 8' of glass. He said the window does not start at the floor but about 3' above. He noted that the elements occur on portions of the building that are significantly setback from the property line. He said the relationship between pedestrian and building are from 30' to 48' apart. 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 27. 1997 Reno stated the building is linear with two horizontal wings and a simple gable roof. He said the building has a strong mass (almost institutional) and they want to break up the mass with the 6 gables in question (adding vertical). Reno said this existing building was brought into non-conformity by Ordinance 30 and felt that was a hardship. He noted they do not want to add to that non-conformity but are trying to relate to the existing ridge of the building. Reno stated from a construction stand point, also, it is easier to use the existing gables rather than lower them and have to reconstruct the entire building. Reno commented there will be new landscaping also, which will seem to lower the building. Tobias added that architecturally the gables are the same height as the existing roof line and seems more gentle. He said the Brass Bed was bought through fore- closure and wanted to do something other than a lodge. They want to enhance the neighborhood with a first class project. Johnston asked what the function was and why the front dormer was so high. Reno explained it was the fifth unit and faced north. Johnston asked i f the ridge was going to be taller that the existing. Reno replied no, the dormers would go to the ridge line. Sanchez asked what dormers were above the height restriction. Reno said approximately 2' the way Ordinance 30 measures. Sanchez questioned the balconies provided separation from the tall glass areas. He asked ifthe balconies had open railings. Reno said the railing was wood with vertical openings. Moyer asked the purpose of the building and if it would be condominiumized. Reno stated there would be 6 two bedroom town-houses and an ADU. Moyer asked i f the glass doors would be taller. Reno answered they would not be changed but the triangulated glass that is being added. He said the upper floor doors will be wider. Sanchez felt comfortable with the triangle glazing and the south side probably won't be seen from the street. He questioned the large gable on the north elevation with excessive glazing. Sanchez thought even a lower gable would accomplish the vertical break up of space. Johnston said the re-design was a welcome relie f to what is there now, and the gables at the ridge line and below the ridge satisfied him. He commented that the dormer on the north was a little high and liked the look of the proj ect. 6 DESIGN REVIEW ArPEALS COMMITTEE p EBRUARY 27.1997 Moyer said the south side, the height adjustment was valid. He stated the re- design was a welcome relie f to the current state o f the building. He noted the north side did not affect the street scape and felt the project was well done. MOTION: Dave Johnston moved that Design Review Appeal Committee waive the standard that FAR be calculated at 2 for the areas in the 9' to 12 , d no window" zone for the Brass Bed located at 926 East Durant Avenue finding that criteria "c" applied and further recommended the height definition of 26.58.040F5 be varied to allow the existing height non-conformity of this building to continue because the shell of this building predates Ordinance 30. The height of this building was in compliance with then existing zoning when the original project was completed. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. 3-0 MINUTES MOTION: Dave Johnston moved to adopt the minutes of 12/12/96. Seconded by Gilbert Sanchez. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION APPROVED. 4-0 Julie Ann Woods stated for the record that Gilbert Sanchez was appointed to the Design Review Appeals Committee to serve as an alternate. Dave Johnston becomes a regular member. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. ~ --lae-,EG j %< ' 1( 2 #ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director RE: 533 West Smuggler Street, Appeal of "Inflection" Standard (26.58.040(E)) DATE: February 27,1997 Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a De- velopment Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guide/ines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applic- ant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board." Community Development Department staff has reviewed the application to construct a residential unit at 533 West Smuggler Street for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Inflection" standard, Section 26.58.040(E), which reads as follows: If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1) story in height for a distance of more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. It is staff's feeling that this standard requires that, in those areas where the house to the east of 533 W. Smuggler is one (1) story, all adjacent portions of the house proposed for 533 W. Smuggler must also be one (1) story for a distance of at least twelve (12) feet inward from that portion of the proposed structure closest to the shared lot line toward the opposite lot line. The DRAC may find that, either: â€¢ The design, as proposed, complies with standard 26.58.040(E); â€¢ The design, as proposed, does not comply with standard 26.58.040(E), and must be redesigned to comply with said standard; or, â€¢ The design, as proposed, does not comply with standard 26.58.040(E), but that the DRAC will grant a variance from said standard ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Amy Amidon, former Historic Preservation Officer Exhibit "B" - Submitted application package CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~ 520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076 i/3 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DATE: February 14, 1997 FROM: Janver Derrington INTERIORS TO: Mitch Haas PROJECT: Smuggler COMPANY: Aspen Community Development JOB #: 9647 ADDRESS: Aspen, CO TELEPHONE: REGARDING: DRAG Review Application WE ARE SENDING: Wl Attached VIA Hand Delivery the following items: Â¤ Shop drawings Â¤ Prints 0 Computer Disc(s) Il Samples O Specifications Â¤ Copy of Letter [] Change order Â¤ Other DESCRIPTION: Eight (8) Copies of Application Documents TRANSMITTED AS: Â¤ Approved as submitted Â¤ Resubmit copies for approval Â® For your use C Approved as noted Â¤ Prints returned Â¤ As requested Â¤ Returned for corrections Â¤ Return corrected prints Â¤ Review & Comment O For bids due 19 REMARKS: Please let us know if you require any further documentation BY: ;ranver Derringtory'ALA Project Architect COPY~/Smuggler Partng&, LLC / Lennie Oates, Esq. / File CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 9277 Smuggler Partners Project:DRAC Deposit Fee 9277 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COLORADO NATIONAL BANK ASPEN 520 E. HYMAN AVE., STE. 301 PH. 925-5590 - ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 82-164-1021 DATE AMOUNT Feb. 14, 1997 **$450.00** j PAY ***FOUR HUNDREDÂ·FIFTY DOLLARS*** TOTHE ORDER Aspen/Pitkin Community Development OF Â·, Â· . . Â· Al' A f ... '. ..... '... ..''. 'll ... '. I. ' I. ... Â· - 1 -vur *0092774 t102101945I: 125400681662* El 46-UttOl60 * Mouq uo slle.C .PeptlplJI SaJnleel AllJOOes E --- - f, February 14,1997 61 ARCHITECTURE Design Review Appeals Committee PLANNING ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERIORS City of Aspen, Colorado re: Submission for Appeal Review Residence for 533 W. Smuggler Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: We have submitted the proposed project to the Aspen Planning Staff for as recommended in Application Procedure and were found to be in compliance with all but one of the Residential Design Standards in the Aspen Land Use Code. Please refer to the attached letter from Amy Amidon. The standard in question is 26.58.040, E. Inflection. We believe that the interpretation taken by Amy is excessive and goes beyond the reasonably inferable intent of this standard. Specifically, she has told us that the minimum 12 foot side yard inflection of the street frontage elevation must continue all the way back along the side yard elevation facing the one story element of the adjacent structure to the alley. If this were the case, it would become the side elevation of the house, not the street frontage elevation if required to continue back past the stated twelve (12) foot point. In the proposed design for this project, we have a one story element which is sixteen (16) feet along the street frontage elevation and sixteen (16) feet along the side yard elevation facing the adjacent structure. The one story element of the adjacent structure on the side facing the proposed project is a one-car garage and entry which is backed up by a two story element which is the full width of the total structure all the way back to the alley. The two story stair element of the proposed project is roughly parallel to this two story adjacent structure in relation to the street frontage. Furthermore, the conical roof shape of this proposed stair element is reminiscent of the numerous huge spruce trees that exist on the subject property and the adjacent property. The steep roof pitches and massing of this design are in keeping with the intent of the Residential Design Standards to be compatible with the predominantly Victorian West End neighborhood. We would also like to point out that the rear (alley) portion of the proposed project steps back down to a one story element for the last twenty four (24) feet of the structure. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â· 520 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 970/925-5590 FAX 970/925-5076 /liliÂ£/77**+ "91 In conclusion, we believe we have in fact met both the letter and the intent of the Inflection Standard in question. We respectfully request that you give your approval to our application regarding this matter. You will find attached the required supportive documentation. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jet,~ver Derrington, A)A P ject Architect / enclosures TEL: Feb 13 97 13:26 No.0 SMUGGLER PARTNERS, LLC. P.O. Box 7665 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 Fawnâ€¢ry 13.1997 Authortzation to Reprâ€¢unt City of ARpen Comlnunity Develop - . cli 130 South Gak:,ta Street A.pen, CO 81611 HAND DELIVERED To whom it may Co*IcÂ¢*11: 710â€¢ lc,= sball -ve as aniho#zation for the following nâ€¢ncd individuals to mpresel Snouggler Partners, LLC., in comiectton with a Deeign Review Applic.tion reating to Parcel 1 and 2, C.isch Lod Splii amording to the Plat tiwoof rcconled July 25. 1995 in Plat Book 37 at Page 73, The right of the unde,si:Ded to file and process the Design Review Applk:ation is baâ€¢ed upon the Puichasc Contract attached hereto wherein S~Uggkt Part~n, LLC 11â€¢. contricA,& to puttlwsc thâ€¢ above de=ibed properly from Gcoe L. and Sharon O. CariscIL Our a~,thorized repic&(Iiative, are Charks Cumninb ArÂ©bitccts m 520 En*t Hyman Avenue, Aspen. Colon,10 and Oates Hughee Knezevich & Oardenswartz, P. C. M 533 East Hopking, Aspen, Colondo. Sloccrely, SMUGGIER PAKTHERN, LLC. F.*1 KIZ# Man* / Â£/2 -d HDIKinbl W jae,*1'5311,0 2,:121 26, EK trl}---- F . Z . 3-/11 DIE;7'i GI : FEB-13-97 THU 14:19 CAPTGCH FAX NO. 8'A1767293 P. 03 City of Aspen Community Development Depamnent February 13,1997 Page 2 Confirmed by legal title holder: George L. Carjsch 4--a,La-j (1 . UU.<56 Sharon G. Grdh FK/ainc Enclosures C:DATA~iteUGGLER.â€¢TRD.Con,nO/4111â€¢pd ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name A residence for 533 W. Smuggler 2. Project location 533 W. Smuggler Street, Aspen, CO, Parcel 2 of Carristh Lot Split (Lots C & D, Block 27) (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-6 4. Lot size 6000 SF 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Farrell & Patrice Kahn/ PO Box 7665, Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-5531 AKA Smuggler Partners, LLC 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Janver Derrington of Charles Cunniffe Architects, 520 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization-1-- Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) The existing residence is single family use with five (5) bedrooms and a studio caretaker unit comprising approximately 3500 SF. The property is four (4) city lots, which has been legally subdivided into two (2) parcels, known as the Carisch Lot Split. 9. Description of development application A new single family residence on one of two parcels previously subdivided out of an existing residential site containing four (11)ycity lots (30' x 100' each). The existing residence is to be demolished. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1- Land use application form Response to Attachment 2 X Response to Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT 2 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information: 1. The applicant's name, address, and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. (See Attached) 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. (See Attached) 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development review, ( See Attached) 4. An 81/2" x11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. (See Attached) ATTACHMENT 3 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All applications for DRAC review must include the following information: 1. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available in the City Engineering Department). Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). (See Attached) 2. Site plan at 1"=10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. (See Attached) 3. All building elevations, roof and floor plans at 1/8"= 1'0. (See Attached) 4. A graphic verification that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary Mass" standard. (See Attached) 5. Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. (Previously Submitted) 6. A written explanation of the requested variance and a discussion of why a variance would be appropriate and would not compromise the intended goals of the "Residential Design Standards." The applicant may provide any offsetting design features that may mitigate impacts of the variance requested (See Attached) .- JAN 31 '97 11:09AM Cl-]Pol_ES CUNNIFFE \'.2/3 t January 28,1997 Charles Cunniffe Architects Attn: Jan Derrington ASPEN Â· Pm:IN Col.,MuwnY DEviumn,T D:puÂ·jum 520 E. Hyman, Sujte 301 Aspen, CO ,81611 Re: 533 W. Smuggler . Dear Jan: The Community Development Department has reviewed your application for cornpliance with the "Residential Design Standards." We find that the project is - not in compliance with the "inflection" standard. Soction 26.58,040.E, which reads as follows: If the street tontage of an adjacent structure is one (1) story in height for a distance more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, thert the adjacent poition of the proposed building musr also be one (1) story in heiglft for a distance of twelve (12) feet. This standard requires that in those areas where tne house to the east of 533 Vi Smuggler Is one stacy, the residence proposed for 533 W. Smuggler mlist also be one story and at least 12 feet across. Your options for addressing the "Inflection" standard are to restudy the proposed design or to apply to the Design Review Appeals Board. Please*call me at 920 5096 with any further questions. or julie Ann Woods at 920-5100 after February 3. -Sincerely, ./ i 0 . 4/1 / /2 . Amy Aiyddon 3*% HIstorlÂ¢ Preservation Officer ' 1 .4 . 4. . 1 130 SOUTH CAUNA STREET Â· AdpiN, COLORADO 81611-1975 Â· PHON[ 970.920.5090 Â· Ft.x 970.920.5439 1â€ž4110.1 OA R.(Flu P,PIf FNT ' COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: 11/01/96 at 08:30 A.M. Case No. PCT11390 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ ~ Premium$ Ill,I Proposed Insured: Rate:RE-ISSUE RATE SMUGGLER PARTNERS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount $ ~ Premium$ illilll Proposed Insured: Rate:COMPANION GEORGE L. CARISCH AND SHARON G. CARISCH Tax Certificate $20.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in, this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: GEORGE L. CARISCH and SHARON G. CARISCH 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO and is described as follows: PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2, CARISCH LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JULY 24, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 37 AT PAGE 75. ISSUING COMPANY: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 970-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A and B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT h 'A, 0 t FNT ' SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: 1. Release by the Public Trustee of the, Deed of Trust from : GEORGE L. CARISCH and SHARON G. CARISCH to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN for the use of : PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY original amount : $500,000.00 dated : March 16, 1992 recorded : March 31, 1992 in Book 673 at Page 276 reception no. : 343081 2. Deed from : GEORGE L. CARISCH and SHARON G. CARISCH To : SMUGGLER PARTNERS LLC, A COLORADO 3. Copy of the Registration duly stamped by the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado evidencing registration of Smuggler Partners LLC and Trade Name Affidavit or Certificate of Authority of Smuggler Partners LLC evidencing the names and addresses of the Members and/or Managers authorized to act on behalf of said Limited Liability Company. 4. Deed of Trust from : SMUGGLER PARTNERS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin for the use of : THE LENDER TO BE INSURED HEREUNDER to secure : $500,000.00 5. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted. 6. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s). (This instrument is not required to be recorded) 7. Completion of Form DR 1079 regarding the witholding of Colorado Tax on the sale by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required to be recorded) 8. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale, Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in which the property his situated) 0 4 FNT ' SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 433 providing as follows : "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 8. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded July 24, 1995 in Plat Book 37 at Page 75. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT11390 A and B are attached. h fNT ' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2; NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre,-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners' closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (C) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provis,ions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT11390 A and B are attachect DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8. 1996 923 E. Hyman Avenue Wolff stated the applicant, Phil Schrager is represented by Gibson Reno and propose to build a new residence on this lot, it does not comply with the volume and inflection standards of ordinance 30, the adjacent parcel on the East side is a designated historic resource. Wolff said ordinance 30 identified these windows within that area inappropriate due to issues of scale, Staff agreed windows on the South side will be o.k. to maximize exposure to the sun and views of Aspen Mountain, regarging inflection a one-story element must be provided the fulllength of the lot line that is adj acent to a one-story structure, the structures on the East side is one-story. Wolff stated their interpretation is there should be 12' of one-story structure on that side, there is one constraint, a covenant o f the lot split states the parcel to the East ofthe historic rock maintain a 10' west sideyard setback to distance this development from the duplex being built on the lot next door, therefore their building envelope is 5' narrower than would otherwise be allowed. Staff recommends to meet the inflection standard that they provide a 7' one-story element the fulllength of the east facade of the structure and allow windows to violate the volume standard on the South facade only. proof of notification provided Roy Parsons, architect stated they feel this design as it is not only meets but exceeds a lot o f the language o f the design guidelines, heights are within or below the acceptable height guidelines and they have incorporated steeper pitches, they tried to approach massing by breaking up the elements along the front facade, they have a clearly defined entry, mixing o f window sizes, they tried to break up the massing so along the front facade it has the one- story look the elements o f the two-story building behind it are smaller in scale and step back from the street, the front porch is stepped back creating the face of the two-story element well behind the adjacent portion of the street facing building. Parsons stated they feel they have not only exceeded or met the standards of the design guidelines but have more than answered the constraints they have been given and think this is the best solution possible and the friendliest way of dealing with their neighbor rather than being closer to them. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8. 1996 Auggie Reno, Gibson Reno stated the majority of the trees along the eastern section o f the parcel exist and are mature trees, there are a few trees they will add in the back. Reno said they feel the design ofthe one-story porch going the entire length o f the building, which is 12' does comply with the inflection part of ordinance 30. Johnston said the applicant submitted elevations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and asked i f they were still true. Parsons stated the modifications that may come as a result o f putting in proper dimensions and making working drawings are minimal. Stan Clausen, Community Development Director said it has been stated that this project meets the inflection standard, Staff believes it does not meet the inflection standard, what Staff has given over to the Committee is an appeal from the applicant with respect to the inflection standard. Clausen asked the Committee to respond i f this is an appropriate design, i f this meets the intent o f the standard. Vickery asked i f the 12' is measured parallel to the street. Clausen responded it is parallel to the street. Moyer asked what the applicant meant by it may have to be closer if one- story is required. Parsons responded the upper level comes across the narrow section with three basic building elements, a kitchen, living room and a study area. Parsons said i f they have to shift them over they will have to rearrange the floor plan in such a way to accomodate those programatic needs. Parsons stated i f they are required to have 12' o f depth o f a one-story element, the only way they can accomplish that is to take the lower level to the setback line. Vickery asked Clausen ifthe 12' is measured from the property line. Clausen responded it is measured from the closest building element. Public asked why it is 10' on one side and only 5' on the other. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8. 1996 Reno responded they are required to have a minimum 5' setback on either side for this lot because of the square footage they are required to have 15' overall, for example they could have 5 and 10, 7.5 and 7.5, ect... Reno said added to that there is a deed restriction on this parcel because the adjoining parcel made a deal with the city to require a 10' setback from the western side. Parsons stated the main, primary window is to the South off o f the living room and there are five dormers, they propose glass within the no window zone. Parson said the living room is the most critical because it is South facing, the primary view looks across the alley directly at Aspen Mountain, they do not feel there would be any break in the intent o f the design standards. Parsons stated the dormer windows are a result o f the massing and breaking of the roo f planes, in addition the roof peaks have truss elements at each location which help obscure the upper portion o f the dormers, he said they have provided 9' o f glazing and feel it should not be detrimental to the scale o f this house and would like to maintain the continuous window, the side windows are not visible from the street, removal of the windows may be detrimental to the character as well as cutting out light and view for the owners. Parsons stated they are asking a two-fold waiver that they be allowed to have the South facing living room window and the dormer elements without the volume FAR increase. Reno stated his understanding of why these elements were brought into ordinance 30 had to do with scale, they wanted to get away from large entries and portions of glass that gave a different scale to the street, particularly from a pedestrain access. Reno said in reality they are allowed to put glass from the floor to 9.5' and then not allowed to have glass up until 12' and above that glass is allowed, with the dormers they do not have more than 9.5' of glass for what they are asking, the difference is the window sill comes up 3.5' and the trusses on the outside obscure some of that, so in reality it is less than 9.5'. Mr. Robinson asked what the height o f the buildings would be. Parsons responded the center ridge is about 31.5' above existing grade, the other is at 27'. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8. 1996 Public asked if they knew the height of Chateau Blanc as a point of reference. Parsons stated that it is considerably higher and has a flat roof, they are about 1/2 level above existing grade. Ron Kanan, representing the adjoining property owner "the rock" stated they are in favor o f this design as it is proposed, they like the idea o f the porch and think it is probably the best scenario with conditions, they are a little worried about the sqft., they are also in favor of the glass in the dormers and feel it encourages more to happen up in the roof areas which helps break up the roof mass, when you take away the glass you take away the reason for a dormer. Kanan stated it is hard to take away the view of Ajax Mountain. Alstrom stated that he finds certain aspects of the design very pleasing, he said that Reno's office has stumbled on a really nice cascading roof affect to break up massing and thinks it is demonstrated very well in this design, he is concerned with the east elevation and agrees with Staff comments on the inflection standard, inflection is very difficult to define and a difficult standard to communicate. Alstrom said he did not have a problem with the volume standard issues they are presenting, he thinks the volume standard needs to be redefined and amended to deal with view oriented glazing as well as passive solar, the only thing he does not care for is the two-story high masonary walls with the cascading roof lines, he suggested setting the second floor masonary back one foot so the building also cascaded with the roof and that would be an acceptable compromise for him, i f the walls cascaded with the roof he would say the reflection problem goes away. Johnston said he thinks the two-story walls are a big consideration but he thinks the attempt has been made and is very pleased with the roof design, the building needs to go with it a little bit and agrees with Alstrom on some ofthose comments. Vickery agrees with what has been said and reminded the Committee o f the criteria used to make these determinations. 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8. 1996 Moyer stated in HPC one o f the elements they dealt with as a result of the AACP when a house has a large wall going from the front corner to the rear corner, against an adjacent structure it is always looked at unfavorably, but Alstrom's comments ofthe compromise might work, he would ask for more than a foot he would like to see two, the heavyness o f the stone lends to the long wall, he has no problem with granting relief on the windows. Reno said the definition o f what inflection really means needs to be looked at very seriously, when reading this it can be interpreted, understood or it can be confused in a number of different ways. MOTION: Moyer moved to grant a variance to the inflection standard, requiring that the second story on the East elevation be moved in between 12 and 24 inches to be dealt with by Staff and the volume standard is waived meaning the windows for the South and all the dormers. Seconded by Johnston. All in favor, motion carries. Buettow stepped down. Vickery asked if they had plate heights over 10'. They do not. Vickery stated if they were using the old volume standard relating to plate heights they would not have an FAR penalty. Buettow reseated. Upper East Side Townhouses Bob Nevins, Planner stated this project is in the William's Addition which is somewhat different than other parts of town in that the lots are 125' deep vs. 100', this lot is 7500 s.f. the width is 60' not 75', they have a different setback standard than the typical R-6. Nevins said the lot orientation is different, they go in an East/West direction the original townsite is on a North/South axis. Buettow asked i f this is the rear lot and does not include the front. Nevins said it is the front only, it is a duplex lot. Buettow stated the southern most lot is the one-story existing house. Nevins responded that is correct. 6 ALLEY REQUIRED SETBACK AT GARAGE ONLY--- 1 ) / 1-1 ), j 4 1 4. 73 h < --) ~ N PROPERTY BOUNDARIES O WALK & -- UGHTWELL -~ PATIO UGHTWELL - 2 â‚¬ M U -4 BELON GRADE -1 -FENCE REQUIRED SETBACKS / 1 / 1 3 ENTRY PORCH 4 08 -9 -8 . ..1/ WALK PROPERTY BOUNDARIES 2? 51 U -31 ,0 lEi l'El 1'3,1~ SMUGGLER STREET A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1. Al.3 m 533 W. SMUGGLER SITE PLAN ~~ VI 6" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVE â€¢ SUM 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 816T1 â€¢ TELE: 303925-5590 â€¢ FAX: 303925-5076 /E 220 E. COLORADO AVE. â€¢ TELLURIDE. CO 81433 ' TELE: 303728-3738 ' FAX: 3~728-9567 m ALLEY REQUIRED 5 SETBACK AT GARAGE ONLY --------Â«Er-- Â«14-ft- ff F rh...1 PROPERTY BOUNDARIES liPPER & UPPER / LEVEL O ' LEVEL / DECK ~DECK/ WALK 1 / 3 4 2 I 74 19 a = FUTURE TWO RESIDENCE STORY /-9 11'-0. 0 2 8- = 1/A \ 4/ 4 9 (GARAGE) . \ TWO FENCE E-e :26 6'-6Â· STORY /1 . COMMON E----'--~~~~~112334 PROPERTY 31 Ei ONE UNE - - REQUIRED SETBACKS STORY 10-3 / UPPER ~ LEVEL - DECK ONE STOPY ~ PORCH R(?0,~ NEIGHBOR'S ~- HOUSE 40-9- _3/ \-2 00) ~-~PROPERTY BOUNDARIES WALK -22-zzcff00~~ 2 181 161 16 -31 ,, lEi lEi [-3-4, 533 W.SMUGGLER STREET SMUGGLER STREET PORCH STUDY (SIDE YARD INFLECTION) A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1. Al.3 533 W. SMUGGLER SITE PLAN 183 V16" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVE ' SUM 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ TELE: 303925-5590 ' FAX: 303925-5076 220 E. COLORADO AVE. ' TELLURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 303/72&-3738 ' FAX: 303/728-9567 MECHANICAL STORAGE - W.1 c. 1 ./1 r 2 . I BEDROOM #4 ~ 4 4 ~ ~ UGHTWELL . F--------71 1 14===11 CORRIDOR i L-L= Li 1 1 U Â«123--- -- , 1 UGHTWELL - LIGHTWEU 0 . 1 Â«tr BEDROOM #3 -4 - GUEST MSTR. BDRM ~ 1 1 1 i - WIC, I ~BATH #1 / 1 -1 / 11 A /-1 0 - --//l 4 7 ~ 50 E . (1171 L-/ r UNEN a \ / --1 ~ GUEST MSTR BATH W.I.C. ET. ALCCÂ£E 4 4 0 -1 - 1-- 1 1 1 BAR /5\ \ 1 1 1 1 FAMILY RM/MEDIA 1 1% 1 1 1 1 1 _1 MOKS ~ MOZO ~~ VISUAL A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS i. A2.1 ~~ 533 W. SMUGGLER PLAN -03" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVE â€¢ SUrrE 3m â€¢ AspEN, CO 816n â€¢ TELE: 303/925-5590 * FAX: 303925-5076 la 220 E. COLORADO AVE. â€¢ TELLURIDE, CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 303/728-3738 * FAX: 303728-9567 ' dj Â« ~ (13 I ' \ fe 1 1 1 1 1 IL---,1 1 11 -- ,T.s-*B,wedir ~~~~-tr- J 43Â»3 4-11 a WORK AREA SKI PEGS W/SHELF ABO/E 1 11 11 111111 11 11 11 11 11 1 - 1 1 1]7 - 1/2 111.-~ MUDLAUNDRY RM. ~ LIGHT'NELL ~' r' - r . CORRIDOR PATIO ~ STORAGE A FLj STUDY EATH - UGHTWELL -1' 3 I I . 1//cl In 1-F h UGHTWELL .-L . L STUDY .â€že~~~-' ..===/# Il .--- - HALL _~~'~ MASTER BEDROOM 3 1 - STORAGE - MAX.CLG.HT. 5'-6 1- 0 1 ==2 - L-]111 11 11 ill_1 A\ STAIR HAL.L~--.-F . 1=2 BU IT -IN I 1 DANNERS HIS W.I.C. ~ 1 HER W.I.C.: A AML ETC. I- 1/ D--1 1 - 1 : VA _2450 FOYER B 1 7/1 0 - )) A \ =2119 1 - --4.......TZR - 19 PORCH ~-T ALCOVI~~ MASTER BATHROOM 1 X â€¢ ~-~AM\AR K*3 :Ike'~ 0 1 ..,4 - -7 A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS A2.2 533 W. SMUGGLER W. MAIN LEVEL PLAN 183 1. = 1'-0. ASPEN, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVEâ€¢ SUITE ]01 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ TELE: 303925-5590 â€¢ FAX: 301925-5076 no E. COLORADO AVE. â€¢ TELLURIDE. CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 303/728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 303726-9567 11 1--------7 \ DECK / j fÂ« 9 L 4_ t 7 :TIL-*-Â«7I rm f 4%-1 | r. BREAKFAST AREA -= | 1 -It + - -4 7-- -4 .--) U- - I DECK -11 Ill h. . I 03%1 //1/1 ~ KITCHEN 1 L-------3 lj 4 1 1 /\4 - 1 21 -41- -Â®_ ' 6 -11 X ./7,/ \=26= V mxpOWDER - DINING ROOM PANTRY ~~ - U U= i ;13 m Â· L.2 ~~ ~ MI SEE I ti THRU MON -1 1 /3,1 / 1 SITTING . 6 . * t . ----- /l IT 1 1/ DECK I LIVING ROOM 1 1 - -7 m 1 - 21 1 i "l DESK 78311 7 / 1 17 \J . ./r A RESIDENCE FOR CHARd@-GUN#411:FE ARg=liTECTS Mi. A2.3 UPPER LEvEL ~ 533 W. SMUGGLER PLAN *8" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVE.â€¢ SUITE 301 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 ' TELE: 303/925-5590 ' FAX: 301'925-5076 *a 220 E. COLORADO AVE. â€¢ TELLURIDE, CO 81435 ' TELE: 303/728-3738 ' FAX: 303/728-9567 r---- -r- P 0-fe-: 1 DECK / 1 TA:a '58 BAL STAL B AA.AY KID T D E 709>1 BLE UUOER ~ New g-2 060UFANCY ' 1 1 (Urss 414 El) P/'14 EuT 'ro 1 A\1/1 U.*,c, B,4 Aer e-k) L.U,c. ! 1 1 1/ - . 1.Â®S \WNTEER 1 1 --- 1*> i 0-9 6-----? 1 1 ==r~ ~ BREAKFAST AREA ~ ~ =Di.j 1 LI ] 11 * r -2 t -21 1 -111 DECK i 10 1 KITCHEN 1 L-- -----7 1 1 $ 4 /0 :- 24:1-92--4 4.--1 g~ CIC I~lk i /Ii~/2 3- DINING ROOM '/H POWDER r--- | mi .1 PANTRY 1- L 1 1 1/ 0 E- i -1; AHE -3Â»4 ... E 1 . ll NON SEE ~ SITTING H â€¢ a 1 11 PECK I 2 7 \ ~ UVING ROOM ~ i L \Y j 0 -1- DeÂ» /1Â£ 1 Re/19â‚¬D 1/9747 A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES- GUNNIFFE A~TECTS /. A2.3 533 W. SMUGGLER UPPER LEVEL PLAN lt" = 1'-0" ASPEK, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVE â€¢ SUITE 301 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 ' TELE: 303'925-5590 ' FAX: 303925-5076 220 E. COLORADO AVE. ' TEHURIDE. CO 81435 0 TELE: 301728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 303,728-9567 '83 4 T ~ DECK ~ -41 8ALCONY / 1 10:12 TYP. UND. -> /-/I 1 E 'FLAT' ROOF 1 1 1 , 642 <4.42 f 1 0 0 1/3 PT.OF PITC RC- HEI AT i 25' E r~GRADE-- --- 4/f 4 10:12 TYP. <UND. 07 \ 1 x LEDÂ·/ 1 f /1 /f\\\ C | f< AL | ///Klt- 3 PT.OF PITCHED ROOF HEIGHT AT /414 1/ / G -9 1 24'-8-ABOVE EXISTING GRADE / 4 1 [1 21\2 21 l 4 A RESIDENCE FOR CHARLES LUN, 4/FFE ARCHITECTS ~ Al.4 533 W. SMUGGLER ROOF PLAN ~ *8" = 1'-0" ASPEN, COLORADO 520 EAST HYMAN AVE. Â· SUTTE 301 Â· ASPEN. CO 816n â€¢ TELE: 303925-5590 Â· FAX: 303,925-5076 220 E. COLORADO AVE. ' TEUURIDE. CO 81435 â€¢ TELE: 303/728-3738 â€¢ FAX: 303/728-9567 0. .8 e -. 71 - - r-T r--T E =~,L .1 1 Â· r<N Whia,H-r LI)3'T G Ft PÂ« , ~ - f\\- -4-,-- ,/. .XÂ» RetÂ£Â»T LIMIT.â‚¬ >/577 , Â£-1 L.=.-2- ihl VL *T. O. rl-Â·Al- Foo p -/ ----Ir--7 ' t 1 / ~__LAz=+EF-- . 1, . EL. = 119'-o" - 419'rs- 1. ; ' L*L, 0% . A . Â·4 . -te . Fof'y/0 0 . + ,- ; 'A 5 '6 ... ' EL. = 110'.oil : -1 1% 6 2 :0*I i 00100 - 'WL- 1 289 [1 --- W.Q ' Â· Â· ~.2 Â· =a 1:0. eg<Â»/p k -- -1 EL.= ical. 01, 2 . ill\A . 0 , a 0 ONE STbBY ELEMENT- ~ '- UM_ Ot' - \~.ZE -~ ( I-z.Â·_01, M iN.) \5. --EN-ONÂ»Lt~te= E n) -_ !s LIE-Â»Â«i o 14 - ------ 3 2 -V/Â»b=_\Uot - r___1_- \7 \ 6/47 0\D 51)31!HI,ZIV 3:IJINNn) 531&1VH) gl09-576/COC XY; Â· 0699Â·926/COE 3131 Â· 11918 00 '11]dSV Â· 10Â£ 3llns Â· Nylull 1 029 L996-BU/[00 1(VJ Â· 0Â£1Â£-BU/COE 31]1 Â· 00'30Iyn1131 Â· Â£992 (08 Â· ~3AV 00VI10100 3 02 513]ll1138Â¥ 1,JINNP '11*10 'a6' 1HDINAJ0] o h_ 4. 1 - I /4 r-n - 1 '1 - ic m l' 0 - r, 7 7- LU ' 1Â· ~; --1-4 1 1 i - T- 1 f I L ... I ' Â·â€¢ -14~1-4~1-fl~ il 1 .1 1 0 11_ 'ti I - - "6 - 1 -4 .. ' râ‚¬H-1- ./- *i 1 1 711 .'. ' Ugbdli '. l_" 't 1 111 - 1 .1 L- '; -/ 11Â·, 1 - '.. 'w jit I L'-4 5 .... 1 d!, L i ; ; 1{1 ~ !7 i.' > - pjij Â£ i ! 1 F I to/ Â·- Fi---4-4 ~ 6,-'-yn Fruvt ~FTTr- j ..)!,1.1 1 1 ill~ P)1 +11 J I flHÂ·-~4.- - 1 , ~11 - )1% 1 0Â¢1 9-U-11-11- LÂ£Ul_1-1,-- -ill r--- 1 n rEA I'- jer )1 r'i#- li L 1-7_31 -7 - L11__-~ El I 'SIT --1,111 - F -il Â· 13 i - _ 1 ff j / - 3-& ~, 1~ i 17 i Flt-311 ... 11 AL261Lk.LI F W ZIZZI1 - i--' . wh & + 11141 i = 4 Ujr-h::il RLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS I. A3.2 6 M (-1,AG,|_~fâ‚¬ 520 E HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN. CO 81611 Â· TELE 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/05-5076 220 E COLORADO AVE. Â· BOX 2863 Â· TELLURIDE CO 81435 Â· TELE 303/728-3738 Â· FU 303/728-9567 fa efaS. Â·11-OU *E Â© COPYRIGI{i 1992, CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS pt O1 _1_V /\-13 3 -El t, 1/ 1 11. Â· ... IT - - Fl~==.r7Â»-41.41. pe) - AA'-11-ti~ hLI---- -<6%9291Â£ 1 , 4 i -Â· "1-1 r &/\11 A 2 ~- ' I 1. 307062*3~ tartn ~~;~L-l@fl/( 3 0 = ' " IL firÂ»-1 INN' lili 1 :L Up' 6 - Ill 164 - 1 1 1 1 1 ....1 1 1 MA -2 P 92 3 ' r-"-' I ' -.â‚¬-1\ i 1 /All 777 l: 21 Alli .i: -,2- , 1 2 !\ 7/ 1 j, 11 1 I Ii.-4 llÂ· 1 1 , 711 1 1.11 4.{U . , 11 ' 11/TU{- 'A P.4.iii ,- 1. | art+~j':1,<c~ / J 1 zil - -11,=fi} --lis / 1 4- 1 'jxt 'P 33=21:ac e>MUG'a (-EA CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 7. A3.3 SPED, tic)(lee 520 E HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE 303/925-5590 - FAX: 303/925-5076 220 E COLORADO AVE. Â· 80X 28633 - TEUURIDE. CO 81435 Â· TELE 303/728-3738 Â· FAX 303/728-9567 *43 Â© COPYRIGHT 1992. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHRECTS bio I _LÂ«/93{-134 9 7 Lb/-71/1 U., b-10.L-4...0 1 ) 1-Prmufl--, frf-:n-All' ~ 1-04-211 14 11 '- 1 1 - I - 1 1-- lip 4 1 / 1, . 1 - r~--1.4 3 ..1 Nial 1 4-=7 . .101 . Â· ~ 1,1 k.it rIA il 'Allwi.lt-Â» Â· ,Â·i:;~~ 1 N. ' NAU. '1 ~ Â· r 1 ki /i rs 11 t- 1 F---21 ' .1 1 '. 1 ! t,1,4 1 -2 , 11#' 4' t,1 11 1 11 1 11 p. 241 3 i - 1 - ... .ft I :' .. . '. 11 , ' I. 11,1 it-,1 I 'Â· Ti. f/ i t; ' 11 t ! b,Yi I , I .1 4 '. + .. '' ' '.Â·NVâ€¢e*. 1 1,4 -!+,Â· 26191' .Ai tje 1 .,. ..4 1 ,1 1 1 1 1--r,=â‚¬---9 1~ 1 Fi 071 -1 LAY)T) 119 I ly Â·. c-a i im + 1 394 j I . - \Pf -1 11 . 1 . . t: f ,%,li .. i t . . , ./4 -0 I. - A ~ 1 90 --- 0 1-4 PY.-1 1 1 42= rn V mr -Un loi - 3 V 1 . 11 711 , 1 ITD .,1 1 .1 hil L -'Â·. . R-A' ' ..jol -1 _1 jfj~j~,tib ~'~ ~j ~ F 19 51-, 'I :1 NT --LL_-__CH-~~~ ~ *~CU NIFFE ARCHITECTS 7. 1 ... A3.4 66/\44441/1 520 E HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· I[LE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 Wa SMED, *) 02.6 220 E. COLORADOAVE. Â· BOX 2863 - TELLURIDE, t Â· TELE 303/128-3738 FAX: 303/728Â·9567 Â© COPYRIGHT 1992. CHARL.. CUNNIFF[ ARCHITECTS N 01_LvAE{ 74 46/91/1 -InIF----L- 4. 01 (ELL_L~ j~ J~~Â·~i- -- 1 De Lu-u 1 9-0 rim ) 11 0 10 4 7 4 4 14 1 4 70 r (D 10 11 -41 ' b '-9 .1. 1 kl JI -_ 4. 02 rm- ~' 72EZ=5.Â· ~4\ 1 1 m uÂ» EU NON - . 6 Ime ' 6,223 0-1--14' 1 1 A Z .-ZZN 111.0-e %1~ 4 23 -1 f 1 - 7Â£4 , 1 Â« 920 ' 7-=4 14 C -i m.---1.70Â£ i H , 633 \66 +J?AUGcaL-Ek CHARLâ‚¬S-tONNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1. ' 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE. 303/925-5590 - FAX: 303/925-5076 220 E. COLORADO AVE Â· BOX 2863 Â· TELLURIDE, CO 81435 Â· TELE 303/728-3738Â· FAX: 303/728-9567 *18 ASFER , C.Â©LORADD Â© COPYRIGHT 1992. CHARLES CUINNIFFE ARCHITECTS *1 01 iDa -19 N I GzlVA -3ct ) S'D Ad nle #1 f/z 1 -1 1 1 - - -:.1... 'C 2, Ihj % 2 4 000 It -1 3) 1 7- I .. =0 019 0.1 KImp ~ 1 \.7~2 -usb=50,1 1.- :/ J Â« Â«=11 - Wxm 3:, 1 Ill - 11 - IT ~if %1 V \ \ \ 1 ll] 1 mt ]Em, 533 W. SAAUGGLE R CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /. 520 E. HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE 303/925-5590 Â· FAX 303/925-5076 220 E. COLORADO AVE Â· BOX 2863 Â· TELLURIDE, CO 81435 Â· TELE 303/728-3738Â· FAX: 303/728-9567 78 AsPER , COLORAPO Â© COPYRIGHT 1992. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~r/07.toE-labll Ck*vi adis) Adhl Hol _I-VA Ella Â¢ 13 3+24_1- 1 I. . ALLEY f*F - - ===t ....- 4--_- - s' 9â‚¬'t- BAC*. â‚¬, 4 4 - dt/4~4 6 Â®OLY l\ 111 1 111 ~FPE-Â¥l \-EVE'L-4 4:) > \ ufFER DECAA , 1 1 ~ i ' Le-V EL I , 2 peck- 1 1. 1/ 1 1 .1 -=~ *11JO ifre FLY 1 , 1'.0 ' 10Â« ~i MATu /ze CaMALe,J K.951 DE*joE FROPâ‚¬RrY I r\NO STD BY ~*41~â€žt) LWE ~ 11 I 65 -&7~6.62 O 9 E 970 82Â¢ i 4Â¢13 /,perÂ¢g J / - \9 / / 1-EVE-6 1 1 1 1 95614 NG-LA~ OR'* Foficti F.8 of CE> 1 ADVE 4/1-2 6 67-â€ž15,14 26-624/KEP L [Ar j / 9 L--9,0 1 < O.0, -, 1 Â»â„¢ PErrY 1-1 PE K. - ---- - r 1 1 66-4 \N. 5Nlit,54 l-*Ti 6 Â£ TE Fl-ANL \ /1 e V = I la/1 4 *la**LEA. 9 7, 70824 * TuPY Ce l 'PE f ARD ( A PLEcT ION 3 -3 2 4/17 533 W. ShAUGGLER- CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /. 520 E HYMAN Â· SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 ~ ITM 220 E COLORADO AVE. Â· BOX 2863 Â· TELLURIDE CO 81435 Â· TELE 303/728-3738 Â· FAX: 303n28-9567 L..1,1, As'PEN, COLO RAP o Â© COPYRIGHT 1992, CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS r T= ..I-/1 1 dj 1 i = IN -Â«=fi.1, 1 f *70 - ... 1 11 ~1 1 1.-41 -DI 1 11 -16,1 0: -Ep=mÂ· ,% J i r,r~ 01=r--=.TÂ»~113 11-11Â« E IFFIEFf ~ -r- 773 L ELI I 1 1 M Hy,q / 1 533 W. SAAUG,GLE R CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 1. 520 E HYMAN - SUITE 301 Â· ASPEN, CO 81611 Â· TELE: 303/925-5590 Â· FAX: 303/925-5076 220 E COLORADO AVE. Â· BOX 2863 Â· TELLURIDE CO 81435 Â· TELE 303/728-3738 Â· FAX: 303/728-9567 ija AsPEN , cokeR.Apo Â© COPYRIGHT 1992, CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS â€¢1&/. <NO?10221=3'1\11 d*v,L 3019) Adhl Nol-1_VAE[-3-3-013-3315)tl-1-tioN El = 81 Â¢ 0 mm 7-1 9-r-Lf 2 2 2 5 m' E w-:melpli 1 1 - â‚¬I -73===- -- - 752-_ _21Â»yz-- __It052- ZIL \ - - , ,- 1---- \ \ ' 7 -3- 0 0 OL 0 11 1 1 1[ , 1 1 .1 - Llkf 91 - _E,Â©T stavAT I (N FoRCH el-UPY CS(PE YABD INFLECTIONO -bl-b (17 Sl)31!H)MV Â· BELE-82/Â£0Â£ 3-131 Â· 9918 00'30IHII1131 Â· Â£98Z XOG Â· 3AV 00Â¥80103 3 OU 91031111]HV 33 j INI 10 Sil~VIO 6661 ll9IHAdIJ:) 9 dSV Â· 100 3111IS Â· NVINAH -3 029 .gallillillillrmjil . -1 b EDGE MATCH TO SHEET K-I' 1 i/ . 1 - ; 5 /, 1 1 I I 1, 11 ; 1 ~' i i i t. ~/ i it 11 / . 1 1 1 ' It 1 It ft ffÂ«f . , ...J-- 1 1 , , 1 1 I 11 1 1 , 4/ 1 / 1 ' 11 1 1 Â·Â»-Â«_-3 ~_1 ' ' 13 9ft 1 -91 -1 - il J city -rfi X M K -7 A Â£ 1 - M H , 3 1 ) ASPEN 0 -1 - K , ----- - 0 - --2 M It f 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ,/ 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 * 1, 11 1, 11 11 11 LI Li 1 11 11 1 * 11 1 W SMUGGLER ST NEIG BORHOOD 533 VV SMUGGLER ST - 1 1 -4 BLO K PLAN . I SCALE , M---- - - 1 - I - 2 1SFOFtY IL_L_ 2 STO.Y // i 1 , \/ 1 1-= 50' L_J 0 I 1 1 EXISKING ~USE ~- ... -7...... ------ * _-TO BE~D~â€¢101_IS~*ED -- r IL r.-7-1 - . ~y21 sroy#4--J.8355551.~ le-_*--1- DECK ~ /1<ZE= C " a - -r -T ------ri < 1 " 9 2-ZJECZ==- i L / ALLEY ~ th , -\ 1, 0 1 ill 0 1 1 =\7 L~ = 14 //1-3911 * - 1-7 -~ - 1 1 1 1 1 , , 1 d. 1 1 1 r--7 I , 11 1 1 1 -30 r LL- - _ f k* i I-'~i 721~19Â«