The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1365 Mayflower Ct.A088-98:. -Â· -6/R 1 .... ./. I PARCEL ID:~2737-181-18007 1 DATE RCVD: ~10/21/98 #COPIES:~-- CASE N0~088-98 ' CASE NAME:~1365 Mayflower Court DRAC PLNR:~Mitch Haas PROJ ADDR:| 1365 Mayflower Court ' CASE TYP:~DRAC STEPS:~ , OWN/APP: John Galambos ADR~208 Main Street C/S/Z:|Carbondale, CO 81 PHN:~(970) 704-9750 REP:~ ADR:~ C/S/z:1 PHN:~ FEES DUE:~450 (ff) 1 FEES RCV~450 1 STAT: r-- REFERRALS~ REF~ BY| ' DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 14â€¢ Â· '1 r- i DATE OF FINAL ACTION:r CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: I I BOA: CLOSED: 1 '1Â·19. Â£11 BY: 1 Mrrat DRAC:' 460 - 10 -98 PLAT SUBMITD: j PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: I ... 4. - 41 - , DESIGN REVIEW APr Â£ALS COMMISSION November 5. 1998 CONFLICT OF INTEREST.......................................................................................................................................1 HANNAN - 601 SOUTH ORIGINA T ...........................................â€ž....................................â€ž.......................â€ž.......1 GALAMBOS - 1365 MAYFLOWER COURT .........................................................................................................3 FLYNN - 1203 EAST HOPKINS................................................................................................................................3 6 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION November 5. 1998 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with members Bob Blaich, Mary Hirsch, Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer and Tim Mooney present. Staff members present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Chris Bendon and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Sworn in: John Wheeler, John Galambos and Jack Palomino CONFLICT OF INTEREST Gilbert Sanchez recused himself from 1365 Mayflower Court. PUBLIC HEARING: HANNAN - 601 SOUTH ORIGINAL David Hoefer stated the affidavit of notice was provided to meet the jurisdictional requirements. Chris Bendon, staff, provided a photo board of the property for re- development for Kenneth Hannan. There were 2 requests for waivers of residential design standards: (I) Volume standard for windows in the 9'-12' zone and Â® Garage setback, which was a 10' setback on a 3,000 square foot lot. Bendon said the applicant would like to reduce the porch by 2' (which was where the 10' was measured from), reducing the garage setback to 8'. Bendon stated the criteria for a variance were: a) better addresses the goals ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan; b) better addresses the problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff did not find the criteria had been met for the either the window or the garage setback variance requests and recommended denial of both. Hoefer noted the proposed Resolution #98-09. John Wheeler was sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk. Wheeler stated there were 2 items on the design that required a variance from the residential design standards. He noted the single family parcel was located in the midst of multi-story, multi-family lodges or larger buildings. He said the window was no higher than it needed to be, it was not out of scale with the neighborhood and faced a private alley. Wheeler stated the street facade maintained the guidelines and provided photos of similar windows in the 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION November 5. 1998 Bendon explained this was a re-development of an existing house on the corner of East Hopkins and Park. He said the applicant requested variances from two standards: (D volume standard for windows in the 9'-12' zone; Â® subgrade space o f the front facade o f the house. Bendon explained the window went from ground floor up (20'). The standard stated the area of interior space be charged twice for floor area calculation. Bendon noted the applicant has a building permit based upon the windows being broken-up; this would be a change order to that permit. Bendon said the other standard was the window well in the front o f the house met the life-safety requirement. He noted they have a building permit for one of the window wells and again this would be a change order adding a second one. Bendon stated that staff recommended denial of both variances because they did not meet the criteria. Bob Blaich commented the proj ect was under construction currently and asked i f the light wells were according to the original building permit or have they been laid in, hoping for approval tonight. Palomino said the footings had been poured for the approved lightwell and the other one, in hopes for approval. He said if it was denied, then the second window well would be back-filled. Tim Mooney questioned the non-conforming setback on the east side and asked if the new part of the house could be built in the non-conformity. Bendon replied that it could not be made more non-conforming; adding a second floor without an existing second floor could not be done. There was discussion of the original house encroachment into the setback, footings, over-hang and roof plane. Bendon noted there was not a hardship issue because the building permits had been issued based upon the original designs. He noted the property line. Blaich asked what the problem was with the additional light well. Bendon replied the 3 criteria for review were all that could be used. He did not believe the light well more effectively addressed the standard or the AACP or represented a site specific hardship. Roger Moyer noted there was no sidewalk on that side of the street. Palomino answered engineering asked that the sidewalk be placed where ever the driveway approach was installed. Mooney said the sidewalk would be placed on that side only on this one block. Mooney said this driveway maybe one of the most hazardous because of the driveway coming up at a steep angle and close lot line to the street. Palomino noted there was a 4' drop in the road at that point. Mooney noted the intersection of Hopkins and Park was controversial. 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION November 5. 1998 Palomino stated the city required the driveway be brought back 50' from the intersection, which was done. He said there was a request for grading to be no more than 30" below the street grade elevation, which was complied with. He said they were required to maintain a 90Â° angle for the view plane, so someone backing out o f the driveway was able to see approaching cars. Moyer commented on a preferred placement of light wells that was determined by HPC with a terraced landscape plan. He asked what could be done about light wells that looked like these which went against ordinance 30. Moyer requested a plan for the light wells subject to approval by staff. Julie Ann Woods stated when ordinance 30 was reviewed, this was not anticipated. Buettow asked i f the light wells would be required to have guard rails or grates. Moyer added or terraced. There was discussion of the design ofthe light wells with conditions subject to staff approval which continued to include guard rails should not be used around the light wells but rather a grate to meet UBC requirements. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the variance request for the e volume standard regarding the windows in the "no window zone" as stated in the community development staff memo dated 11/5/98 for the Flynn residence located 1203 East Hopkins. Gilbert Sanchez second. Roll call vote: Moyer, no; Blaich, no; Hirsch, no; Sanchez, no; Buettow, no. DENIED. 5-0. MOTION: Bob Blaic h moved to approve the subgrade variance which must meet safety requirements of the code using a grate based upon finding criteria "c" has been met, for the Flynn residence located 1203 East Hopkins. Roger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Hirsch, no; Sanchez, yes; Moyer, yes; Blaich, yes; Buettow, no. APPROVED 3-2. Meeting adjourned at 5:30. *Ly 45Â»4 ~Ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION November 5. 1998 neighborhood. He said there were extenuating circumstances that the board could see fit in granting these variances. Bob Blaich asked why was the portico to be made smaller. Wheeler replied it was a detail more appropriately set into the wall as opposed to proj ecting out. He said the 3000 sq. site was constrained with the 2400 sf building on it; it had to be to the maximum build out. Bendon agreed with the patio structure being too long, but the garage with a bathroom was long. Mary Hirsch noted there was a building permit issued on an acceptable design; she asked the change. Wheeler answered because there were times that a design could come before a board because it wasn't quite what they had in mind, it stated it the review that the glass could be changed for this design. Steve Buettow asked what on the portico was to be changed. Wheeler stated the 18" projection would be cut-off. Blaich stated the requests were not unreasonable, since they were not on the face of the porch or making it shorter had any effect. He said the design was an asset to the neighborhood. Blaich said the site specific criteria would apply. Gilbert Sanchez agreed with Bob on the site specific and created a more animated building. He supported the request. Roger Moyer concurred on the window issues but held firm with staff for denial on the garage. No public comments. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved the Design Review Appeals Committee approve the requested variance of the residential design standard for volume, the window, for the Hannan residence at 601 South Original, pursuant to criteria "c". Gilbert Sanchez second. Roll call vote: Moyer, yes; Hirsch yes; Sanchez, yes; Blaich yes; Buettow yes. 1 1OTION APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the request for the variance of the residential design standards for a garage setback for the Hannan residence at 601 South Original, pursuant to criteria "c". Gilbert Sanchez second. Roll call vote: Moyer, no; Hirsch no; Sanchez, yes; Blaich yes; Buettow, yes. MOTION APPROVED 3-2. 2 DESIGN REVIEW ArPEALS COMMISSION November 5. 1998 PUBLIC HEARING: GALAMBOS - 1365 MAYFLOWER COURT Gilbert Sanchez stepped down. John Galambos was sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk, Jackie Lothian. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the affidavit of notice was received and met the jurisdictional requirements of this board. Chris Bendon, staff, stated the windows were not representative of windows the standard meant to preclude. He said the windows met criteria b.) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. John Galambos stated that he represented the owner Mark Thee. He said the gable on the south elevation had a sloping roof which blocked the view of Aspen Mountain; the proposal had two windows which would not only break up the facade but added to the over-all character o f the building and also allowed views o f the mountain. He explained the setback was 57' from the end o f the pavement into this cull-d-sac. No public comments. MOTION: Mary Hirsch moved to approve the proposed variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards of a single-family residence at 1365 Mayflower Court, Aspen, for a pair of windows on the south elevation and the east elevation (exhibit A) based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. Roger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Bob Blaich, yes; Roger Moyer, yes; Tim Mooney, yes; Steve Buettow, yes; Mary Hirsch, yes. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: FLYNN - 1203 EAST HOPKINS David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record the affidavit of notice was provided and Design Review Appeal Committee had jurisdiction to proceed. He noted this was Mitch Haas' case which would be presented by Chris Bendon tonight. Jack Palomino, Ted Guy Architects, was sworn in by the deputy City Clerk, Jackie Lothian. No public comments. 3 135. MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~ j 1 . FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner /~ / RE: 1365 Mayflower Court request for a Variances from the "Volume" provision (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) ofthe Residential Design Standards DATE: November 5,1998 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 " (fan application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board." Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct a single- family residence on the 1365 Mayflower Court site for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staff' s review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance from this standard (which is described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. The proposed design is provided in the attached Exhibit A, where Sheet A-3.1 highlights the noncomplying windows. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending *,approval of a variance from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards for a proposed window on the south elevation and a set of windows on the east elevation based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. APPLICANT: Galambos Architects, Inc. (John Galambos) LOCATION: The site in question is located at 1365 Mayflower Court. Mayflower Court intersects with the north side of Highway 82 east of downtown, between Riverside Drive and Crystal Lake Road. The property is zoned R-15/PUD. 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(19(12), Volume The proposed design contains two violations of the "Volume" standard: one on its south elevation, and one set of two windows on its east elevation (please refer to Exhibit A, Sheet A-3.1). The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) squarefeet for each one (1) square foot offloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of thefinishedfloor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor height of the particular room. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff' s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memorandum). According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Nolumestandar~~istoensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variances are to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing 2 , architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter ofthe "Volume" standard. In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. The desire and potential to maximize views from every possible location within a given room is not, in staffs opinion, a constraint, and therefore, not a reason for granting an exception to the rule. With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on these grounds. Neither of the proposed windows for which a "volume" variance is requested (south and east) would have an impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street. The east facade would not be visible from the street, and while the south elevation would be, its noncomplying window would be set back some fifty-six (56) feet from the street and nineteen (19) feet further from the street than the frontmost portion of the facade. The significance of these distances is amplified since the south elevation's noncomplying window extends a mere one (1) foot into the so-called "no window zone." Given these considerations and staffs feeling that the noncomplying window of the south elevation~gments the overall design-of the_structure_blcomplementing the_complying. window groupings and forms of the street-facing elevation, staff recommends that the requested variance be granted on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to than would a design without the noncomplying windows. As currently designed, the proposed structure effectively provides architectural details and elements that reinforce local building traditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for both the proposed window on the south elevation and the set of windows on the east elevation as indicated in Exhibit A to the staff memorandum dated November 5, 1998. The variance is granted based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. RECOMMENDED MOTION: i move to approve a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for both the proposed window on the south elevation and the set of windows on the east elevation as indicated in Exhibit A to the staff memorandum dated November 5,1998. I move to grant this variance based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to." rb ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package 34\ -11 ~fl~ 1 ASPEN/P. i KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Applications Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and r -iL- 4405 --3- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for -37Â¥: A c. Fee:Â£.0 ll:,spLY Newi, 6, w./.f (hereinafter. THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size. nature or scope of the proposed project. it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining great cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval. unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the City's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 460 which is for S hours of Planning staff time. and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Â· 1-2 --- Â» )7- Signature: /41(-2 ~lie Ann Woods Date: L 1 to ~ ~ ~ Printed Name: 2/7Uw A,c,~\Al,46~â‚¬30Â· Community Development Mailing Address: -2.016 /Plog. 5 t. Acting Director ClÂ·, 6<,i.Lic, le< 60 246:,297. City o f Aspen M:lok A.,ces - 23 4 0 f 47*- 120 44 311 Oclober 26.1998 To. DRACmâ€¢mbers City of Aspen RE: 1365 644bmylÂ»~r Cou*t DRAC ]-rfog co==cin~g 2 whlo,# I, M-c rheâ€¢,1,4ag the op-r ofthe res,lenge located st 13651.f.,06wcr Cou:t, Aspen, Cok,rado, =bertie John Oalambos Â·to nwre.4 nly intermists g thÂ© DRAC hearing of November Sm, 1998. -rlmk you, Man The 2,S wces:ZI 866; 92 900 0926 ve. 0,1 : .oN @â€¢04:i ON I SiM!1-IHOW 30gbEV) t WCad 0162 6;9 Â£07 1NI S-13'VI-i<JIN St,ji Flot,9 64*'P l ; 0 1 386 L -Se-0 L lid W060:01 8661 82 '*00 0516 PaL 866 : ONENDHd ONI Sl:2)31 I HZ)2151 SOE[Wt,leD : 14033 Vi 14 6/6 '.1 4,9 No MiÂ»49<v.i Vi râ€¢ eld AVW 45:4 Wvld. *11'7-1â‚¬ Cd#HyogW, 180! / 0,Â» rew - G,7 -1 71 r 9 i /1 8 Â»i li L g :c \\ i \=1 3,+ t 6.1 - r - =--- 30(46~43 3 900#YA 3 k f &44*5; * 4 70.7 *W - : FLOOR PLAN Ni 4 - 31 / 4 1 /'70-1/1 1 L Al. 01Â·ee,0,6 /12 TO CUT5Ek FICE 0, STW AT EXTâ„¢,OR â€¢*&14 OR //CE OF STUD AT ,~ . 4-OR -11 M 5(78,UOR FACE , COICIâ‚¬TE Fal-L W,02 | | g. wr / Â· i./ " - ~ 4 3. [Â»ee,Gle AT EXTI C,t FIZZÂ»le /10 00016 /11 Ra,6,4 01â€¢Bile SIZZS 6â‚¬ED ON POZZ C<)1/rEATUL GamRALlUR 16 ReS,UeeLE POR Ae.ABTIBITS TO Ro. 5415 / Alme,ATE 4â‚¬04,4//i/Aoll/3 5 lasTE). 11 7-1 I a ~434~5*~421~MS~NbMIMI~~~S ~B1~~~~SI~~AI~~IR8IT1VRUQ;~kID'ISFIR EMERIY E-C~ENCY t n-=474Â· ~ i 9 Exceâ€¢T ,-O,6 ecM, 04, 0,02 aM g-I , 7.0 3Â·rue ~ SALAMBOS 1 1 -75- (33 il .2=. 2 A - 2-2 ARCHITECTS .OLLOSET' 2 --Mr 1114-1 0 ....J - .r, a_.*V X 3601 1 0 I /) ' .a. en:le E> <3 1 tug_Exe-02*_ _- BEAR,Ne RALL ~ ~-3-- i ii BATH *2 ~ -:y--, ; . -, .-/ ---L II: -- - --- - -- - -- ~ --- I--- -1 212.2 1 P)â‚¬~R ' 308 1UIN STRKEr ROOM = STAIR -iN/5,/c / 1-I~~.=,1 119. Â·aRBONDALE. COI~RADO :16= - 2Â»4 9701 -74-0780 5 k -RTE-1 "4. L -2- Ir--.GUI L. LIQ# i il Llal- 1 A== I -& 1 '@ 3 1 MASTERI Ff,l 91 T~~~~~~~~~~~~-=r--___ CLOSET I (Sh TER * ~ Â·4:11 BAT,4 il,~ 111'11Â® 4 TE~ 11 21|111 4 - nl * 1 .I InA , IÂ· --' -11 T : 1-/ 11 -I L. 1 1 //- 1 t./7- 4 111 012, -1 - bls>. '\ 1.-4 1/1-~~ <ITCHEN 97 - ./Imilhz'll 1 -------r 02 # 11 1 1- i~ ~ ~m; ' 1 1 -in,-11 1 p , Ch- 11 : . 41 -1 00Â£/a. .In=-= %1 . .rÂ¥ ' , <223> 41 - VIASTER : al /1 3, -TaÂ¥-1 J. 1 BEDROOM / i 4 Y To. A-YAM Â£ 2*' EL..0-I. 1 9 1-1 N O i=ZIZE =idLE--.ELILIJICILEIJf LIZJ-0---- -it .1 : - 11 .1 MI 1 -6-- PININS 1 -v 3---.age ~|~ ! ~~ -1 BEDROOM :*2 i -ln-- 11 : 1 11 It 1, r '1 1,21 - 1 Id-C' AFF, -C< ]01> i ts, 21 ------- -- I:*El - ~.4.*--- ... 4 ---43 n i 1 0 7 8,6 fit ii NOOK . - 1. 3 1 Tv I , y 10. 'LÂ¥ MI Z H I 5:1; 1 71 - 3 1 :, Â· F:,~iff 1,1 1 la;56 1 01 .itie ' r-yÂ· 1. , 5-70Â· ..1'-,ou Â·C'-C-i . -- ' 1 11- , '31- r b ENT'fr _ \U 1 1 1 1 1 *4% 1.-0. . 14 , im - UVING '' I U -442 1, I h -e- 1 1 !]=] : .! 0 21 ---- .5 6- =i k -Emox b ,; -***| ~iQ ,-0. 1 *P / 1 1 U t -RU56 ABOVE -:1.01 4 ---------- "-5Â£5384-'/ 9 -rk I 4 SrohE VE.99 _ ri issued for: Ficite ' 42/ 1 1 .h'' 1 ----------- i Â°ERMIT 44.-43 _ 1 N /1 2 5â‚¬ 4 5-5 ;, 5-14 f 0-11- , Ex L 1// f , - - ,/--~ 11 1 4 i 1 64<--ff g ! 1 1 m rN k X I , .....1...Jing t:40 ='241 ,'.634 Â· NEÂ¥ MAIN FLOOR PLAN 2:11./7 ' SEPTEMBER 3. 1998 1 / slate XI / ACAYFLOWER RENOVATION Projiet ed-=1-T 11-31/7 . . csÂ· . Â·4-0 1/1 . 5.4- I job nun,brr iT-9 â€¢ 0 0 0 0 NER MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4'â€¢1'4 tti) NORTH 09 (Ul) (A) 11- b. 1 ! NOLLVAONVH H:iIA(07[/AVIN 1 1910 0:) 'NHcISV '1,>Tf)0') 713#OrIAAVW 990.1 =LOOR PLAN NL . - ;~3 0 < Er /21 1- .,41- O,4345,0,6 Ne TO GUâ„¢DE FEE OF STU, AT EXTNUOR LS, OR F/6/ OF 5110 IT NTATIOR MN_LA CE EXTet,OR FNLE 0, C<31â‚¬,RETE FOK,OAT101& dJILOJ --___. 57-5 1,/2' 2. 6*W L.Ile ALFI<ZBIT OUSIDE /KE OF STIO AT EXTe,OR MULLS, OR EXTERIOR G/<LE OF 50161212 AT FCUâ‚¬>ATION *8 =___21-3-1/77 ZZ-8 1,/'f --1 .*..fiFF), -L -O 3 0,eekle AT EXTER,COR MILOCÂ»# A,Â© DOC,25 /4125 1Â£15414 OPel,6 6*ZES E,Ad,ED ON PO= I 6/INvIIATICÂ»* Cullâ„¢/GTUR 8 <pRJ,eaE MOR ACUSne,TS TO R/. 5(ZES / ALTâ„¢-TE _ -*1 40011 MAN//071121 8 59.Elm J 4 -415 ,0,1 AS I E-ReeNTS Ie, Ca,Â®TICTIN 5. RS'L,ACLE E)95,6 ,-DCÂ»e TO 0544/ }'rrH,e{ FvZZ] PI,E,0,6 RJR e,ERSÂ¥ EFFICIE,Cr TÂ«:m,r ,~10048 eol. 04 CO. ca CpI 49 1 1-J SALAMBOS /7 - -Re *-HITECTS \! t 0~ - /1 - - 9 @ 5 05> V ..08 MAIN SrREET RBONDALE. COLORADO t822 _ #79' -04-9750 : - 21, 1 I ''FF" 1 1 2 1 - i E--/ 1 I-/ -0,Â·E '*Sl#2 6A'*dE ~9,1 BOLLS- #dit 1 ...0Â£*orr :c,er,~GTION ve,r PER IES, SIA 1 1 J j ... , 'I m 1e i j' t~ ' 11 SARAGE 1 1 i'.1 bi , 41 1 -d. 1 1 4/ 1 !-1 1 1 1 IV L 1 46 1 1 EXIMINe 1 1- 1|@ 10 r* 1 1 lili* GRAM- SPACE 1 Va . - Â· ' I i -Iet GAR,de DOOR . 7 -FLOCATED aEr. : | 8.ECT. Opalm#IEf r-- :3:~ i 1 f EXTER'/R El-PaTOI -%8 .t-.1. - _C 1 1 ./ 1 -BLOCK-<SUr STO)â‚¬ Vel/Â£ KR P~TER i il 65 CWL SPACE 4 i et------ E.%-k--%6#4= 1 - X Â£24 1 1 1 0 1 5/ 0 4 1 6 I %' 1. 2 ; i ~Â»smÂ£96 ---- ' LINE OF EXISTINe ===== A ~ LINE OF EXISTINe .1, f 1 --8 CRA~. SP~ 7**ax>,7/>0(/ h~1 - -I---*--- I---7+4--fi Â¥-*/ F x/ _----6Â· r.r/â€¢. sÂ·ro,e . 114 vem Mol, \ .SIT /7 284 ./ 0 1- 3KK- 4} M u . ! .s,rued 'or late \0, x-CM; FUL,â‚¬>AnÂ¢,4-81 V '*.MIT :-,4=5 'TR- Dâ€¢RE"*Â§ 4/ l \\ KE 1 1 1 Gam \J-+ 3 1/X.Â· fE *9 +41 r 171 1 T 7 i\Ati 141 4417 /7-aunng r 'RY QUUGE I,m!. fL â‚¬Wi late 2, f 120-3 1/7 , 18.-6- 6'-3* ., 18'-0 1/2- ! 0-44 SEPTEMBER 3. : 998 project MAYFLOWER RENOVATION <3% 1 - 9 8 00 NEM SARAGE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 9 42.F NORâ„¢ -r, r 1 -,I F.â€¢.' --â€¢ .....-..Ill-:--rÂ¥-- ~ ..5./-/ C.â€ž Il9TU (1:) 'NWASV '.1,>1[1(K) >15[AWUAVW 9981 Nol,[,VAON:;Rl >1:UM Orbll Â»i-E,<5 I I y'k xxx) (9 .. ij : , A EXÂ¥tlet-r -71 4 1 SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. SITE PLAN 19 ./.0 ON I....ATIN FQOM 9.~VEÂ·r ./PARE' 0/ EN 502VE' 4 EN,IpEE# DATED 6-2148. 4/RCHITECT ASSI,â€¢ES â€žfORMATiON PRelOED er SURVEÂ¥OR TS ~â€¢Ca RATE. ARCH,rECT e NIT AtESFCÂ»45,BLE FOR IMACO#RACIES. ERRORS OR CÂ»liSSIONS EÂ¥ SLRVEâ€¢YOK 2. SITE CONT// 106-51 6//IS IA/B ELEVATION Q//7 GALAMBOS 3. CONâ„¢AOTOR 9,LL TAKE C.â€¢12E TO ,Â«,r DAM,6E EXIST:,6 TREES 2/IN* CE,Â·e-IT!ON /NO ARCHITECTS GO~619,ICTOIL INC CARBON~D~LE~~1.~0 81623 (970) 704-9750 A O 9 r' AL -- \V - 7 40 - 04.-1- . .-W- --1 Z /1 - --- / 40 -..- 7 ---- At - C se--143 BED--7 ' I --- 'C--'LAMTOâ€¢E ON - -1 4 - --- \: I ----- - - > \ \ \ Il j Â£878/ 1 1/ 0 , 1 - , z \ 3 prf-<-11-1 2-!2-5 143-4/ - ./././02 STRioners j 1 111- :111*.16 - .01-00'..Ce'rr 7/1 - 9,1- + 1 Â«+11 * I ~: \09 '--/ i ----44 t A' - :/11.- f 'a 112- 1 9/ \/ â‚¬:#*##A~ ---i 3, El *= - . 119Â«tl -9/ 0 .-kl t-; 11 4 3 I'l"' Le.1 -rt -*C-m Q 71. 1 :BE<2 laâ€¢Â·co-oe,rr \ 34%%64 \ 2:*2 . It 11 41.-1 â€¢8,8' '777 SITE CONTGUR 1 im ' i--% 1//9 ELEVATION / cl// 42) '2Â»<jul 1 1 106.31â€¢BUILDÂ»* 4-' - er 1 4 - / 1 Qm-%-*-j -F 12 8.EVATION 100-0Â· U e c.,orâ„¢:Â»t .9 f... . tr 102 35 --1 - ligji~ ~~~ ~~Ell /-- 1 r. 1 gik= 31 \ | /. 1- 6!Vi6 LeVa. 1 ' ' Ex]STIe RAL Al.M TE& \ / COÂ»GK4:.r<,2 To ve-r - 1 7.0-/0 (Cior.IMMI \Ops:Â« i .--- / REPLIC IF 1.Â£258'.'r -.----=-=-1-32211 0 6 / , 1 f -- RJ<STOâ€¢E ON ' 1 i-ued for: date SETT,!e BEEP --1 , .....9 RAIL â€¢*OAO Te /0 / SEE REMOVED. PERMIT 4-14-45 IO-01-48 2&Â£- 1:,11 A, OM 1 1 wS Laft â€¢ POST \ 1 aP # 2 l 8. ~ \ A--- '16 d=unng SITE PLAN date x C SEPTEMBER 3. 1998 %- , p.,EMEIT proj[Ic, 68 tg* ~ WAYFLOWER RENOVATION ' \ job number 2.TE_ELAN~ ~Fl'Â§4 MALE: :/3-=1'-0- NORTH T !9!8 00 'NEIdSV '1HfU)0 213AlOT/AVW 99Â£:I 7.-1 . FLOOR PLAN NO â‚¬1 Â·33 3 4 0*Iel/,8 042 TO CUISEE FNE OF STE) AT EXTERIOR YviLLA OR F//LE I SUP AT .-I Â·HT,4, MAL.LA <JR EXTMOC,4 IKE OF 40Â»,CRETE MA,OATICIL (UNOJ 51-6 1/r --2 2. 602/ U}es 12-4,NEICT aelp FALE OF ST,U IT ExÂ·84* IN-La CR EXTERMJR /=vit OF 1 1 /-41/r 0 , 11AU 34*OETE AT Fâ‚¬Uâ‚¬)ATION te.Lla 23-8 1/Z' i. 3,Â·eeoe Ar Exleâ€¢Ic= *M/0 000,5 Ne Ra,aH Opeee stze, E08eo ON ~Zzl -- 0 \1 . :~ FOR AclU,Â·netrS To.0 5,ZES ' A-TENMATE 9 9 : /-1 4. rL.L.5 9*704 /8 = WVMelarTS le,4 C<JÂ»61111Â£17//7 i 3 RePOLE EXESTâ€¢e MllÂ»e 10 183*14 Int,el POZZ] 1-COMS FOR reer E-Ce.0 - ExcEPr -00,6 02,4.04.05. 01 01 - ALAMBOS a ./k .iRCHITECTS I l - 4-=T ..N C - x= "-35 95'e :26 --0 71,9:M rellb 'm'._._-*LINE- 27 ..EX[SIIN~ BEARING fNALL 206 MAIN ~RKET 1 ~~ ~BATH *4- . 19 7-11 -8 4 ...RBONDALE COIONADO i 1522 res 704-=750 .-22 LAND /0.11 BATH *9 1 i !11 1- 1 1 4 + 4 111 1 1 4//77 - .-- -~-~1/ 4 SEDROOM â‚¬ ' *!1 4 H~ i'1. 1 i b \ 1 1. 1 lilli ,. Â·1! - liii :ALL (///3 i~ ~ Ilt ~ ~ - 1 11!:11.1 3 3 . el jAI *1=J 1 1 1 1 ;11/ 111 4 C -k==01 421- ====Ph FIÂ·,-c-Jr 1 1 41 1 1 1 -, 4-3 1 1-1 to 44- : L .... 1.b~ -1 --] 1*zX~ree.CÂ» ~ 1 - : 1 -: 11 - -Â« 1 3-10 wr 11. r# I 1 V 2 #â„¢7' / 111. i 1 1 -- 1 Â· Tot-Â·r. dll Z : 1 1 Â£4 IIi 7 11 ~ 1 BEROOM *4 -- OPEN 1 /' 41 11 N - 1 1 LOFT/OFFICE hit Â»1 2 ~ !1 : 1.iÂ·-r, ..... 4.-4. .... 1 <1 36' H eLWUPRAIL 9 1 - --- i i j -/ n H e $ r= 11 \ 1 1 -I <29 '' .-I ' lit 1 1 * 3 31 11 / 1 44 1 W =4 3aFFN -fl , 7 CE>-- =-1 1 ., Â· i opel 4- 0 + 4 4.8 1Â»e~ -----2 11 1 lf) 5/&2*â€¢OR 70 2*12Â·r~=meN4-- ---1-- , ~ ROOF-9 *GRAITION 7 - - 1 -11.INE OF EXE'iwk@ - -4-9 --4 - - -- - LINE OF EXISTINe w ~ STiuITURE 1 --- 1/ 1 1 -2-14-- 4.8.644. Â». c]Late JERMIT 4-14=3 Lj 1 -2-3 .# 1@1' 1 4- 7-5Â· r-r ~ 1 4, / . 1 vv 1, 3,=L LE,IL FLOOR PLIZ -raul,ng date SEPTEMBER 3. ?998 f-3 1/r . <-r :.t . 5-4 Vt W projet MAYFLOWER RENOVATION 0 0 @0 36 job number NER SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4'-1'0' NORTH - --- - - - --- - --- -- -- -i- 4- --- s.r ,-r NOIAVA ~H >1)1M< r (111) (1) ./Eii- F .-/ : FLOOR PLAN ./ 14) . 1 1 : . ALL Dâ€¢ee,o,e ,â€¢RE -ro c...... , 57,9 AT EX,OCR ,-,LS. OR /,CE // STLO IT , Â»nmloR *04.LS, GR BGERIOR FAE:E OF Cat/1/11 1,â‚¬Al,QI 01#01 ~~ 2 6,29 LI,el-ReiBIT aNDE F,Â£2 1 911Â£) Ir EXTEKOR MILA aR Er!5210â€¢2 F/C~ o p C/Â»0171 AT FaIDATOI )-LLS, & 3. Deele,0,6 AT EX~)~M ,~COM NO DOIB ARE Ra,5,1 OPE,ile SIZES 8,681 ON 9/Za .ill~* i ~ AMAUSne#5 10 Ro. SIZES F ALTERNATE /1 ''N 45 90*1,6 - Rm,~ENTS,el CCNSâ„¢ICTION. ~ ~V 'ty '- , , i ' 1 1 ' Â· 1 1 ---*-I 1*dlili L' Ill -- -_ -_ SALAMBOS 0 1 - ARCHITECTS - 1 lilli . C. )< 11 ' lilli -I-/ --- Mt id'11!111 Hil -r - ... 1 - '14-Â· I.#/-J I m 1 4 -f---- I #----I UR---7-9222---- 1 ~ HI 0 1 EXIST'Ne --- ..ABOe:.MEr 11622 I 0-- ----w- 511 1 - 11 --Â·- -~ Â»Ar :-4 11 , i ; -Al M.Gor A !11-11 it .1 -METAL ROOFINe i i CONâ„¢ACTC* TO VE*-r 11 : t 11101 11 11, 1 1 1 / ------ ---------- 1- *MET PlaoR m ' 1 , ' ' il; I Â· 01 ~ i i 1 U, 1 11 :11 1 / 1-1 1 - SH....le./.t n 1 11 11. 1,1 Â·1 1 I K i $ 1 11 '' till i i 3 4===== 1, 4 1 -CEDAR SHAKE ROOFINe 11 11 11:1 : d i 111 '- - . i'll: 7-T j LL_-_-11 '21 EX. R.D.a i : AX. 6. -fIDE VENT-VENT 1 / >11 4.7 . RAFTER SPACES /111 1 1/ EXISTINe H ft='4-3.=7'=yf =_IA, 1 1 21.-~~~ fyi ! j' FLAT ROOF : knif=-= =-47-]i ..~925141[7.7 'ill. r . - ., VAL- 1 =LASHINe i F-&2~-,-4-hÂ»1_LLLOÂ· ~J#11 ''~~ ~~ -f:99!il /7Â« 041 . 1- 1 7 -U 2 r--U- -JÂ»LA i 4 ' ,@42>-2-4,4 / , 1 1 11 Ill 611 '~ ' ' *-6.-t~f-w----t}1Â§:,fi ' ----5.-3 - Li li6-- -- - -4-- .1- -1 1= 1 7 -CORRUGAED DECK METAL ROOFINS 3/12 SLOPE @ FRONT i [92 -<== tft--32 .23-=-Ht-z---Â·-zz=-Tt-_ -QI--- -- -- 92-1-- 96 REG. ON SIDE -- 1-1-1--__ T I . -- T 1 - 1 - - , - + : icAT-,APE 1 1- 1 /Â©6 I --ti:E:I--4.- ---'--r-1-~-%Â¥81-7=9U-IN- 12/1 0- - th===4=92Â» tly V ----------1- 12\ i - -- +1--- - Â· 1 D--4=--1= -~- -Wil-.I.li - ---li~ ~- -#i--W-~ ~- --- --* 1% 1 , ,--11 1 J td I j -CORRUeATED ETÂ»L 1 :' D21 , 11 ' II 1 1 - - PER UB.C. al 1 = r-----W- } 1 1.- - - Aft-==-0- :irl L- - - - =3==tutll 12-=Ul-- = uâ€ž+ ---Ill -2 =,2 ! Â£ -EUTTER 4 DOWN-SPOUT ON LOW ROOF OVER I -=14= Â» 2-1 -4\ 1 GARAGE DOOR 8-41 1 *dERFE| 11 1 -7-41 - - - --4 I ~-~--il -,7 -crt , p=ii_-232712/1224 43,@EE=%* 4%30 --____-_ - -Â»'.4 t=39=~212Â«=~-t=~47~=212-3 - EL-'A_- - --- -- -I/rit ==- -- -1- --- L rh '8*ued for: clate 1- - "ERMIT 1-14-48 1 0--' - . i Il 1 -- 11 1 ! 1 1 1 \ GUTTER 4 DOMN-SPOUT (RUN ALL DOWN- SPCUTS TO DRY-hEE) 1 irawing ROOF PLAN 1 1 1 1 SEPTEMBER 3,1998 late 01 0 /-\ n <7 MAYFLOWER RENOVATION projeot 2:9 2325 job number ROOF PLAN SCALE, 1/4'â€¢1'-0* -- C 1, C In) TI9IR O,9 *N5[dSV 'J,HnOko HEIALO'IdIAV}I 99CT NOILVAONJ[H HHAAOTALVW 41 m 11111[A lili [Il 0 0 90 -- le'll ..... CIP 8/1 11 GALAMBOS 1 11 1. 11 11 1 1 11 -..... ARCHITECTS 1/1 1 III' ITCÂ». Ve'l< ' Iq ' 11:b INC =h====-- 2* C.ZOAR .... *-==i- UDIR "t'â€¢2' 0%~ 11 1 1 -4-- 1 . EL=114'-1- ---- CARBON~D~X~NOI~0 81623 PLATE-HT.O-LIVIR~ ~ ke LJ =l-1 - qu r 1, Il (970) 704-9750 1 L '*1 21! , r= IMI 'Fr' 13 -- 56Â· R .1.*C-All , 6-- 114/0/ = '/5 --4-- 2. CeDAR "SCLA -1!-- L-- Il-~-1 EL=109'-5 - 1 EL=togÂ·.OÂ· SECOND FLOOR 2/ ./PAR 'IM â€¢ PLATE HT. I M. BRM 4.0 111Â·0) TM8= ' - - I -meet le.O.1 8Â·...../.AR LAP ... L 1 @1*1 @11 4 -- -- 1 1 - - F-7 - liE 11./ 1 IF--1 77 4 00â€¢74 u//5/cle ccu/- i 2,14 6224 â„¢114 9 9 4.21 22 , ID:~ - P r A 1 in,â‚¬ O- ovel slae III ' 1 1, -.; - A- ,-.n.~ %:t. , -i 3 m;5120 COM~,BATED ,â‚¬TAL ./.20* .."Cme - EL=100'-11' A El= 100'-0~ 1 - W,Ii, .11 11 ---MASTERBDRM. , DININW KITCHEN ' '-- L_u - bÂ· c; F= ~ 5-El- - Â® 1 1 ~ EL=97-8 * 11 Illi lilli ; 1111'1111 24 -*2 n/// BEAM -LiviE-REM 4.8 Tic= =A"ET :1 :1 i 1 ' b NE'14 CE- : 1 P. 1 1 11 1111'H 1 0,- 111 111 1 111'111 El=91'-11' ~ C-) NEM SOUTH ELEVATION t1 36Â® 0 0 0 / 6.e/â€¢R 8,-ces c/a~ h ~UT-+H-~-1-F+7ArM*~-MI'-T1j1*u C<Â»rr'~Â«18 14-2 1 ....$.-0 i 1 1 I.Â·Â·Â·Pul 1 11|1~ J ||1 47*40.' , ' 1' ' I :i :., el . r .1.. IiI 4 1 1 1 I lili lili' 1 111 1 I li 11 1 1 1 1 '1.114'11 1 Â·1 1 1 1 1 1 W Hbil 1 2% CLOAR PASC.64 11 1 '1 Illillill 11 1 1 1 1 1 ''; 11 'P: 1 1 J - ' i lIiiÂ·!1 ,1 - il 111 1; 11 11 11 K :!11] PERMIT q-14-45 z v mi + .= 110.CoM?ldi#* W!.90.27 ,â€ž~ed for: ok,U Â»- r="1 1 1, , 1- 4- i 1, 1 b-- t--Ir':JI 1 10-01-48 1'I i l' 1 1 11 1,1 11 tEL ELIZI 2.4 C=AR â„¢.4 1 .1 11 111 4 11 :1 1 1 - 1 , PLATE HT. tri-OMr Il i i EL=109'-5' LP. OF PLATE HT. - 11 711 ~ 2-*=: E-9 1 ''. ~ ... 1 Â¥ AR LAI ..... 10 - k'~ Il. I 1 , 1-i 0/0 rED ,â‚¬TTAL drmulng EXTERJOR ELEVATIONS I . ' EL= 100'-11' date MASTER BE>RM. SEPTEMBER 3. 1998 ----,PIP-CI~j--=-4=7- =t= U C.IR ..E project '~i 11 1 - 10 1 1@ 1 MAYFLOWER RENOVATION 6 job numb,r -1-//on-Ar-=---3/C~2=2--En , 1 1 - 2-0520 CCâ€¢CRETE TO ~40- EL=91-11' eARAerE NEREASTELEMATION ~~0,7 SCALE: v.Â·Â·iÂ·-0 m...1 4 NOIA.VAONJIM MSIMO~IAAVW T I 9 Ttl 00 'N[ildSV '111800 HGIAA012(AV}N 99Â£I 0 9 00 , A\. SALAMBOS ARCHITECTS 1 t__ ; 11 INC i / LIT--- ~ ~ 1-7714 308 -UL.IN STREL j N i ,-1.*- C/#IR..... 1.RBONDAU COLORADO iler 770 * 704-975C - 12 -I....../.I-*- ~ .27 Ililili Illi'll~, 1, 4 EL=09-0' G - L.P. OF Â°LATE wr. ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I-I.*.-W -L..i-' 5 - - -11--- - - . Â·- - 4 b *Â«=-22_vtÂ«â‚¬12*1--- ENE: 61 BIL-111 1'QP=1---.1- 11[E-; 2 - 41 - ----4-_-- a~ 8,Â©all //Be,I L// SOMNI - -. -~ -1- /1-22=Ii=ZIE,Ne, .//Â°-1 -'li 1 6,11 -=77] p----m' KE> 1 Lz==p - i EL=10-11' 11 Ill Ell, 411 lilil~ I lillill<Ii , i ~= 1\~~ /1- .1 1 .en 1 1 2 El=100'-7 ' -----DiNE-ZiEHEIV*- ~ > ~OO IrÂ©R. lie.Et bi IT/*/ 4/mieR- 2 1 EL=mir - 1 - 1 SARASEE Ch_NEYVNORIE-ELEMATION .-I V .-' - 4 + - i - ,OL- 1''lill,1 'IF 11,1 1 '1 1, 1 1 ' -/7 1 1!1111 lei 11 -23-- 11 - , LL_L.121-11---ULLU |11' 1 'n--- 1 i' i (:~ h!!"I !''i,; F-'iL~ : C=.Raw<ZB Om= :1 11 c.,1.100 142 4 ..71 8.-o 11111 11 1 1:11:lilli. 145:=4 1 1 1 TFUÂ»=1 111.211_ 11-2 " 11''lili .- l '1 11 1 1 -,===/7-/ lii. il '| ,~.~rÂ·Â·-Â·~_2-==tu_=,1311 .amued for: date El 1 Ili I i ' i ,tÂ«01LAALL-L~~ FE*liT q-14-43 1. 11 1 , ' ' 4 iii il ctig---<Tr'-raN El-114'-1- 4 *7-=fi-----. i 4 1- _ a.1,4 1 - SECOND FLOOR - - 2X CE>AM 1-14 - m 121 --frutria-~~ y 41 7--D-==--,0 _EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS E,4==L-Lilla==Â»m=+---9/1- 1 - 7 3â€¢ E-Cal~ Cm,â€¢R L- 510,- I EL=109-4 1 SEPTEMBER 3. 1998 JININ&/~TCHEFA project 1.YFLOTER RENOVATIO El.=97-E ~1 job number --- (ED C-) NER MEST ELEVATION