The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.337 Silverlode Dr.A12-97' ' 1 , w .2 -- Brien Residence DRAC Review * awwziN 9)4 9 S 7 k CASHhOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY Oill,PEN .... DATE RECEIVED: 2/15/97 CASE # Al 2-97 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: letie-AnneWoods PARCEL ID # 2737-074-29-007 S.<AJ PROJECT NAME: Brien Residence DRAC Review Project Address: 337 Silverlode Drive Lot 7 APPLICANT: Alice Brien Address/Phone: 1216 Vine St. Aspen, Co. 81612 OWNER: same Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: David Panico Address/Phone: 1533 Juniper Hill Rd, Aspen, 81611 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450. # APPS RECEIVED 8 ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 8 HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval i,AM'IM:mt:, tthi:, i..~2.~:Mllitt,8; tu;,@Nu, 1 ., 4.11.Â£* ' 1 , i , 1.....i....1.-461 P&Z C]Yes UNo CC C]Yes [3No CC (2nd reading) C]Yes C]No REFERRALS: U City Attorney El Aspen Fire Marshal U CDOT U City Engineer (DRC) Cl City Water D ACSD U Zoning El City Electric U Holy Cross Electric U Housing U Clean Air Board U Rocky Mtn Natural Gas El Environmental Health El Open Space Board El Aspen School District E Parks U Other: C] Other: DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Date: gut- 27 /9 97 Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: DESIGN REVIEW A~PEALS COMMITTEE ~BRUARY 27. 1997 377 SILVERLODE DRIVE........a...............................................................................................................................1 533 WEST SMUGGLER 926 EAST DURANT -BRASS BEn MINUTES 8 DESIGN REVIEW ~PEALS COMMITTEE YEBRUARY 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 Hoefer 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 if 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 i f 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 AT'PEALS COMMITTEE IFEBRUARY 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 of the 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 ifthe driveway already existed. Panico said it was already cut in as part o f 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 I. 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 AYPEALS COMMITTEE PEBRUARY 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 of 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 proj ect 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 o f 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 ifthey were at the maximum height with this house. Derrington replied that they were slightly below the maximum height 3 DESIGN REVIEW AMFPEALS COMMITTEE -FEBRUARY 27. 1997 with the cupola. Haas stated the real intent o f this standard was so that a new house did not "loom" over the adjacent 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 if the applicant could find one o f 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 if 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 of 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 AYPEALS COMMITTEE ~BRUARY 27. 1997 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED Steve Buettow stepped down. David Hoefer asked for the posting of 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 proj ect that was recently approved by the Board of Adjustment for a carport at the rear of 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 of 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 MPEALS 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 o f 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 if 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 if the 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 townhouses and an ADU. Moyer asked if 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 relief 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 project. 6 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE ~BRUARY 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 , 66 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. I <--52â‚¬6~,O (549 . Dz< i Jackie ]~6ian, Deputy City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directdl>~~ n Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director l,ul*v. FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Enforcement Officer DATE: February 19, 1997 RE: 377 Silverlode Drive - Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant requests a waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard related to the garage setback requirement. APPLICANT: Alice Brien, represented by David Panico LOCATION: 377 Silverlode Drive ZONING: AH-PUD PRO.IECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION I. Background -The proposed project is a new single family residence. of approximateiy 2800 gross square feet. located in the Silverlode Subdivision. II. Site Description - The proposed project is located on a steep. hillside lot of 12.374 square feet. The lot is on the uphill side of Silverlode Drive. III. Waiver Requested Standard: All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. IV. Staff Evaluation - The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria: a). yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff response: The project does not further any goals of the AACP. b) more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or Staff response: The waiver request does not address this criteria. c) be clearly necessary for reason of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff response: Given the constraints placed on the building lot due to the steepness of the terrain, staff feels that the proposed location of the garage is acceptable. The garage has been angled so that is does not directly parallel the street. which staff feels has reduced the visual impact of the garage. In addition, the building site is significantly elevated in relation to Silverlode Drive and therefore has a minimal visual impact from the street. V. Recommendation - Staff recommends that 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 at 377 Silverlode Drive. finding that criteria "c" has been met. .. DESIGN BY DAVID PANICO Ms. Sara Thomas February 16, 1997 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena St. - Aspen, Co. Re: Lot 7 Silverlode, Brien Residence D.R.A.C. Application Dear Sara, Accompanying this letter is the completed application to the Design Review Appeal Committee. A letter of summation follows and addresses the Ordinance 30 review standards point by point. General By Aspen standards the proposed structure is a bit of an anomaly for a free market residence. The Applicant is proposing to build a residence that is well below the ailowable FAA even if it were 100% above grade. The allowable FAR. for lot 7 is 3117 sq. ft. The proposed residence is comprised of approximately 2800 gross sq. ft., and will use up only about 1400 sq. ft. of the available FAA The design attempts to relate to the stuctures that probably existed on the hillside site at one time. The two elements of the proposed structure are intended to mimic the appearance of two miner's cottage's in shape and scale. The fenestration tries to relate to the traditional organization of street facing windows typical of the building that house's Gracys. The variance from Ordinance 30 that is being requested is site driven and ultimately does not deviate from the intent of the ordinance. The vanance relates to the location of the garage. The point of this section of the code is to try to move what is considered an undesirable architectural element from the most prominent side of a residence, on a normal residential street, to a less offensive location. The lots in the Silverlode Subdivision are all substantially elevated above the street they front on thereby mitigating the visual impact of the garage. The practical reasons for the garage being where it is are related to the steep slope of the driveway which, without a massive amount of excavation, only allows access to the lower part.(the frontmost part) of the building envelope. If the applicant were forced to locate the garage per Ordinance 30 standards the apparent vertical mass would be increased by 1/3 due to the resulting need to dig the garage entrance into the hillside. For these reasons I request that the Design Review Appeal Committee grant the Applicant the requested variance. * Denotes points where this application varies from the intent of Ordinance 30. Building Orientation BOX F-3 ASPL. -OLORADO 81612 PHONE 970 923 5394 FAX 970 923 1260 .. The proposed residence is comprised of two main elements with a connecting element and deck between them. The larger of the two elements is tangen~al to Silverlode Drive. The entrance is oriented to the street There is a street facing principal window that opens into the living room that is parallel to the street. The width of the house exceeds the width of the garage by more than 5 feet * The proposed garage does not set back the desired 10 feet from the facade of the house. Building Elements The garage/deck element comprises a one story street facing element that exceeds the 20% minimum. Build to Lines This part of Ordinance 30 does not apply due to the fact that all of the adjacent lots are vacant. Primary Mass As can be seen in the enclosed elevations the proposed structure is divided into two distinct elements with separate roof structures, thereby satisfying the intent of this section of the ordinance. Inflection This part of Ordinance 30 does not apply due to the fact that both of the adjacent lots are vacant. The residence under construction on Lot 6 (adjacent lot to the west) is two stories tall at it's eastemmost elevation though, like the proposed residence on Lot 7, more than half of it's mass is below grade. Garages and Driveways * As stated previously, the garage for the proposed structure does not set back from the facade of the house the desired 10 Feet. The proposed garage is parbally below grade, but does not exceed 24 feet in width, nor does it comprise more than 40% of the front facade. Areaways There are no areaways on the front facade of this residence. Calculaung floor area ratio All aspects of ordinance 30 regarding the calculation of floor area ratio will be met. As stated previously, the proposed residence will be well under the allowable floor area. BOX F-3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 PHONE 970 923 5394 FAX 970 923 1260 .. Height As is noted graphically on the elevations the proposed residence is well under the maximum height Parking The proposed residence will exceed the parking requirements by providing two spaces in the garage and at least one in the driveway. If you have any further questions i will be glad to respond to them at the meeting on the 27th. BOX F-3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 PHONE 970 923 5394 FAX 970 923 1260 .. ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name DE.i EN 22 6 1 PENCE 2. Project location 961 51 LVELLOCE DZ[VE LOT --7 AILL-121,19 (26(i, 04 SUE>Divtâ‚¬,ic#,1 (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds descripticn) 3. Present zoning P.U.D. 4. Lot size |Z i 9 74 41 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number M'3- ALICE 15,2.IEN, 11.10 VikIE eT . ItÂ»FEIV,(20 2 te l 2- 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number D NV 1 0 78 )\11 C O' 1533 .)LIN,RE.2. AULL. iZID bePEN 6-0-F- 14/.1 7. Type of application (check ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HPC Speciai Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization K Design Review . Lot SpliULot 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) VAL'JN 7 (--21 N 13 9. Description of development application & NUMâ‚¬62 OF JANITE SUâ‚¬26 cf PbRE-11 i 40&15 hill-U LFJTE]247 ANC) NUMSÂ·F:129 Â¢ON -fliEN : 2704Â£26 WITU d 2&84[6 RF PeESEN'rane#9 01~ A FlPIP; OF LANI) AND TUE. 9712,CCTED'RE TO ?f, 612[Cr rN Tk) AT t lgLE LF LAI). 10. Have you completed and attached the following? y Attachment 1- Land use application form * Response to Attachment 2 X Response to Attachment 3 i I C , L j . 0,1 9' '83.60 5 64330 7 1 , -0 h/ + vrps 14399 '1 -96% 5 Er-6 91-6 . 9 '03 ' Ba 0 -se~ i., y -7 1 1 4 -9 Dd ' R )72 2 9 9/ .3 0 0 0 , r,0 ,0( e .' /Le g[ -3 1, ,2 94*015-9 & 9 -977 -6-2 6 24 6 73 ' 1Â»9 /39 9 jLL 2-(92 0 dj ly) ,-4 Y-ujeC~~ Â«Pro T - 1 /1, 1 1, 7 S *-Zi, ..27& 191 -17. \ . J.M// '' U .. t 4- *...--Al I Ll.DL'614 6./ L.N~ 4 X\_ c- - \CÂ©/4i-22:Â« . // /le AAL_.. 944 10 t Â« 1 49â‚¬Â«rÂ« /-/0 \-. OP 7-- 23-Â»fu / 13=>R O UL .Â» /i n>\ 4 155 Mita-7 C AR ~ / 1 ' C 9/ Jr- 1 Â«30 9 --- -*1 1 97- unr- 01 Unfof / Â»=121 -r- VE-kilie -tf'21 Nci a elÂ«/-14 0 E_-322 l PKANCIA STEâ‚¬Et 441Â« Â¥312-21 0 1 21 009.-fl- LE -) 44 )0- 10--ll ]P---.11 f J Â£ gLEEf .stlzaET ~ 210 0-t7~-~~~~~ 14 (l (Au--eler -i M s-ruse.[ -1 9,7 0-32_~l *44 ELE d (fil]{ ---tiL-- *Slf*4ry% 1 i icÂ«442]L-.-j E-_---J L-I---)0---. j r- -9) i /\4 y i pugANT tiVENUE 3 01 304-- -------~-1-4--1 030--J Al[ 41[ 1 1 9.1. N k ~// // //47/7/9 11 1f~l tricifou--9 /a \/ 9Â¢1 < i i l// Ij' ii I f f / / jliil 10 3) 91 't\ \\6 if <1/- /7 / vt 1( //7 f/ r0 - j9 c fAillill ~ifc 111<1221i)kifl~wti* / ,/-1 V -,/ Â· l) jji j\L t,~, 111' iÂ«/ ~ 1 I <10/7 f // // i ,/ i i i jI / 1~ il\ l \Â« j / ji f / --/ b<9.- ith <- \ iA Â«32 h./ c , Â»wirt LDOLOArk ux-4~'-~ Ji 91-4 m , Mhe'lÂ» nED [34' ENG I hi 282 I NCI -3.Â« d \ C,11--6 PU\14 (Fl, 10 = 1~ - 0%09 /4/1 11 1 ll< r----t'r r vvi Aff 1 /1 LOT w L o T 1 Lo-r 6 U N 106 2 60 NtTÂ· l VA CAN T , //PX -------I - I ... 1 I. %4 t- f L o 1- 1 LOT â‚¬ . I .k 7 IL. , rg 6 IT-E ELA t \ 1 1 . T,=401.O,1 1 fL L o 1- -3 ~ .. bÂ»-~ ple_Â·Au, 30(Y'v-~ ..3 Ola-L bug '1 1 0. l(py <*u * CU+L. te ' 9 7 2 931,5_ 14 fy 6 9 - - - r) 00 U.-4-Â· fi~,+6,-c-z: 1 %53 3 J-L~+IL Mitt 4 0Â»_, d, F 9 79 723 0-3 992 ---4 /1,<r44.-t; -24 42 . - 1 0 '1'7 .. 4,9 ------- - -r - . râ‚¬1 .... Â»=1 02 - CO K . * I I ris- 4 ; ,i'>Â¥ l. 44.00..- '. 31./ \07, U r 'L -- / \EN,- -- . 1 I:j, 44/ 1 ./. 21\ 1'. - /4/ \ \\\: 1 0, 1.-0 940,0: \J .i rT'-11' . i y] fd M. 131 d /- - CZA 64 L 40> 6 6 414 9 1 - LIL , r [Â£3 Nof>. 1~ 1 .01 ..4 fl'.9 / I. '-2.2./\ A 1 . 0 "'/&<I'Uld 1 /~ ,Â·- ~4 -~Uk wlâ€¢â€¢â€¢Al'EZ DMIÂ·laCCâ€¢A , ~--~ 1.0 1 1.1 1-4.EL---- - I // .\4/ . k 1 1 -- IN- / 1 j \ , JI A/\ 04:01 -I 1 .*\ 41.1 1-wiL. . . 9 X \ lili Ial 19<-1 ZOO,4 - V - 0 < 9 1 /2/ 1 ,/K CCAW - e fAL=. /6 - Ill , 31 K.1 .rn'-1 EN 1 4/ 0/ 1 .'iii - 23 I 1 4.34 1 4 -s J ud'Â»614*t///3%, 11 0-1 4 1 - 11 ./ -Â» //CX 1 / 7/= -1- /2 .1, / 60--2 X \1432 0 :, (XEJAX>\ 2 /24 /4 Pt ---- i- /A'%1-9 -' - I / f / 1. ,... 1 _ 4*N / "721-71 \ 4 \\ /301 \ ik , .Â©<%\ MAe-,52 eÂ£02=Â»-1 DeoloOM 1 rÂ·7= 1 4 ~Â£43::~ UE-it. / \ ., 1 4 3: 1 0 1 0 4-1 , - I I 1-4/6~44- ---0 LFL . /\ A / 1 v \ \ 4/ 4-2tg2â‚¬g UNFIN'eue:7 4946/- < i.. 1 i i.. I ; 9 LrEP, , A /47 ' 569#,7*-=0* ir \ \/ ~ 4 ' / ~:,~i=~~ ~:jz~:~ / 0 204 1\:*00Â«X \ h 't,4 11 \li U. \>. XW VAX 6 1 t\Â»A < 01 N 4 N 6 1 A its.- 1 4 [77 , X. N 1 4 4 / 5 <& 1 1.4,0 Â£///1 -e- 1 1 14 1 r- i BY DESIGN 4 - -,4. .Â» 7 --i = a, 43%~ , I'. # & r . . 11.24 /4 4; .. 1 ' 4:7., 2 -9-44. 1 -11-- 14 1? 586 ZUYI:â€¢GI. ! 1 1 FANICO / L 42 1 r . :Ne./.OR.,TE V.\ .AAÂ£Â·166 Â» -6- /// E-- (11)7 ~rf - 4 1 /16/fyÂ« 1 7 - - -- 1 PELL -646 1 8 1412~----1 1 -.- fFi [ 1 i 970923 5394 PMONE 910 923 1260 ' - 9 I - 1 ; I I 4 .......La- . M-nâ€¢.me,0 45: 4* ~77 - 59 -<C 1-l V I k.141 1 20 ......"...=, . DOX F.3 .ts,Ex COLORADO ~ lat Â· ' I 27/0 200 M 59 " - 1 ! 1 4 rr- 51612 -tur--3-9 ' /1 c., Â·rei *i-/u p J 1 4.4 9.20'S=. 0-Â£- , 1... r...0â€žâ‚¬- , .t/ - 1 .1 11 d -- 1 \ .. . , 11 -1 1 14 11 i , 1 f 1// I t. mr--f Â· 4 1 1 2 1 1 - 1.l L. -1 -rt C r -=?'-42 - .. 1 . t.4 , i I ., 'Ar 44. 4 iâ€¢R . *L, W Â·314jf . . 2.- 4 1 1 1 ' SP 1.-1412. f ..0. â€¢r A. 1 1,--/2 : 4-,V 6. 1 . ~11'-6.../ : 9-11. ;TE OF tSS<-t KEVISION DATES r .1 .i:- 1 j 7 1~ 2 14 2. 1 1 1 Ul' LOWER LEvEL UppeR Level - SHEET # A2 or lv}10100 ' '2!i\1Ha WOOrtlmNIIS Ler a ~448 .61. - - E -- .... - --, 11 - - -- 1- t-- - --EL Z-Â· k--r e~~-Iz,--- ,-Z- 1 \ \\*2 - 11 - ...... CU - -- -- --- 1 Ill- --- - . =EZZL --L.: i -12 V...cr.*r.z-/i- 22/C--741-Â»:3 -fit **511.523 1 i k - u -4 m- f --=--7 - -i= - - , -1 - \1 1 1 1 - - . Zc 11, 1 , 2=7 7-.-4 - ,> ,-- ;:1=71 L â‚¬ C..3 ~-2 ~_2Â§./,4/3/2- - ' ' CE- 4-1!l-1 l--237 Mci 1 - r-1 1 - r. E-- - I - 1 f f. ~ m q ,3 1 --ray Fjr-72 '11 7*, - - - .- i , r.3 * 6'W-:1. i, F f k :i c - :, 11 ff=Al .7.- 1 --1 . --/11-/1/-4/ ~ - .1,-'4 1.I r i 2-4 - 01 t. ' . i.<R.4-1 L= F .Al F 1 Â· 1 786..,6.".- I -~ '. , - -. il il 'n, Â· El 6 El - - / E. I.. . . ill Â© 4 - r --e--â€ž- = 0)......isr ,& - ....: - Â· 27 ' _/* 1~.264 7ZE ' 4 - *'225 . * 4 1, i 1 1 1 11 7 11 A 1:- .1,.\ 11 , 1.2 r , . 4 CO 1 '~-R:. , -1~ 146*IMUM ____ 2__7 ~ 1 i# - ~- ---_ 44 ri ---IL JL-. 1 6 NE.,ci,-rr 1 - - - 4 00=- "4.-2.0 - - 1- 1 - 0,1 ZE 11 / 1 -- --- 11 1 -2 - -5Â«_71 11 11 It, 1.-j .--- I a,-e e.. .5 1 ' -/1. 1 - - 11 11 :.1.1 B_iL- il hnil - - 1 1 -2 14 7 - 5 11 1 1 fÂ¥'Â£ 1 1 --1---- - ----4 *,3 - 1 -. SOUTHWEeT ELEVATION. edu74ZAST E L EV AT I O N Zl 4 ' - - - DESIGN .Nj\\ L /,0/ 0 /Â«291 p~U.4-I Â·141â€¢1'66 + - .lâ‚¬r.*// /.Ilk.2- - BY .-1 A j L//.. 4,00 ' . 62'...../4-,-6..6 - D A V 1 D /7. L 2,4.- 2 ..1 lÂ» \ Â»tr --2 2=rr,- \* . PANICO '2.- 1 . ./1 LE>h=c=' ~L 1.1 ..n..,OR.â€¢.-E %332 -. - .0, 770 923 5394 -- Â· , 1/ 7 i I 7AX 4 4 / 4 0~'4Kil . , h 1 7*t ti , BOX F-1 4 970 923 1260 29.2,04 9-ta , W H i 1 r j Ul !. 1 11- :11 111 1 ; 1 1 a1412 - - 1 , 1. 1 1 1 3 C 11 . . . il -- -- 1 1 --1 DATE OF ISSUE -,-L, i i H 1 - i. M 1 11 1 . , 1 SHEET # N O K TWWE e T E-L EVATI=N NORTHEAST ELEVATION A3 OF i.) l' A ,1 ( ),1 . 0 0 - I .. &16 UN&Â¥ MOD,E INAr I CAN NCE U)GATE k -8370 ./r -I.- -- r .,0/ 4-Nk .142 - C. --. 0/ -// - a~ H..0,7, \4 F L OO R AREA TaÂ© U LATI O N ZO N I N 0 NOTE M ~D // *-i ././.*.*----.-----\- ----1-----W -%/ TUIÂ© Â©Ul'-D I NGL Â£311-8 10 It,2.T- OF Thi 13 AILL-(AMe ///// -/-1- RANC#4 F.U.O. 3-145 t\LLOL'IADLE. 1-A.12.14 3,1 1-1 Col es:), ----- -1 44 0642Â£ FeE.Thaty DE yunitbIED IN TNE F? UÂ· D. C:te 11-1- -- / 5MENTE. BY INRI TEEN 46&606#T HiTU Tue ~ AePEN / Fl T-LI N COMMUN ITY DEVELDPM ENT- DEFE J / TUE METUDO Fae DETERMINI NU TUE FEA.(K. FC;12. / N / /// /825 Tule L-OT- 16-71Â·48 METUCD IN PLACE FR.EVIOU=2 -TD \ TIAE A[Darrt ON CP ORDINANCLE 30 BÂ¥ TUE CITY I ---- r OF ASPEN Aâ‚¬77 DEFINED IN @EcaloN -32-10/ OFTUE AbeEN MUNI 1-1 PAL. C.ODE. 1 / -, -- // - 74~ LEZOAL DE.:=CRIPT-ION \ LOT -1: WILLIAN/Ivy ZAN CU SUBDIVIÂ®tor.4 ---0 ,%1 9 j#1 1 Â· 4 -- ~ ALLOINADLE F.4,2. ~21&4 elli[D I/.1141.- , / '. -TI FlED Â·FOSEO F.A.E. M 25 -1 1, Â©Ouu'7411 '67*IN'INA 1// *- // , 1 1 --- Â©Ele FhEES f A.K. 1 AND fa,I. 2 1- 2- -,/ ~41// // 1% 331 // .1.Â» , --- -J -r- I ./ 4.h FÂ« F. U.G &6121EEMENT ITIâ‚¬; UNPERST-COOTUAT 114162 / I 4,. KE* I DENUE INILL t-IM/E AN ALITOMATIC- fliZE *FRIN- 0 ; F LAT Â¥-O De \ ILLE12 *YbTE-kl / I -1 z \<* &*-1 L.0-4 .-/ $..Ill--- a // 1 I ~.1 ff{* ININA 0 I y 6 - .... ' - e + -4 -t-,fic / - : 1:.1 , 1 11 ~,\1 4 4- ' 1 1 - 1 â€žT -------â€ž ---------- LEOEND 1 + - + \4 \. on K 1 A\ biTE PLAiN <t .. 1 06Â£,L- -1 V). A2 1 3 ir , 54 Â© E C T I O N Â© A N C ) D IE 141 L ep /1/ - A 27 E LE-VATIDNED h.1 -Â» \- - --- j '.1.4 -- j \. AD DE TZE I Le \ 1 J L 1. ELECT-1<ILLL FLAMED \ 2 1., r *.Ii <LENEIZAL NCTEÂ« 4 921,21261 FICAT-IONÂ© / M . 6 2 FOUNpATION FL,NN I DETAILÂ» d *ECT1014 - 82-OVIPIE #OCI> ~â€¢AL \ ..--1 63 MAIN # UFFER. LE VEL Â·Fl...1Â»2. fEAMI I NCI -_ 52*eu_ Fog. GUITEE, DESIGN 0*0 - %--f Â»1 '1 i. 1/SCE AND FOONÂ£?ATION 04 REOF- f261\41 Nci FLAN 721-61.-6 4 06<LT-laÂ«2 124,4-0 BY - -M < 11 ~ ty j 1----- -' -n -- - --fl ' DAVID ---- --- 1-- 4-1. - -RETA, N I NG INCORPORATED 40 \ -2-11/n 1 , 6 - h - 9 11- ... -1 1 - J- -- - 39 --- PHONE 970 923 5394 - -- -420 T- Vii 970 923 1260 M Â»f-~p -- BOX FÂ·3 ASPEN COLORADO / -/ - St 81612 ---- /. -- / 1 \ X -. FLOOR FLANe //44 v--Ex,ent\16, Doul-,782. PANICO . - FAX ~~ 8040- ---------- --------- -r 4\ . I / -- -- 4~ -- - --1-- ----- - -- -- - --~ - --- - + - r --___ --.- / - - ----- -# r ---- - r> '1 - - 511 Pi ATEL Aj I D R I 'V E \/4 -'.----Sh- : > t -7-- W --\ - --1 -WL O r A ~194% 0 *Eh~aF- LINE 7 LJ-,*.0.-.".,"'- 9-\ - REVISION DATES DATE OF ISSUE 1 0 ----4 ----- \%% --5 - I 64~1, ELE.LTZ.ic- 9Â©2.v'Â£LE - Â«.1 -Â»-- r >/0 c- --22---JZ E -- - TELEFLJONE -222-2- c Z.+FLE TE!-EviticN ~ ~ ~ D IT E PLAN SHEET # 14 A1 OF 0 0 . . . . . . OGY-HOT[O 0 6 GIAINa 3 4 \\\ \