The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1011 E Hopkins Ave.A16-951~_ 2737-182-04-002 A10-71 I -//-0/f--9 6-hut -4. 9 \31. 44. S R 4* c AC)~0 130 t,4 .. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 02/15/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-04-002 A16-95 STAFF MEMBER: AA PROJECT NAME: DUDE/FELLMAN SPECIAL OVERLAY REVIEW Project Address: 1011 & 1015 E.Hopkins Ave Aspen, Colorado Legal Address: Eastern half of Lot C, All of Lot D, and all of Lot E, Block 33, East Hopkins Ave {Fellman Lot Split} APPLICANT: Harold Dude 407 683-4795 fax: 407 683-2363 Applicant Address: 6585 Dillman Road, W.Palm Beach,Fla 33416 REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson & Reno Architect Representative Address/Phone: 202 E Hyman,Ste 202 925-5968 Aspen, CO 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ 489 # APPS RECEIVED 2 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 2 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 489 [No agreement to pay form sub.2-15] TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing - Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: .. 42#040064044#1~00000#40 0 Attention' 44 East H OJ'hins v Street Peaestrians 00 O 0 At the request of the Aspen City Council, L.) a public meeting 9 is being held: 144 0 Movember 2.1995 Moon in the Fire Department Meeting Room 9 # 0 0 11 The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the sidewalk under *P â‚¬j> construction at the corner of Cleveland e East Mopkins and the â‚¬~4 o pending sidewalk at 1015 East Mopkins. with the Pedestrian and o ~ Bikeway committee. 9 9 0 o The issue is whether the sidewalk and street should be o 10* constructed in alignment with the existing street and sidewalk, 12~ if or whether these alignments should be altered to retain existing â‚¬~3 o land features. 9 0 Â© Your input is needed! Flease contact Mary Lacker in the City â‚¬p o Community Development Department at 920-5090 with o f~ comments or questions. 12 9 9 C) 040#04444Â©1423#44â‚¬904404# O 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Co 40 Co 40 40 40 40 0 .. To: John Bennett, City Mayor Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 10/20/95 3:00 pm The undersigned members of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen request that work terminate immediately on the sidewalk located on E. Hopkins in front of the house located at E. Hopkins and Cleveland until further discussion can occur between the Community Development Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission. We feel that the removal of the natural berm and widing of the street have exposed so much building mass and spoiled the pedestrian experience. A strict adherence to City Code regarding the street width and sidewalk would be contrary to our hard-won Ordinance 30 and Aspen Area Community Plan. Signed Sara Garton- Chair, Planning & Zoning Steven Buettow- Chair, Design Review Appeals Committee Tim Mooney Jasmine Tygre Bob Blaich 1 / 441 3 67.Lt- t-7- /6/- 1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: 1011 and 1()15 E. Hopkins Ave. DATE: August 31, 1995 SUMMARY: This project was reviewed by the Overlay Committee in February, 1995, based upon the interim overlay review and the neighborhood character guidelines. Please see attached memo. The proposal was for a duplex structure in the R/MF zone district. The structure was designed at the maximum FAR for a duplex on a 7,500 square foot parcel (3,690). Review was mandatory, as was compliance with the Committee's recommendations. The committee approved the proposal. However, several recommendations were made to the applicant primarily regarding the location of two window wells on the front facade and the front porches. Please see attached minutes from the meeting. The developers have recently submitted plans for a building permit. Staff has found that the submitted plans do not comply with the February approval in the following areas: * window wells are still indicated in front of the principal facades of both units; + although a porch/handrail element is indicated on the front facade, the original porch has been reduced in size and the french doors accessing the porch has been eliminated; and * the approved plans located the accessory dwelling unit below grade, but the submitted plans locate the ADUs above grade, therefore adding approximately 230 more square feet to each dwelling unit than was represented in the February submittal. Due to the revisions of the original approval via the Neighborhood Character Guidelines, staff recommended that the applicant either comply with the recommendations made by the Committee in February or seek an amendment from the Overlay Committee. The applicant has requested to amend the approval based upon the Guidelines. As this proposal is located in the East Aspen Neighborhood, the guidelines for that neighborhood have been used for this review. Alternatively, the applicant's proposal may be reviewed via the Residential Design Standards and the new changes to the code that were adopted by Ordinance 30, Series of 1995. APPLICANT: Scott Samborski and Scot Broughton LOCATION: 1011 & 1()15 East Hopkins Ave. .. STAFF COMMENTS: The Overlay Committee has been dissolved due to the adoption of Ordinance 30. However, because Ordinance 30 established a Design Appeal Board, staff, together with the City Attorney, believe it is appropriate to use the Design Appeal Board for those projects that were reviewed under the Interim Overlay Ordinance but have not yet been closed. Therefore staff recommends a review of the amendments to the East Hopkins proposal based upon the Neighborhood Character Guidelines that were used during the Interim Overlay period. STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Character Guidelines for the East Aspen Neighborhood: Mass and Scale 17. New buildings should be sensitive tin scale to existing, smaller buildings in the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The original proposal was submitted with a maximum floor area allowable on site. The new location of the ADUs, above grade, will add an additional 460 square feet to the duplex. Although staff believed that the proposal as submitted in February was compatible with the mass and scale of many structures in the neighborhood, staff is now concerned with the additional floor area that will be added by the proposed ADUs. Although the new home to the west of the proposed duplex presents a significantly imposing mass, partially due to the height of the natural grade, staff believes that the mass of the duplex should step down toward the river, toward the new AH housing development and the low scale single-family home adjacent to the river. The addition of 460 square feet for ADUs within the bulk and mass of this structure does not comply with the Guidelines for new homes which recommends sensitivity to existing smaller buildings in the neighborhood. In addition, a review of the floor plans for the ADU leads staff to believe that the proposed use of the unit will not be housing for employees or working residents of Pitkin County as is the purpose of the ADU. Please see attached ADU floor plans. In the alternative, if the applicant desires the use of an ADU, the unit should either be located below grade or the FAR bonus should not be allowed for this parcel. Site Plan 21. Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk grade. a. Avoid sunken terraces that separate the main entrance from the street level. RESPONSE: The recently submitted plans indicate a light welllocated on the front of each unit. The original plans also indicated light wells which would be cut away and 2 .. screened with vegetation from the street. Staff objected to the inclusion of these light wells and recommended that they be relocated to the side of the building. The new plans still include the light wells on the front facade. In a letter submitted by the architect Scot Broughton, the light well is proposed to be stepped out to provide some relief to the deep well and cribbing will be exposed 6" above grade. A planting buffer will be provided to "minimize" the visual impact from the street. Unfortunately, the submitted plans do not provide a clear visual indication of the treatment of the lightwells, therefore staff must rely upon the submitted letter. The light wells should be relocated to the side of the units. Lightwells may be located in the side yard setback as long as the wells meet, but do not exceed, the Uniform Building Code requirements for light, air and egress, Sections 310.4 and 1203. Reduction of the front yard area between the facade of the duplex and street grade will reduce the amount of planting area. Significant vegetation on the hill leading up to the duplex will help reduce the impact of the large bulk and mass of the home which is emphasized by the higher ground. Architectural Features 25. The use of porches is strongly encouraged. RESPONSE: Although the recently submitted plans maintain the recessed front door and provide a balcony handrail, the architectural detail that was provided along the front facade in the approved plans appears to have diminished. It appears from the submitted plans that, except for a 9.5 foot wide bay window projection from the second floor, the front facade is a flat plane facing onto East Hopkins. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the amended plans as submitted do not comply with the Character Guidelines. Relocation of the window wells from the front facade, additional architectural detailing including a significant porch element on the front facades, and elimination of the FAR bonus for the ADU or a similar reduction in the overall allowable floor area of the parcel, would bring this proposal in further compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. Alternative: The applicant may pursue an Ordinance 30 review and Residential Design Standard review instead of preserving the approval gined during the Interim Overlay Ordinance process. Attachments: A. Applicant' s Submittal & Plans B. February 28, 1995 memo with submitted streetscape C. Minutes February 28, 1995 meeting D. East Aspen Neighborhood Guidelines 3 .. AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD August 28, 1995 Special Meeting 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call ><7 _ .0,-Ir 1, 1 U Le J- . h=49â‚¬1/ /1-? =257 4, X U n. Comments (Committee members, ~*~~> and public) 90 III. New Business J 4:05 A. Lacet Subdivision, Lot 3, Barnes 4:30 B. 1011/1015 E. Hopkins 5:00 V. Adjourn eft 13 4 V ('i L tif / /7 ---i-,1 qâ‚¬ r:J , c.> //>4/ /7 .. 47( -f '1 % 4 <i> 3'.r i. A % . COW Of< -h A L V f . f *. , . / 9 C 1 4 L + 1 k. /,4 .:J 6 . - C. b l I N 371 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeals Board FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner DATE: August 28,1995 RE: Lacet Subdivision Lot 3 - Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variation from the design standards regarding driveway placement below grade. The design standard for driveways states that "no portion of a driveway to a garage shall be below the natural grade within the required front yard setback." The application is attached as Attachment A, a site and drainage plan for the subdivision as Attachment B, a site plan for Lot 3 as Attachment C, and photographs of adjacent driveway cuts as Attachment D. The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards for any of the following criteria: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to: c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. APPLICANT: Lacet 3 Inc., Represented by Joel Barnes LOCATION: Lot 3, Lacet Subdivision ZONING: AH STAFF COMMENTS: I. Background - During staff review for compliance with Ordinance 30 Design Guidelines, staff indicated that the driveway cut was not in compliance with the above-cited standard regarding below-grade alignment of driveways within the front setback. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application for review and appeal of the Design Standards. II. Site Description - The property is approximately 8,970 square feet (.206 acres). Total relief on the site is approximately 12 feet, tren(ling south-southwest across the lot (see grading and drainage plan). III. Proposal - The proposed driveway requires approximately two feet of cut within the required front yard setback to access the site. The rough grading has been completed (see photos). 1 .. The garage entrance is perpendicular to the street front, consistent with applicable elements of the Design Guidelines. This makes access at .grade difficult due to the directional orientation of the natural contours on the site. IV. Recommendation - Due to small lot size and the requirement regarding orientation of the garage, accessing the site at-grade within the required front setback does not appear possible. All lots within the subdivision have similar topographic constraints, and have required variances for driveway cuts. Lots 1, 5, and 7 have all required extensive modification from natural grade to access building sites (see photos). Staff would suggest that criteria 3 ("clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints") is applicable to this application. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a variation of the Residential Design Standards for a below-grade driveway within the required front setback finding that the cut is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." 2 . Â»MAEÂ£&,4 . EXHIBIT A 9>*'VE./2 ks'rip#. 64.. ~ '46*-2-5 1 dj ~ AcÂ», 935 1 4. I .4- August 25, 1995 Â«tplÂ«37 Aspen / Pitkin Community Dev. Dept. Overlay Subcommittee Attn: Amy Amadon 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Amy: Please accept this letter as our request to appear before the overlay subcommittee to address the issues of window wells and front porch for our proposed project at 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins ave. Please refer to the attached minutes from the original meeting dated 2/28/95. We would like to propose placing the window wells in the front elevation facing hopkins ave. We feel this is a very important detail since the placement of the window wells on the side yards are less desirable since they would infringe on the required sideyard setbacks. If down sized to fit within the setbacks, they would not meet current building codes for egress and natural light. And from a general design standpoint, they would make the bedrooms less desireble due to the lack of natural light. Based on review ofthe minutes ofthe meeting of 2/28/95, we feel that the concerns of the committee can be addressed based on the attached drawings. These drawings show that we would design the front berm detail to hide the wells from view ofthe street. This is easily done since the natural grade ofthis lot is already quite high above hopkins ave. and clearly the line of sight from the street would make it impossible to see the wells. In regards to a front porch or rail detail, we feel that architectural detailing can be used to create the desired look without infringing on the light well below. (see attached drawings) We would appreciate the opportunity to meet at the earliest convenience of the committee in order to more clearly make our presentation to the board. Yours truly: /}rvt/<Vrk-/ Scott Samborski Timberline Custom Building Corp. â€¢ Post Office Box 1 84 â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81612 â€¢ Telephone & Fax 970/920-4068 r - 7- 1 41. Al \ Exhibit: August 20, 1995 To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Dept. From: Lacet No.3, Inc. P.O. Box 8909 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (970) 927-1460 To Whom It May Concern: Joel D. Barnes is the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant, Lacet No.3, Inc., and can be contacted at the same address and telephone number shown above. Explanation of Requested Variance: The requested variance seeks approval to install the driveway approximately two feet below natural grade. The variance would be appropriate for the reasons that follow. (1) Any other location for the driveway would create a longer driveway and would disturb more of the natural grade. (2) The garage is perpendicular to the street; we have turned the driveway into the garage in a manner that very little will be seen. (3) Since the lot is very small (0.206 acres) there is simply no other way to provide a driveway than to seek a variance, and, in this case, the variance is very small, only two feet. ,-3 .. Exhibit B (2-5-*1 RIP.RAP SWALE DE-rAIL \\ 2 f â€¢-5 V- 1 ... /9..'.- 7 % j/71 I -/ a _I__. m.fÂ»>40 / , 1 . \ 1 -: .1., --L- --1 1 -4_i_L.f -,- -.1 -- 3--"--3 I + .cor A #-F~37-=+Rb:. - - F riI:~.Â·jrp, 1 \4 - I lAi .3 1-fi i. ./ -- --1-370'-1.12,~ 3< 1%=Er~ 40' 3 .434 - / --â€¢es.~2,<CL- di-7-- . -- /L--~-A % ' hil. . 3 ' Â« 77~12 ' â€ž \* '._ -,0 - . i \- -""X"-' 'l =~664,Â£.4 y ; -.... -. < 1 -10 4\ G=\ .1 1 r Ul I. . _.1 -':â€¢:LUL. .m *-.. *. - I. 7.X I \ 1 , - 4 6/ JE. .6,~. I 4 + ' . 1 LOT 3 I /- L\* 1;k ... ,/7 /f L t., 1 . I. N L -- It::./. ../-/1W'-Jf/l . :1 ' 3 Â·11 ' 7-4 L - - LCIT 3 ~ l:\ ~~~ /444,1 - lf- 4- . / - r . , , --1 / ~ 1 --- ' 1/1 \ 1 - I / 1 ...... 11.-'.t-- -0 / + / I - 1 4 %OT 7 14 0141Â«41%:1,1,1%1~*,p ----9439 1 ---i =1 -*h /1 1. 7 ''ty I , l 'it 1 -:4 03~ 44 <Â·r- - - n~f -10'ED SOE'-â€¢ 6 10 11.. Al j. " a -0~.4 W -- : '.N -' ..5 .. ..... -IL' 9/ Â·-t r 11,3* ..4 . 4 1 -- 4-94-, - - L-- - 1 -4. 7<..7 --, /0/.U- -3 .el . --- ./ I . -- - 21~ - h .., , 1-1, 5-' 1 .1,1. ... 1, ~ Â£ *'ll.* I 1 ' 11,1.!iii, ' 1,114:/'11''i 4 -- .- 1, 1,1 1 /. Y / 3 1 kh!,;I' . A,Vi,44;Ifil .-- t: C.Vt . 4 ' i ..M - --+ VAâ€¢â€¢El 1 . / 1 11~1111111 lilli 11 1-, / /\- ~| 1.1,11,11'q' 1 'f t- ----I---.1 -,- 1-- n~/6 11Â· 111 t h|IT.1 1.% itâ€¢ 4.- , 1Â· 1 0, 1,1.11 1Â£$.-*. 7 ./ .â€¢ DI #7 .\/ it -1 LIFF *Vu lili liT"l 4-2.0 .... I.,le $ - .Â· 3â€¢ â€¢K :./EN -'*-.- 2- PARRING :RE. 30 .A-1 JOâ€¢, I. U~~Â»â€¢a .â„¢ Â»0â‚¬= â€¢T -4 TYPICAL DRYWELL SEVION 4 - -.r~~ .. -'... .. ...... w , E D A 8, CO BANALER -21 r- ----1---r-9243 ... GRAD]NG ANO ORA NAGE DLAN - -- - --r- .. ,-..Nal, . â€¢06 L ./. ..... B.I. 04 -1 I ./. le.*r '- I Â· i (U 1-â€¢ Aâ€¢ ....... .El C W k. .~- ,~,gl,v#444 , a'"1Â£44Â·â€¢ A . Â·Â»*Â·7Â·4 7.. t â€ž .. Exhibit C f - -- --1 - 1Â·-1.U4_L_ / 1 / 1 1. /1 c. 1 . | 22 1 1 i. 7 r n 17 -\ 1- . 1--- i--- 47 1 1,/ 2 1 -1 1 1 - / 1 j 2 i C ~ 1 - \0 1 ' t.1, A \1 Vr .1 /9 1.,1 1 2!U 1 v \ 1 .L 1 1 1\\ 1 i 1 4 1 i w 1/ '122-7 & 11 #\)1 1 ' 44,2 A 1 1 14\ /7 40174-1111 ~ 1 \ / C... ZW" - CA) 2 -z p_AN .ie = ' -cÂ· . D , -- li ~ - -2 - f.... . \ ./.9. f -.. I I 'r 1: 4 4.-. -/:1 I . 4: , / ~~~+9- r Â·.-1 3 1-*/IÂ·. . , '.1, . ~.aL)*#*ti-- 4= 4'. C x. : . #47,2 :..3.. 5 72,29.Â·~ .*,Â¥7021 >Clift -2. 4C L 'rAfd,514# -I. 4 t .1 1.20 4 ,-61. ' . a.-t - ..e- -jialo:,vz~,JE,fifial.f-ZB:Hiass;ji:~i:remer~'izufrz. - - -- 7â‚¬*ja~*fl-m.trt. fu,-7%}9% 9 i I 7/ . +32,2-)':.:..:d....5..u<<14~5,: N0Â·1 9~WIAJ Â·2 343:.>AMENFEE&9.40.3.-4~.Â·,lia#+Or - .... . 0 02:46'.2 . .. ~21.37...4 =9y4~2't-fÂ·33-7 . 24;Y..694.Â» i 0/4/#'AL . j # .-V 4%*13.%%4.*762;-44 ~~3}KN42 4-4.f; riti232:51-2 I -F.- &r. - ~ ' ~ ~*r . Â·Â· ' - -Uu..c ~ -> f - - -7.- . a V ..4* . . - . ... 7 * I --MIl ..4 - I -' .. Â·. : -7 Â· 1 ~ -'Â»64303:>Â· ~ 9. * 4 .Cl. . I '11 ..glet/jil:.8.+AX?. . - 4 - 49, Â· -4 r -MiT-- 4*.6~Ill~.id,-m 6 /4,Â£40. 7,#Viwi/dil-{Â· --/- St=-i,4 'At/.2.: ' ' 12*v*i 4.-1-i.~dE-(*4:* i ., Â·. . 1 l 4 2-, ,< e . Exhibit D l,l -. t. -1 lot 1 1 21 1'.2-,21.11 21-Â·2â‚¬6;~48~4 -- - %7-1. I.' 7% Â· i ..3 1 j,4.k lot 7 t.'' . 2 foot cut for drive ." $r lot 5 8 foot cut for drive tiket.A. , ./, 252' 4 this lot is directly across from lot 3 tm if .. 08/08/1995 07:27 3039253484 BROUGHTON ELECTRIC PAGE SCOT BROUGHTON ARCHITECT P.O. Box 1311 Basall, Colorado 81621 (303) 927 - 4805 August 7, 1995 Amy Amidon Aspen / Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 1011 & 1015 E. Hopkins - Window Well. Dear Amy, The above referenced project and the accompanying plans indicate window wells at the two lower Master Bedrooms facing E. Hopkins Ave.. These wells are necessary to meet the exit requirements for each individual unit. The wells have been located in respect to minimumize the impact in to the setbacks at the rear of the site. The option that is available is to locate them at the side yards. This approach would impact both side yards, whereas, the shift in the plans impacts only the rear yard at one unit. Height limits have dictate that the lower floor be completely under ground. Thus a well of +/- 7'-0" is required in order to maintain a maximum window sill height of 3'-6" above finish floor. In order to give some relief to the pit the window well has been stepped out, Per the longitudinal section and the existing slope of the site the "cribbing" will be exposed above grade 6", and a planting buffer will be installed between the sidewalk and the window well. This will minimize the visual impact from E. Hopkins. Please contact it I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, ~ F i Scot Broudhton .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 requesting the preservation of a hedge of lilacs that surround the Snowbunny site. (Petition attached in record.) Derrington stated they intended, and always did intend, to preserve the lilac hedge. He stated, we have shown in this scheme of loop drive, and we have no problem with one of the recommendations in Amy's memorandum of eliminating that to just one. He stated, the house was in keeping with the neighborhood character, the need for a two-car garage, and that they had done their best to *reserve as many of the existing trees as they could. Blaich asked, Amy, when you suggested rotating it, did you know that was going to be in conflict with the setbacks? Amidon stated, that's why I said, we're suggesting to rotate this design, that it was going to have to be modified somehow. She showed on the maps what she suggested. Derrington stated, then, I'm confused, because that is completely at odds; that's going the other direction, that's facing farther away from the street still. Amidon stated, well, it says the primary mass of the building has to be tangent to the arch, so, you would be in compliance that way. A suggestion was made by Vickery but Derrington made an argument against it, stating that there was no realistic way to configure it without completely destroying any usable back yard. (The clerk apologizes, but the tape was not clearly audible during these comments, so editing was done.) Buettow stated, I just made a sketch of their design and turned it, just as Jake suggested, and I lined it at this part of the site, right over here, which pretty much complies with the regulation, . and it is pretty much the mass of the building actually within the setbacks. There was discussion between the Board and the applicant regarding Buettow's sketch. Moyer asked, Amy, we're only looking at, then, the orientation of the building and the situation of the garages, correct? Amidon answered, right. Moyer asked, and you feel that the building is compatiable with the neighborhood mass and scale, and the neighborhood character guidelines fit in? ' Amidon anwered, no, we're not using the neighborhood character guidelines at all. Ordinance 30 has a certain set of standards 3 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 that relate to not having more than 70% of the whole building varied, and reflection, and all those things. We're not discussing neighborhood character or architectural style, or anything like that. Moyer stated, we don't even have the specifics, or at least I didn't. I'm still dealing with HPC and the neighborhood character guidelines, and looking at this building in regards to those and the existing neighborhood it' s abortion, but if we ' re not' dealing with those, then, it's fine. Stan Clauson of Community Development stated, Roger, if I may, let me amplify that. What we have done, and possibly the memorandums that are sent out need to be adjusted in the manner that we present them by showing you the way in which all the other standards, checklist standards, are met. Moyer stated, you see, we haven't been briefed. This is our first meeting. Clauson stated, this is a kind of working out for all of us. Moyer stated, the only thing I'm doing is how it relates to HPC, and how we look at things, which is different. Clauson stated, the purpose of this is to provide relief from the specific design standards which cannot be met by a particular proposal. In this case, Amy and staff review the applicant's drawings and find that they have met the design standards that are specified by Ordinance 30, with the exception of, the particular standards that have been pointed out, the curvilinear street , the principle mass of the building. That's really the issue that is before us. Philosophically, what Council and the work that was done that established Ordinance 30 was attempting to do, was to Â· rule out some of the ambiguity from the neighborhood character guidelines and replace them with a set objective design standards which would be clearly able to be met, or not able to be met, and reviewed by staff for the requirements. In the case where they would not be able to be met, this committee, the Design Review Appeal Board, has the responsibility to look at that particular standard in light of the three possible reasons why it might waive the standards in each case. So, essentially, what the charge is to the committee, is to see if it is appropriate to waive that particular standard, if not, then, the committee will not waive the standard and the applicant would be required to re-design the project in such a way as to meet the standards. Moyer asked, Amy, has the neighborhood community around this structure objected at all, was there a public notice? 4 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Amidon responded, no, there's no public notice at all. There wasn't for the neighborhood character guideline review, either. Buettow stated, the reason I did that sketch there was because the way I saw this issue was; Amy said their review revealed that the project complied with all the regulations except for the way the building is set on the site. In their letter there, they said that the site constrained their design, so, I just "twedked" it around to see if it actually would fit. So, the way that I see it is that we can see from my sketch, that pretty much, the building fits on the site with the changing of the orientation, with the exception of a few encumbrances, which would require a side-yard setback. SO, if the committee is comfortable with requiring that versus the line up the way it is, is kind of how it needs to be resolved. Blaich stated, you said this building was designed before? Derrington replied, we were designing it prior to going through the hearings, and we probably had everything all put together, chen they treated us tangent to the Board and the arch, and all that "stuff", and at the last minute, it was a last minute addition, which kind of caught us off-guard. We were going to try to work with these guidelines and we thought we had it all put together until that last minute addition. We thought it was a good site plan regardless, because it reflects the angle of the adjoining house to the street and it protects the rooms with a nice yard with a big lilac hedge in it, and mature Spruce trees, and so forth. Alstrom stated, well, before I reach a conclusion, I would vote for tabling today, because I would look procedurally to see what staff's response to each of the design standards are. Because I think once it reaches the Appeal Committee we should be looking to Â· see if it is in compliance with all of the design standards, in spite of the staff ruling that says that they are. SO, I'd like to see some more proof that its met the other design standards, before it reaches the Appeal Committee. I do agree that, similar to other appeal committees, unless we have a good reason, otherwise, it is kind of like a hardship case. That's kind of how I feel about this particular case in front of us. Amidon stated, this is just a brief reminder, this is not like the Board of Adjustments where you have a hardship, it is somewhat different. Alstrom stated, it is still an appeal, so, I'm not convinced that this requirement couldn't be met, looking at the documents we have, and Steve's proposal. 5 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Moyer stated, if the neighborhood itself and all the people around it, don't object, I would probably not be too concerned. But what I am saying, if I was in the neighborhood and looking at this, I would find it pretty objectionable and I would wonder, that all the things that we have been doing all these years, how this managed to get through because it doesn't seem to have much to do with all the work that we did on the neighborhood character guidelines, and all the design seminars we went through etc., etc., w I am questioning why I am even sitting here as I look at this, and secondly, I just don't understand where we are going if this is what we are going to get. I thought we were going to get a lot better, and even though you have the argument in this neighborhood that there are a couple of things like this already designed, but just grossly overscaled, everything else around them, the neighborhood has changed. If the neighborhood wants to go that direction, I have no objection to that, but if the neighborhood doesn't, then I would table it and I would would really want to know how it got this far, and how we can save neighborhoods in the future. Vickery asked, is there anybody here from the public to speak to this issue? Howie Mallory stated, I live across the street and I'm a little confused about the process because I have seen the agenda, it shows that the public is able to speak, but there has been no public notice that there is the opportunity to speak, and clearly, no one's here from the area because they didn't know anything about it. I'm only here because I happened to run into Roger, so, it's really by coincidence. Mallory stated, in commenting on the design, one way or the other, that is a serious admission on your part. I'm not personally clear - on the total approval process that goes on down the line from here. What does bother me, a little bit, perhaps by some confusion, but nonetheless, by virtue of any citizen who lives in the area, I'll express my opinion. The expectation of the neighborhoods is that there is a neighborhood characteristic guideline, and you say that's not being adhered to, we're not applying this in this case; I'm dismayed and confused why that is not being done, because that was the whole intent behind the creation of Ordinance 30. That was the momentum behind the Ordinance 30. So, the public has to be informed, and you have to explain to the public why the neighborhood characteristic guidelines are not going to be complied with. 6 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Derrington stated, there was a public hearing on Ordinance 30, there were several meetings and I attended all of them, and a lot of people spoke. This is not intended to be like a neighborhood, subdivision design review board that's impowered to decide whether shingles or shakes, or metal roof, or whatever it is that they want; that isn't what this committee is about. They are to review the standards that are set forth in Ordinance 30. Derrington added, if the staff reviews this and says thatxyou are in compliance with all of these; and we worked on the drawings where we have minimum required setbacks of the garages, we had the percentage of the frontage of the house to the garage, and the percentage of the one-story element to the mass of the building, and the changes of breaking up the principle mass of the building, etc., etc.; but these are all met, and if we had met this other guideline, we wouldn't be here, you wouldn't even see it, and we would be done. That's the way the ordinance is written, and now if that's a flaw in the ordinance, that isn't our fault. Clauson stated, let me respond to some of the things that Howie has stated because I think it is important to get a perspective on this and recognize that this is the first meeting on a complicated and new procedure. The design guidelines are no longer a factor on reference any portion of the ordinance. SO, that needs to be understood. It might be helpful to the committee, when you are evaluating it, whether or not the standard should be waived, but as far as this committee being a general design review committee, that possibility was weighed among other various alternatives when the ordinance was developed and it was rejected. Council, based on testimony that they received, did not opt for a general design review committee which would function based on the neighborhood character guidelines. What they chose instead was a set of design standards which were devised to help address some of the most significant issues that were identified in respect to buildings. (The clerk apologizes, but some specific words were not audible due to traffic noises during Mr. Clauson's comments, so, therefore, I hope Mr. Clauson's comments are understood.) The committee is really in a position to find relief. I think two suggestions were made; one, that we provide the entire record of how the standards are met, and that will certainly happen in the future meetings forthcoming. The other suggestion, which was Howie's, that some kind of notice be provided, that clearly state, a newspaper notice, that the Design Review Appeal Board was considering on the cases, is probably a point well taken, and one that we will see if we can comply with. Those two suggestions, and no doubt, other j ' suggestions that arise as we muddle through, will be listened to. 7 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Amidon stated, I think Stan's covered it, but I just wanted to clarify that the document, the neighborhood character guidelines, is no longer on the table, but the new standards do ask you to respect the existing neighborhood; being one-story when your neighbor is one-story, or aligning setbacks, things like that. So, it's still there. Alstrom stated, I think that this should be part of the record that we prefer, in being an appeal, that's sort of the lase public opportunity with regard to what Roger is saying. I think the committee should, perhaps, make a resolution to City Council to require public meetings. Chaikovska stated, I agree about the public notice, this is an appeals process, but I'm a little unclear about going over other standards, whether they have been or not. As I understand it, the ordinance provides that staff goes through those, and the purpose of Ordinance 30 is to make it more objective than we had before. For us, I don't think that it is our position, unless the ordinance has changed, for us to review the standards that they have already reviewed and approved, because that would mean that we would have a say in whether or not other things should be changed or not. This strikes me, today, at least, that we have one issue, and one issue only, unless the ordinance has changed, and that is, does this come under the review of these three points, and could we, or could we not, provide these people a variance. All the other issues are irrelevant; there is no public notice requirement right now, so they are not required to go back and do a public notice and if we want to do that let's go back and change the ordinance, but it's not fair to an applicant to come here now and have different rules set up than what we had set up by the ordinance as we speak. Buettow stated, I'm just thinking along the line of what Marta said, and that our choices are either to accept the project as it . sits on the site and has been presented by the applicants, or require it to be turned and come into compliance with Ordinance 30, and as we see on the schemes; it can be with a few "tweeks", you know, it probably would require the applicant to go for a variance, and slightly change his design around. Those seem to me to be the choices, and so, other things, do we have enough information to make that choice, and do we want to make that choice? Vickery stated, I have one question, and I want to bring this back into focus and then see if we can move on and make a resolution. In the new Ordinance 30, what are the rules regarding garage doors and driveway&, and frontyards, isn' t there a requirement in there? 8 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Amidon replied, the garage has to be 10 ft. behind the front facade of the building or the garage doors have to be perpendicular to the street. Alstrom stated, what I am really saying, as a reviewer on the Board, is that if I am voting on this today, I would vote against the exception, and I'd really prefer the applicant to table and show us the footprint modified to fit the orientation requirement; if I had documentation of how well it passed on th@ other standards, I would be more prepared, but at this time I'm strongly against it. Derrington stated, all of these things were discussed in a public hearing, and one thing that was discussed, was when it looked like you were going to be tossed around from committee to committee, and you are going around like a ping-pong ball on a pin ball machine affect; Stan specifically said that was not their objective and the Board was not to be as hard-lined as others; P&Z and the HPC, and so forth. Staff reviews these things, it is not a matter of how well you comply with this, it is did you, or didn't you. Thatts it, and there's no scoring mechanism. Derrington stated, we have met the spirit of this. Clauson stated, may I respond to this, because I think it's necessary. First of all, with respect to the manner in which staff scores the checklist; staff does not score the checklist, that is, there is no plus or minus or anything applied to the manner in which the project that comes before staff needs to give the design standard; it simply does or doesn't. To the extent that there is a record, the record will show, for example, in respect to the garage being set back 10 ft. from the principle facade elevation; yes, this garage is set back from the principle facade elevation, period. So, you won't get anything more than that from the record. Clauson continued stating, the second thing is, that with respect to the ping-pong affect. We have hired any board or commission that would see a project in the course of a review Of an application to waive the design standards in the same manner this Board would if they felt that the goals met. If the project were, because of the variance request of adjustment, the Board of Adjustment might grant variances, also waive a specific design standard because they thought in the context of the project that that was the thing to do. So, it would not be necessary to go first to one, and thenÂ· the other. Clauson added, it seems to me that in this case, there are three factors; there's the design of the structure, there's the nature of the site, and there are the rules that apply to them. You have 9 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 the ability to waive the rules for certain reasons, the site is pretty much given, the site of the structure can always be changed. So, it's really up to the committee to decide whether changing the rule or requesting a design to be re-structured or modified. Howie Mallory asked, is there any more public comment? Vickery stated, yeh, go ahead, Howie. Mallory stated, I appreciate your discussion, but I think, in context of this being an appeal process, which to me is implicit requiring public input, that your ordinance is flawed by having a requirement to have a public notice, because there is no way the neighborhood can see how you grade it with respect to the tests, whatever characteristics, neighborhood character guideline characteristics are. I think you are eliminating a critical element of the whole intent behind the neighborhood character guidelines by not allowing the public to see the process that you have already gone through. So, again, that's why I would request that you table it, so at least the public feels like it has had a chance to accept that you, Amy, and your department, have represented the neighborhood. There's no way that the neighborhood feels that you have represented them; there's no way they know that you have, let's put it that way. Vickery stated, anyone from the public that wanted to speak speak to this issue, has spoken, is that true? (There was no response.) O.K., let me bring it back to the committee. Derrington stated, I have a few points I would like to make. Vickery stated, Jan( ver), I think we have had enough, O.K. I want to bring it back to the committee; I think we understand your arguments and issues, here. Derrington stated, O.K. Vickery stated, number one, there are five things that are on my mind, right now. They have been brought up in this discussion; I think they are all important things to look at. Vickery continued saying, first of all, I think the Board needs to look and see if it is clear enough on its purpose at this time to be able to move forward on, really, any issues at all. I mean, are we clear enough on what the standards are, and I think we need to look at that and say, yes we are, or no, we aren't. 1.0 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Secondly, the issue of public input. I think public input is important, however, we can sit in judgement, I think, of what is before us because we are mainly focused on the site specific constraints that are operating here, that are restricting the applicant from conforming to the standards that are established. Vickery stated, in regards to the ping-pong affect, another reason that you would have to be required to go to the Board of Adjustment is because you don't change your design; well, like he ig, if it necessitated a design change of some sort to accommodate the standard or the rule that's applicable. There might be some consideration for the applicant in the fact that this is a new set of rules, that there were some projects that were kind of in the design pipelines, so to speak, and maybe they haven't had adequate time, and there is an issue of fairness to them because of the implementation of the new rules. Vickery continued, the fifth thing I want to do is bring it right back to the specific standard that is involved here, which is the orientation of the structure towards the street. With that, I would like to kind of poll the Board. Does the Board feel that they are clear on their purpose at this time, and can move forward and vote on this issue? Blaich stated, I do. Chaikovska stated, yes. Buettow stated, yes. Alstrom, yes, with some reservation on the public notice. I would like to see us make a resolution on the public notice issue. Vickery stated, O.K., I'll take that as a, yes. The public input, right now; Howie, it is a very good suggestion, but until the tone has changed we can make a recommendation, and so forth. If the Board feels that they will be getting new information from the public that they don't already have; do you feel that way, or do you feel you have enough information in terms of the site plans in the applicant's presentation? Moyer stated, I think there are two issues with public notice. The first is, I think that staff, as they go through the process, should have public notice, so that the public can come in and talk to Amy or Leslie, and say, we have these concerns about this project, and that input can be put into a judgement as far asj ' dealing with the specifics. Then, the applicant goes to appeal, the public is already on notice and will be sent a notice that the applicant is coming to appeal, and then, the public can make 11 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 comments to the Board. I think that's imperative; to me , the process is grossly flawed, so, I will make a resolution tonight, from this Committee, to Council, that public notice is a requirement. So, those are my comments. Alstrom stated, I agree with that. Vickery asked Buettow, do you agree with that? Buettow answered, yes, definitely. Vickery asked, what about the action before us tonight? Blaich stated, I would like to speak to that. I think the ordinance says, it is, as it is, and if you haven't read it, I think that's a mistake on someone's part, not to be familar with it before coming to the meeting. I think in all fairness to this project, I think we should vote on it, it can go several ways, and if it is voted down they're going to have to come back with change in design, and if the public notice is then, going to be put forth, we'll have that input. I really don't think we should table it, based upon the rules that we are supposed to live under, right now. Thatls my comments on it. Alstrom stated, I think the building is fairly affirmative, the rules are fairly temporary, so, I'm obviously opposed to approving an exception for this orientation requirement for this project, at this time. Blaich stated, I state for clarification, I said we have to vote on it. Buettow stated, the compliance with the particular item in the codes, is that this project is definitely not in compliance, the way I see it, because I explored the site, and I turned the design . myself, I do see a way it can come into compliance with just minor variations in the design. Vickery stated, do you feel like you need to table it to get public input, or do you feel you have enough input to make a decision? _ Buettow stated, well, I prefer some public input from the neighbors but that's not within the ordiance, right now, so, yes. Derrington asked Clauson, do I understand you to say, that you have empowered committee to waive the setback requirements, if they feel that is a justification. Clauson answered, no. Derrington asked, j ' then how do you avoid the ping-pong affect? Clauson stated, if you go to the Board of Adjustment, because you feel you have hardship that justifies a variance and are granted a variance, but at the 12 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 same time there is a design standard that is also an issue , the Board of Adjustment may provide relief on that design standard. Vickery stated, I'm going to take that as a "yes", from the Board as a whole, O.K., to go forward. Third thing is, the fact that this is a new set of rules, a new kind of board, and does there want to be latitude towards the applicant on the basis of the fact that he had some design efforts going on prior to the enactment of the law, or whatever. Anybody have any feelings about thit? Buettow stated, the tangent to the circle in the arch has always been in there, and I happen to know that this applicant has come forward in meetings and he spoke. Vickery stated, so, that was in the proposed ordinance from the very beginning? Alstrom stated, they are asking for an exception, so, they have decided to go to the wire on this _issue, and basically, I'm saying no, on that issue. The building's permanent, this process is being worked out; I real-ize they are a new applicant, but due to the lack of public input, I just have to say, the permanance of the building weighed against no public input, I've got to stick up for the neighborhood fairness, even though this applicant is in the middle of the process. Vickery stated, so, O.K. can I interpret that generally as a "yes" to go forward, if the feeling is that the applicant has had adequate time to respond to these new rules? The rules have been out there long enough to be public knowledge, everybody's O.K. with that? There were no comments from the commission. Vickery stated, we have three standards, a, b, and c. I'll just read them: The committee may waive design standards when one of Â· the following criteria are met; a. yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b. more affectively address the issue or problem at given standard or provision response to; or c. clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraint. So, I think it's our job to make a finding relative to those three standards addressing the issue of the alignment to the street. 13 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 MOTION Blaich stated, I move to grant a variation of the residential design standards for building orientation finding that the shape of the parcel presents specific restraints with the following conditions: the low axis of the home shall be rotated in a counter clockwise direction, and only one curb cut shall be provided for access to the garages. Moyer seconded. Voting commenced, tote was 4 in favor, one opposed (Alstrom), motion carried. Discussion of Motion Blaich stated, I would like to say something about why I'm supporting staff on this, that is, if we do get feedback from the neighborhood it is going to be on issues that are different than this; whether this house is perpendicular to the street or not, I suspect this is not going to be one of the biggest issues, it is whether the house is appropriate scale, size, design, all the other things, which we're not dealing with. I've been to the site, I've looked at the neighborhood; I don't live in the neighborhood, but I think it is an appropriate house for that neighborhood, in terms of the design. It isn't an issue for me because that that's not what we are dealing with. Moyer stated, part of the process is also how the structure relates to the streetscape, and I'm wondering if the landscape might not be looked at before I continue. In our other committee we could make a recommendation or a condition that could be worked out between the applicant and staff, or can that be done here, as well? Here's what I was thinking of, as we focus on the structure, we don't the garage or driveway, particularly driveways, to be dominant. Another part is dealing with landscaping, I notice that these two garages have a division between them and I was wondering Â· if some landscaping could be used between the divisions to soften the affect on the garage. Vickery stated, so, basically, we have a motion and seconded. This motion really responds to criteria #c., clearly necessary for reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints. Amidon stated, before you vote on that, maybe you should be more specific about what rotated further means exactly, since Leslie, Stan, or I are the ones who will look at this thing and sign a building permit. Alstrom stated, we can say, more in compliance with the requirement for orientation to 3rd Street. 14 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Amidon asked, five or six inches? Blaich stated, my feeling was that that was a staff decision to work it out with the architect and the developer. Moyer stated, if it can't be worked out, then, they have to come back. Blaich stated, part of the reasons I support that rotating*, is the less obvious those garages are, the better. The more you can rotate that house on the property, the less you are going to see the confrontation of the garages and the parking on the street on the street side. Vickery stated, I want to be sure which way you are rotating the duplex. Derrington held up his drawings and stated, this is the original, we feel that that brings the garages from the street more effectively. Blaich stated, well, I said in my motion that there was confusion from staff whether it should be southeast, southwest, and you have to clarify that. Amidon stated, we were suggesting that instead of turning the garages so that they were more visible to the street, that the building be turned so that they were less visible to the street. Moyer stated, it is interesting, because, even this little orientation gets down to overall design. So, ultimately, you come down to overall design, and basically, as far as the neighborhood goes, it doesn't work. Now, if the neighborhood doesn't object, then, they can do what they want to do. But the overall design, from what I see, and all the things we've worked on for years, this building doesn't work. Alstrom stated, I agree with that. Moyer stated, that's why you are having a problem deciding which way to put it. I'm not here to design a building. Alstrom stated, if the committee would look at rear yard that goes with the two orientations, I think I would like to speak in support of what Roger said, that we do on an appeal, need to look at all the criteria, because if you look at the rear yard, we are supposed to be looking at the street orientation, but if you look at the rear yard created by both schemes, I think that the scheme that we are saying we like better creates a better rear yard, in addition 1.5 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 to, better street orientation. That's why I think we need to be able to look at all issues. Blaich stated, well, if I can respond to that; you are asking for changes in the ordinance. Alstrom stated, what I am saying is, what kind of rear yard is being created by the changed orientation. I would say this looks like a better rear yard, to me. Amidon stated, but there's nothing in the checklist that discusses the quality of someone's open space. Vickery stated, let me bring it back for a second; I think, first of all, we need some clarity on the motion. Let's talk about the long axis of the structure and let's talk about you want the axis rotated more toward the southeast, which is the lower right hand side of the sheet, or the long axis rotated more to the southwest, which is the lower left hand side of the sheet. I think that needs to be clear. Vickery stated, as it is worded right now, let's say, long axis, southwest or southeast. This is moved southeast of what was previously, the long axis is southeastly rotated of what was previously submitted. Amidon stated, we have a clock-wise or counter clock-wise suggestion from the audience. Chaikovska stated, does it really matter which way the door is? They need to see which one works better, do you care which way it orients? Amidon stated, well, it's not my decision, but it affects how much . of the garage is seen. Vickery stated, Well, I think the major entrance to the units are to the sides of the garage, true? Derrington stated, yes. Vickery stated, so, I'm assuming that if you turned it clockwise, more towards the southwest, you've got to be talking about this other design now. This one here. (Referring to drawings.) If you would turn that, you would be bringing the easterly wing of this thing down in such a way to somewhat bury the front door of the westerly unit. I should think, the way I would read the standard, you want to get the front doors facing frontal to the street, and that would inditate to me the counter clockwise rotation that is suggested in the other plan be drafted. 16 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Blaich stated, I think the other point, if you studied the photographs; as a matter of fact, I was just over there again today, and some of those photographs were taken earlier, I think, because the foliage isn't as thick as it is now, really it is hard to see anything on this property, and you are pushing the house back from the existing house. It is hard to see the existing house with the foliage. Clauson stated, so, the real issue, it seems, is screening the garages and maintaining the entries on the street, which it is important that the landscape plan address that, which it seems to do. Vickery stated, we need to move forward at this point, we have a motion, seconded, on the floor. Does anyone re-state the motion? This is what I think the motion is, and correct me if I am wrong, please. I move to grant a variation of the residential design standards for building orientation finding that the shape of the parcel presents a specific constraint with the following condition: the low axis of the home shall be rotated in a counter clockwise direction and only one curb cut shall be provided for access to the garages. Vickery asked, is that accurate, and ready for a vote? MOTION ON RESOLUTION Moyer stated, before Howie leaves, before the next applicant comes, I would like to do two things. First of all, I would like to make a resolution from this committee that staff takes to Council, that public input be taken during the process of the appeal, and that public input be taken at the Design Review Appeal Board meeting, as part of the process and that be part of Ordinance 30. I so move, that resolution to the City Council, from staff, from this Committee, asking for publ-ic input. The motion was seconded. Discussion on Motion Chaikovska stated, this would be that everybody who is building a house must come for public notice? There were answers at random stating only those coming for design review. Chaikovska stated, O.K. then, you have to be specific, because you said, up for review. Moyer stated, up for appeal. Chaikovska stated, all those that are up for appeal must be publicly listed, is what you asking it to be amended to. Moyer stated, patt of that motion is two parts. One, if people are going to come for appeal, before staff comes in here, staff has talked to the public. Maybe, it doesn't need to be that. 12 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Chaikovska stated, no, just for appeal, I would think. Otherwise, you are reviewing every single thing that they are reviewing, by the public. Clauson asked, Roger, would it be sufficient if we were simply to provide a notice in the newspaper and state that the Design Review Appeal Board is meeting at such-and-such a date. Moyer stated, no, I think it has to go to the neighborMood, at least, posted on the property. Amidon stated, maybe, that's the better way to do it, not the newspaper, but posted on the property. Vickery stated, some sort of standard form of a notice in the paper, say a week before the meeting, and have the property posted a week before the meeting, or something like that. One of the things about the public noticing, at least in the old committee, the idea was that if this committee would be very efficient and not get behind this public noticing thing, which drags projects out at 30 or more days, and be able to really better serve people by not getting underneath all that "stuff". I think this committee needs to look at whether or not they have an expertise to make the kinds of judgements that are required to meet these three standards or criteria, and what benefit would public noticing be, that you couldn't otherwise anticipate. We're not granting variances. AMENDED MOTION ON RESOLUTION Moyer stated, I move that this Committee send a resolution to City Council and that the Resolution state that all applicants coming before the Design Review Appeal Board have sufficient public notice so that the public of that neighborhood can respond. My suggestion is that the notice be done on a board, as all notices are, on site, and in the newspaper at a sufficient time before the meeting to let ' the public know that that is happening, or however staff wants to notify. The motion was seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Moyer stated, I would like to address Howie on another issue. Howie, I think, two issues. One, we are cast in a very unusual position, however, I think it is the neighborhood' s responsibility, from associations, strengthen themselves so that these gastly projects do not affect the entire neighborhood. If the neighborhood is not interested in doing that, then, you are going to get more duplexes and tri-plexes, and so on, that affect the area. I think the neighborhoods have to organize, form your own association, your own guidelines. 18 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Alstrom stated, in fact, and Stan could correct me, but you could, in fact, appeal the issue to City Council. Moyer stated, yes, in fact, the neighborhood could carry this on, if you wanted to. They are going to use the argument that you've already got one down the street, so, they are going to build another one. But the neighborhood could say, we've got one, we don't want anymore, and what are you "guys" going to do about it; you spend all this time and money on these Design Review Committees and we're still getting the same crap that we had before, that caused all this to happen in the first place. To me, I find this totally offensive to be sitting here, and to look at something that is totally inappropriate, totally inappropriate, it blows my mind. There was discussion at random among the Committee members regarding the Ordinance 30, neighborhood character guidelines, and City Council. Vickery stated, I think this whole deal of having a driveway come through the front yard and having these big garage doors in front is totally against the things we have been working for. This is a diagram just to demonstrate, that, it is incredibly easy, in this particular plan, because all you do is put the garage doors on the opposite side of the building, and move it a little bit. You bring the driveway in, small driveway in the back here, access the back with the same identical garage as from the opposite side. By doing that, capture a real nice front yard, a usable front yard, and somehow get the articulation of where the entries are coming from the street. I think the real problem with this building was this whole business (showing on drawings), as opposed to coming back in a secondary place back in here. Alstrom stated, I really think what Jake just showed you is that, there are reasons, that on appeal, we should look at other issues. Clauson stated, Jake, let me go on record in saying that, therets nothing stopping you from simply turning something down, and saying, you're trying to force this footprint onto a site that doesn't accommodate it, and you are asking us to waive a standard; go back and do a different footprint. Vickery stated, I bet you he is thinking (applicant), well, I wonder if I can take what out of this Appeal Board to the Board of Adjustment, saying, heh, these "guys" made me do this, I need a variance on this side. Chaikovska stated, they may turn him down. Blaich stated, that's the "ping-pong affect". 12 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Alstrom stated, I'm only wanting to look at the record, I want to make that clear. I don't want this to be a total Design Review Board either, but second only perhaps to Roger, I feel very strongly that this is a very core example of what I expected to see brought to the Committee, and so, I want to see real proof in the record, I don't want to open up the whole issue, it all goes to what I call, relative merit. If this had been a better looking design, maybe I would have voted "yes" on the orientation exception, but because of what it looks like, I can only be so strict on that particular standard. Chaikovska stated, on all those discussions on Ordinance 30, they wanted to get away from subjective design review, which is what we had before. Alstrom stated, it is not subjective. There's two ways of processing information. Chaikovska stated, I disagree with you, I think you are saying that if I liked the project better, I might have been easier on them, but that's not the point. The point is, one issue, and one issue only comes before us, and that's what's built into the ordinance. Blaich stated, we have had this other review committee, that several Of US were on, and we did make a number of design suggestions based on the guidelines we had to work with at that time. In some cases they were inacted and other cases, they were ignored. In some cases we had jurisdiction, and in other cases we had recommendation. In a recommendation, they didn't really have to do anything, right, they could just go back and business as usual, but some people did come back and listen to this. I think, there is nothing wrong with Jake, for example, saying to another architect, oh, this is another way to solve the problem. So, I don't object to that, but I think for now we have a Design Review ~ Board in that sense, because there are four practicing and one non- practicing architects at this table right now, who would all probably design their house completely differently, and push more appropriately for the lot. That's not what we are dealing with; I think if we want to change that, then, that's something else. Otherwise, if we're not willing to accept it, I think any of us should not sit on this Board if we're not willing to accept the "30". I don't think "30" is a perfect thing, by any means, I think it was a compromise and we went through an awful lot. Alstrom stated, I seem to be in the minority in this last vote, but I think you have to be willing to listen to someone express concerns, because, yes, I'm going to vote on whether it meets that standard or not. 20 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Vickery stated, these are good discussions, but we need to go about our business, tonight. I'm sure we'll have more discussions. 765 CEMETERY LANE .P Amidon presented for staff and stated, there are two design standards not met here, the first is building orientation under the standard that requires that there must be a street oriented entrance and street-facing principle window. They don't have a street-facing principle window. Also, all portions of the garage, the carport and storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade by 10 ft. What is being proposed here, this is an existing duplex on Cemetery Lane, is a two-story addition to the west, the addition would include a garage bay and a two-story addition above that. Again, staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the asked addition of the third garage stall and the front facade of the building does not meet the design criteria and should not be granted an exception. Additional parking or storage could be placed at the side or the rear of the structure. There's a mansard roof on the second story which does make it difficult to have large windows, so, maybe, there should be some latitude there. The applicant, Joe Zanine, made a presentation showing pictures of accesses off Cemetery Lane, and asked consideration in the windows and a two-car garage. He stated it was a hardship in that there was a certain amount of money he was able to spend on the project. (The clerk apologizes, again, but the applicant's words were not fully picked up by the microphone, so, therefore, I had to edit the comments. I hope this meets with the approval of the Board.) Chaikovska asked, how many square feet are you adding to this? Zanine answered, 732. Chaikovska stated, how much is the existing structure? Zanine answered, 1,540. Blaich asked, on the existing drive is there still going to just be dirt for a way of travel? Zanine answered, right now, we have gravel. Blaich stated, does that remain, gravel? 21 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Zanine answered, some day, if we can afford it, probably asphalt. Blaich stated, but, right now, it will be gravel. Blaich continued saying, another question is; I was over there and you've got a two- car garage, but there were at least three cars parked in front, a small truck and two cars, is that normal? Zanine stated he was trying to get rid of some of the cars. Blaich stated, the two garages, either they are not being used as garages, or they are full and you've got three more cars parked outside. Zanine stated it was not a normal situation. Alstrom stated, Â· I think it is a small scale architecture and doesn't depart from the existing architecture and I have to, again, look at the overall project weighed against the exceptions he's asking for. I don't think what he is asking for, those particular requirements on a window and and an additional garage would make much difference; this looks like a relatively harmless addition as proposed. Chaikovska stated, the principle window doesn't bother me at all, I did want to ask a question of Amy in terms of the garage, was that to provide for a principle window? Change the garage location? Amidon stated, no, no. The recommendation from Leslie and I was that the principle window issue was not met, but it probably wasn't a critical issue. We are much more concerned with the addition of the garage right up the street. Clauson stated, I think the other non-conforming issue was the entry. Amidon stated, no, they have a street-facing entry. Clauson stated, so, it is only the garage. Blaich stated, well, I drove up and down there, back and forth, looking at that, and it's not a street, it's a highway, to start with. I object to one more garage door, I think it gets to look like a gas station with all the garage doors in there, but on the other side, if you don't allow the garage you've got a problem with the extension on the upper level because you are using this space below, unless you deny the garage and use that space for some other purpose, or possibly leave the entry where it is and move the garage over and position the entry and then split up the garages 22 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 SO you don't have the three garage doors. I don't have any feelings about the design issue because I think a lot of those houses in that neighborhood; this is not an issue, it is not going to destroy the fabric of the neighborhood. I would like to see it solved without having three garage doors on the front, but on the other side, I don't think that, in that location, on that site, this is a major issue. Moyer asked, Joe, you could put the new garage addition oh, which is to the south, right? Could you enter from the north and south and not have the doors on the street? Would that work? Zanine said that would not work. Moyer stated, so, you are stuck. Your argument is on that highway, basically, all the houses, and you've got a garage in the street, there's no other place to put them. If you re-designed the project you could do a lot of neat things. Suppose you do it as it is drawn; the driveway now is really wide, it is all driveway, and you don't have a landscaping plan. Suppose you landscape it so that, basically, you narrow the driveway and create more yard and still have turnaround, is that something that could happen? Zanine stated, I think the driveway can be narrowed down somewhat. Moyer stated, suppose we make it inexpensive. If the driveway were narrowed down, and you put a lilac hedge on that street, the property line, which is basically simple and which isn't asking too much money-wise or any great expense. It would soften the whole deal. Is that something that would work? Zanine thought it would work. Blaich asked, are you suggesting that in this area, that you have ~ one garage going into the garages, and then, you soften this whole area with landscaping so you can drive into all three locations and still have some on-site parking. Moyer stated, staff is denying the garage door; I'm trying to be pro-active here because again, we're not talking about any kind of design issue, we're dealing with the existing architecture, what ever it is. We're trying to be pro-active here. My question was earlier, when we had the 85% rule, and you wanted to exceed that, somebody came in here and they wanted to do something, but they had to get it together. Can we use that kind of justification in this situation with this Board, or is this not something we are allowed to do? If someone wanted to exceed their 85% FAR, heh, great, what are you going to give us for it? Are you going to give us a porch, are you going tb give us this or that? So, what I am asking here, 23 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 is, give them all this. Let him give us some lilac bushes, something that doesn't cost a fortune, screen the thing from the highway, it is going to benefit them, they are going to get more useable yard space and probably a nicer, little place. There was discussion at random regarding the landscaping, turning radius, and driveway. Blaich stated, it is a nice compromise and it is not a big investment, whatever kind of planting, evergreen, etc. Chaikovska stated, this way you get your garage. Alstrom stated, I want to point out, the solutions that Jake and Roger were sketching, sort of the arterial street, the standards were written more for a grided neighborhood street, so, in affect, the Committee is saying, we recognize the arterial street instead of the neighborhood street required standards. So, I think the community eventually is going to have a lot of work to do making resolutions on how we can manipulate on appeal. Clauson replied, I would say that it is a desired affect of Community Development and Engineering that we reduce the number of curb-cuts. Moyer stated, and if we can do it without causing a lot of monetary ' expense to the applicant, we are doing a better job up here. Vickery stated, I also think that criteria in a. and b. give us some flexibility, because a. says, yield greater compliance with goals of Aspen Area Community Plan, that's pretty broad, and b. it says, and more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard provision response, why is it in there and what's it trying to accomplish. C. says, clearly necessary for reasons of . fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. That's the one that really makes, I think, the required finding based on site specific constraints so restrictively. MOTION Blaich stated, I move to grant a variation of the residential design standards for building orientation finding that the existing designed house does not easily allow for a principle window. I would like to change, then, I move to approve the garage on the basis that an appropriate landscaping plan will be developed, and you have had enough ideas today, and staff can interact with you on developing that, that would allow the garage, two entries, three-car garage and a beautification of the front of the property; with a single entry into the parking area. Moyer seconded. 24 .. DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL BOARD JULY 27, 1995 Discussion of Motion Buettow stated, we need to clarify this resolution, because it doesn't state that it's going to be changed from a double-entry driveway to a single-entry driveway, that's one issue. The landscaping plan to be developed is another issue, and approval of the garage is the third issue, and a four issue is the livingroom window. Chaikovska stated, you have a double-entry driveway, wider than the double one, you might want to have somewhere in between the single and the double, to make it a little wider. Buettow stated, I know it shows that there's a double entry, double curb cut. Let's just say, it will be changed to a single curb- cut. There was discussion at random on the issue of curb cuts. AMENDED MOTION Blaich stated, I move to approve a variation of residential design standards for garages, allowing an additional garage with the stipulation that there is a single curb-cut and an appropriate landscaping plan to screen the property. Moyer seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. The applicant asked for clarification on some follow-up and was advised by the Committee to work with staff regarding some of the suggestions and any follow-up. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Srux>tee~ un . toÂ»Â« O Shjron M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 25 FEB-08-1995 12:21 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN BLDG DEPT TO 9-9255993 P.02 .. APPLICANT: Mr - Harold Dude ADDRESS: 6585 Dillman Rd.. West Palm Betch. FL. 3.16 ZONE DISTRICT: RMF 1 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 7 5 0 0 Sclii are Feet. N /A . I EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: 3.840 Square feet PROPOSED FAR: - 3840 Square fee t - EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commerciaJ): N /A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): N/A EWSTING % OF SnE COVERAGE: N/A 1 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A . : EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): N/A EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: pmcioal Bldo.: /Accessory Bldo: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Phncical Bldg.: 1 Accessorv 8 Idc: PROPOSED % OF DEMOUTION: N /A 1 t EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N/A 1 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 each 11 n it. : total A EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: N/A ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 5 each unit; 10 total SEISMJKS: EXISTING: AUOWABLE: PROPOSED: N/A Front _ Front 10 ff Front: lA ft, Rear= _ Rear: 10 ft. Reac 19 ft Side: Side: 5ft min .ttl 1 2.5 Side: 61ft A in . i Combined Front/Hear: Combined FrURr: N , A Combined Front/Rear: 1 DI' A EXISTING NONCONFORMITIESt ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoatibility finding must be made bv HPC); FAR: . NiA Minimum Distance Between Buikings: SETBACKS: Front Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage MIl Only): Combined FrtjRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): TOTAL P.02 7 ~ EXHIBIT B MEMORANDUM TO: Overlay Zone District Sub-Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Ave. DATE: February 28, 1995 SUMMARY: This project is located in the East Aspen neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for East Aspen will be applied. The applicant requests approval for construction of a new duplex on a vacant lot. The proposed FAR for this 7,500 sq.ft. RMF lot is 3,840 sq.ft., which is the maximum allowable. The special review process is mandatory as is compliance with the Committee's findings. NOTE: Elevations of the east and west facades were not provided in the application. These should be presented at the meeting. APPLICANT: Harold Dude and Thomas Fellman, represented by Gibson and Reno Architects. LOCATION: The eastern half of Lot C, all of Lot D, And all of Lot E, Block 33, City of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather than discuss each guideline ( including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which warrant further discussion have been highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. STAFF EVALUATION: Mass and Scale Guidelines: 2. New buildings should appear to be similar in scale to those in the established neighborhood, or to the scale that is desired for the neighborhood. 17. New buildings should be sensitive in scale to existing, smaller buildings in the neighborhood. Response: In general, Staff finds that the project is compatible .. with the neighborhood in many respects, including pedestrian scaled details and building form. The neighborhood contains a few single family and duplex structures, but in general is multi-family. East Hopkins Avenue is an important pedestrian corridor as many people walk along this street to access the pedestrian bridge. The existing grade on this side of the East Hopkins Avenue is significantly higher than it is on the opposite side of the street, creating a natural barrier between the house and the pedestrian. The adjacent affordable housing project which is currently under construction dealt with this situation unsuccessfully in Staff's opinion, by excavating the ground and locating garages along the street. Not only are the garages "unfriendly" to the pedestrian, but the building appears to be even taller and more massive. Staff finds the current applicant's approach more appropriate. The height and general form of the duplex closest to the river has been repeated in the affordable housing project and to some degree in the duplex currently under review. Staff suggests that the architect emphasize this relationship by creating a step down in height of some element on the street facade. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the request to exceed 85% of the allowed FAR at 1011 and 1015 E. Hopkins Avenue, and that the architect consider designing some element of the new structure that steps down in height approximately five feet on the north facade. Additional Comments: . EXHIBIT C OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Robert Blaich and Don Erdman present. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: The 904 E. Cooper project is getting ready to submit for a building permit and condition of approval was that they were to just show staff final design. The proposed changes on the E- L are the elimination of stone altogether. My concern is that hhey also changed the indentation going to the ADU and have made it a flat plane. I thought that might be something that you are not in favor of because it is the only break in the wall. There is a little over hang over it. Robert: They changed the material. Jake: Were the other elevations consistent to what was approved? Robert: At the last meeting they were not sure of the stone and have they make a choice on the stone yet. Amy: They have not indicated materials. On the connector they used to have the barrel roof and at the meeting they indicated they wanted to go to a gabled roof and the commission said that was OK but it should still have a different roofing materials and they want it all shingle. I said we wanted to hold to the different materials so that the structures looked broken up. Sara: I think the owner liked the idea of wood shingles. Amy: It is a cost cutting issue now. Jake: We could add this to the agenda. MOTION: Robert made the motion to add 904 E. Cooper to the agenda; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. 1011 AND 1015 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Amy: This is a proposed new duplex in the east aspen neighborhood. Because the grade on this side of the street is so much higher than the other side it has created a strange relationship between the buildings and pedestrians. I found the proposed building handled that situation better than the affordable housing one. My concerns or suggestions were that the form of the building has been carried across and I felt that maybe a lower one story or some element might be a good rhythm to keep. There is a five feet step between the buildings and possibly some other indentation could be made but the building is sort of U shaped. Scott- Smith, Gibson Reno Architects: Things we took into .. OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 consideration were hopefully the same goals that you all have in terms of being compatible with the neighborhood characters within this one block. I am also trying to integrate the new building in with the existing building in the neighborhood and as best we could relate to the sidewalk or the walking experience that would occur down below. There is quite a level change at the existing bench. The house under construction now is providing 2 1/2 stories height of the building to the street side but cutting out part of the bench when this is almost three stories at street level., What we were trying to do to the duplex is set it back on the lot several feet further than the required setback to try and give us as much buffer as possible. Staggering the plans slightly to break up the building massing and provide close to a 40 foot steep landscaped area as somewhat of a buffer between the sidewalk and the building. Other ways to create scale measures was to integrate it into the neighborhood sort of create a visual bridge between some of the shapes of the housing project that is going up and the single family residence such as picking up on the gabled roofs and trying to break up the massing of the building. We are using traditional materials with the stone and wood lap siding and timber accents. The height of the building is several feet lower than the maximum height allowed. The height was broken up with bay elements to help break up the massing. The bay elements are important to the ( function of the plan. Donnelley: Why did you go to a cedar shake roof instead of a cedar shingled roof as the guidelines tend to call for shingled. Scott Smith: I am not sure there is any important reason for that. I believe the house on the corner has cedar shakes and that might have had something to do with it. Donnelley: Traditionally the shake roof is a larger scale and we tend to ' not look favorable on a shake as we would a shingle. Possibly it was an oversight. Scott Smith: I do not feel it is that important of an element. Sara Garton: Do either of you know why this is such odd terrain, is it from the mining days that the knoll or huge rise happened then suddenly it sinks to a flat area. This has nothing against the application but suddenly to the people across the street there are three homes there. The three buildings now have changed the neighborhood but you are within the code. Robert Blaich: The view is gone. Leslie: If this is the existing grade nothing can happen. 2 .. OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Jake: It should be measured from the new grade if it is lower than the existing. Leslie: We are proposing to change that. Leslie: We use original natural grade and the county uses the later. Amy: Right now there are only sidewalks on the opposite. side of the street. Jake: You are proposing steps in the right-of-way. Leslie: Typically the city does not accept permanent landscaping features in the right-of-ways. Robert Blaich: The drawings are misleading because it does show the planting on the street side but that is prohibited in that area. Sara: I do not know if a sidewalk will work on that side because not only does the affordable housing driveway aprons come all the way out Erindale's driveway comes all the way out also. It makes / more sense of the sidewalk to be on the other side. Amy: I do not think you could get sidewalks across as this is a major pedestrian area. Le:lie: The plan makes it look like the vegetation is intended to hide the exposure. Scott Smith: That would be the intent. It will be one story fully below grade except for the window well areas. Robert Blaich: In terms of following the plan with the landscaping .' and they decide not to do it and you then have the window wells sitting out there. What kind of control do we have with that. I feel that is a serious issue. Amy: I think if I would have recognized that it was going to be scooped out my comments would have been that it is not an appropriate location for window wells and in the neighborhood character guidelines light wells should not be on the primary facades of buildings. If there is a place on the side for windows wells maybe that should be looked at. Scott Smith: I think there are ways that we could deal with the j grade and landscaping to hopefully accomplish the visuals from the street. 3 .. OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Jake: There is a new building code that the light wells can only be three by three if they are deeper than 2 1/2 feet. .W COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Donnelley: I mentioned already that the roof needs changes and secondly the roof eaves fascia is very heavy and tend to be more of a commercial or non-residential scale. I would recommend changing that. Also the discussion of the window wells on the street facade, that any window wells on the street facade we tend to discourage. Perhaps a smaller element that would supply light would be a better substitute. Sara: I understand the glazing on the south elevation but it might need addressed somewhat. Scott Smith: The south L is not something that could visually be seen. Sara: My only concern was the window wells and I am happy there will be a berm. Robert Blaich: You said earlier in your presentation you were trying to deal with the other dwellings that were existing or under construction and the one on the far right I would lean more heavily on in terms of scale and mass. Architecturally there is a lot of stone and those are things of concern. Jake: I feel the front grade is a unique situation to the site and I feel some sort of a port form would help lower the facade height. I would allow your roofing materials as it is on the east end and not in a heavy victorian area so there could be flexibility. Rustic detailing in Aspen in some areas is appropriate. The condition of the entire front block needs looked at by City : engineering and let them tell us what there plan is in terms of pedestrian circulation and street scape and trees. The window wells have been addressed so I will not reiterate. Sara: I thought the railings helped. Jake: I feel it needs restudied. Scott Smith: I feel putting all the windows off to one side of the long room would be a lot less desirable. Donnelley: If you look at this in reality and where your grade is indicated at the street elevation the deck actually is a lid on the window well. It physically doesn't work. 4 .. OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Scott Smith: The only way it would work is if the window well extended out beyond the deck. Donnelley: As it is draw it could not be built that way. Bruce: This is mandatory review and compliance. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the project at 3-011 and 1015 E. Hopkins be approved because it is insubstantial compliance; however, the street side of lightwells shall be moved to sideyards. I will explain as two things cannot occupy the same space, a deck cannot occupy the space. Or you could remove the deck, one or the other however the lightwells would then have to be in compliance with other aspects of the code; second by Bruce. DISCUSSION Jake: What about sidewalk referral to city engineers. AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended the motion that the whole streetscape situation being sidewalk, pedestrian and the actual line of the street and how elevations would be dealt with should be referred to city engineering for clarification and design; second by Bruce. Scott Smith: If we can enlarge the one window well slightly to allow the deck to work without infringing on the setback would that be acceptable. Donnelley: I still do not know how two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. It is required egress. A cross section would be required to even answer that question. Jake: I would like to leave the applicant flexibility in dealing ' with the situation. Sara: I would like to see the railings retained. Jake: I feel the follow-up should be handled by staff. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. Sara: The neighborhood drawings are terrific and it is one of the best applications for detailing. 5 .. OVERLAY SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 904 E. COOPER Robert Blaich: The applicant stated at the last meeting if they went to a different roof structure they might have to raise or lower the center roof. We need to look at the old and new drawings together. Leslie: I will tell the applicant it is too big of a change and we will have to schedule another meeting unless you do what was approved. MOTION: Sara made the motion to adjourn, second by Robert. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 .. EXHIBIT D Design Guidelines for the East Aspen Neighborhood The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all projects inthe East Aspen Neighborhood, in addition to the chapter of General Guidelines for All Neigh- borhoods. When considering the appropriateness of a project with respect to these guidelines, also con- sider how the project will help to accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood. --- -- Mass & Scale ,=Fr 140 - -Â«CIA 4 1-*-:egi>-===jaarzy 52 --- f. m=-r-T#3 17. New building should be sensitive in _31 scale to existing, smaller buildings in the r.:&141.71.-ine:>.=:El./. neighborhood. f17'~k *.51 >=i 1Â· ' a. Buildings should appear to be similar in scale to Maditional residential structures of the East As- 44, ..1 > pen neighborhood. This is especially important 21 Â· Â·M : in this neighborhood. - b. Divide larger projects into modules that are = -b=~tz 18==2*6.91 Â£ - 3 71--2= Â«==r ~>W'Â«7~I- 3 19542*4244+1- similar to those of buildings seen traditionally. --' 2ZL-â€¢*G,724*72< --&7~-.,19h-:Â·:.:e.-6- 1.J Traditionally, facade widths for single family . -umon=ily, theividth of a plane of i buLT'.ng jcn: houses ranged from 15 feet to 30 feet wide. r#.:Â·led Yo,nfifteen :o :hirry feet wÂ·.de. New burlip.ts c. Step buildings down in scale as they approach should Contintle to 2.3.prESS.'tie.Se Oropor'nora. adjacent smaller seuctures. d. Locate some floor area in secondary structures, to reduce the overall mass and scale o f building on the site. i 1-Fti * - e. To help establish a sense of scale, use windows 'r=-r IX and doors that are similar in size and shape to /*iÂ»k. 4Â»*2 r those seen traditionally. 25* Building form WEE' =1 -= *CU.... 1-* 1., r- - %=F'.= 18. Building forms should appear similar daff-:1- 7:~.a, ~ 2-'kN,-33+Irrt#d to those used traditionally in Aspen. Entries should be in .cale ',vith:}lose :eer. tr~.di:ione:t:v. a. See the General Guidelines. "Grarli" e :rtes. such as .'hts. are :11(10 propr.(lte. Page 15 Ascen Ne,CR.corr,voc 6,1.=racter Des:ir. Gu:d.1. 4. .. Site plan di i 1 9 1 111 1 19. Provide a front yard in all develop- ment 14 1 1 1- i 1 1 11 a. Clearly define the yard. b. Minimize the amount of paving that is exposed H i IlL c Z 20. Buffer edges of the site from adj acent .- properties with fences or hedges. - = =79 = *= = a. Fences should be low and open in character -1= espedally in front of the building. b. See also the general guidelines. Divide 2-le: proldc:= .Â·r.:o modÂ·u:er :.il: 172 2.m.:lar :0 21. Locate theprimaryflooratornear side- those reer. .7 11::'.08.Q..; walk grade. a. Avoid sunken terraces that separate the main entrance from the street level. 12.-Â·.0%44 ... 4-2 '4$86X . Materials 22. Use "natural, or native" building materials. a. Finishedciapboard, logand masonry are appro- priate. b. See also the General Guidelines for All Neigh- borhoods. 121- _. 2~2< -7,=-= c. Greater variety in trim materials and those of - windows and doors is appropriate in this neigh- Ganl'e 70(Lf forms -,TE Drtfirrid. borhood. ea ta lek...0'1> i Windows & Doors 04*.13 74 ,23. Use windows and doors that are .t similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally to help establish a sense of t . X. ' tÂ· W scale. -i--- CL8=. 9-. 421.5-1- 24. The solid-to-void ratio, as seen from the street, should be similar to that seen i traditionally in residential areas of Aspen. ~ .Avoui irken :2.racc or irt'.'es :na: Jecarcid .*he ward #C m : .4 e :'-2 â‚¬: .2 t'c' 1. Page ' â‚¬ Eur A.spen Architectural features 25. The use of porches is strongly encouraged. a. Provideporches,obented tothestreetandscaled to be similar to those seen historically. 26. Cearly identify the primary entrance. ~~E~ 1 - t. \ a. The entry should be in scaie with those seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen. P -J 'TE b. Use doors similar in scale to those seen tradi- tionally in residential areas of Aspen- c. Consider a central, shared entry for multi-fam- ily units that would appear to be a single, domi- nant entry. ' 11 Provide a porch, which is oriented to the sTeer and scaled to be similar to those seen historically. Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Page 17 0 -- . ~~142- 2/44.0.Ovt Â£ gat, 7 I z.,L 191" i 1 -1 It 0 1 4 1 . J.- (1 1 I . 1 1. 1 t:71 h.11146 12,:0 +-1 - ----- - L Ktrod#J r--1- -- .Azz-- -===r=74-i-=17 1 - - , 1 1 . 1 1 . - . . 1 YV V*le *Ol -- Â· 8 . . Ill 11: ' 1 , EV : ~r 1 1 :1 L1 6 /40,< i -4 / 1 1 1 , --1-.NER.7 7!9* --. . - 4-4%-r. 4: C , ps / 1,-1, 1 , 1 ! ;* Â¢ i 1 111 f .9 r.1 1: tlt'U 1 .. 1 1 t' 'â€¢ 1. ;!i 5 fictjrion 6 - : i-2 2. 1 It 'Murra w. 42 ;,1: 1 1 ih 1- bil 3 68 95)4+Lue l\ . .. M i t, f - 1-- 1 , .- Â· -- 1 'Â«224 --efuld.90 illâ€¢ C.--4 0 .. 1 ULLeE 1 17 Y i 1 * !Ihi i " T fil n. 1--- 11 ~ 1 102 m r i.i l I E 40Â© al blulll 1 j-/- LL- -- ---a l = .--f#02~6 141 1 - 6 J. . ROD 4 SHELF ~ tu ROD 4 86IELF * J 1 7 1-9 ' W -1 I , - r == ~ ~ th' 1 45=a-i Ea. ' 4 6 _ 4,-P 1/ . 4'-8 1 " Yi Y 10 a 101 - , 106 ' (1 -1 11 0 1 19 i fl i. 1 1 1| / 1 11 1 A 1 L MASTER BEDIQOOM 9 -1 ------ - --- - Â©---- ---.-.... ---- -- 1, r ; ., 101 --' 6. 4 ,/\ Ir 600" 1.1 : 2 1.1 Â· BAâ„¢ 4 '1 .1 tÂ° J \03 W I. - -I--- ,/f W b I ' 6~'-01/2 0 , 9'-5" 7\ ,.. 43 - 1 <21 (01 (~ f .6 -1 1, Â· . /- I 4 0 . - - -4,21-346Â¢_ -_ 3 - f-nuettlâ„¢LL A // b P' A , . CA A , Mx/ 1 \ar u/ Cy 12'-11 "V ,-lilli - 1% 12 -1- 3 -/ 16-671 , 10 - ** _j..2 * Do 2 3 M) 25_F 3 3,3 g- f . 13'-6 1/2 ' . . I 12'-11" 1 ./ 1 1 .. APPLICATION SUBMISSION Ordinance No. 35, 1994, City of Aspen 1. The name of the applicant is: Purchaser: Mr. Harold Dude 6585 Dillman Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 (407) 683-4795 (407) 683-2363 (Fax) Current Owner: Mr. Thomas Fellman 801 North 96th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68114 (402) 392-1800 (303) 925-6538 (402) 392-2502 (Fax) Architect Representative: Gibson & Reno Architect 202 East Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5968 (303) 925-5993 2. The Street address is 1011 and 1015 East Hopkins. The legal description is the eastern half of Lot C, all of Lot D, and all of Lot E, Block 33, East Hopkins Avenue; otherwise known as Lot 2 Fellman Lot Split, as recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at page 67 as Reception No. 375935. 3. A current copy of the survey is attached as prepared by Alpine Surveys, Inc., Job. No. 94.20.3 4. A copy of the current title insurance is attached per Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., 620 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 925-3577; Fax (303) 925-1384. 5. A vicinity map is attached with the proposed duplex drawings. .. February 15, 1995 Page 2 Application Submission 6. The neighborhood is located in the RMF zone district of Aspen. The character of the existing neighborhood is primarily multifamily residential with a small mix of single family and duplex residences. The existing buildings are all arranged rectalinear with most of the entries oriented toward Hopkins Avenue. The adjacent buildings on the same block as the proposed duplex all contain gable-type roofs, which are oriented towards Hopkins Avenue. There are also a number of flat roofed and hip type roofs located within the neighborhood. Materials that are commonly used on the adjacent buildings are both horizontal and vertical wood siding; s:one; wood cedar shake and asphalt roofing; and a small amount of stucco. The scale of the adjacent buildings are moderate, however each one of them has broken up the mass through the use of smaller elements. These include roof intersections, porches, modulation of the wall facades, and use of different materials on the facade. All of the adjacent buildings have been sited to create a front yard and in this all are approximately ten (1) feet deep from the property line to the building (or approximately forty (40) feet from the edge of Hopkins Avenue to the building). The windows that are used in the adjacent buildings are all vertical and the entrances are of a small human scale and clearly identifiable. .. February 15, 1995 Application Submission page 3 7. The proposed residential duplex compliments the neighborhood by keeping the mass of the structure in scale with the adjacent buildings. This is achieved by making each of the units twenty five (25) feet in width, which was a traditional characteristic for single family houses. Added to this is the facade being broken up mass-wise through the use of a small scale porch; shifting of the units in the North/South direction by five (5) feet; placement of vertical type landscaping (deciduous type trees) between the units; and the use of an Architectural bay help to break up the mass of the street facade. The use of different materials on the facade also help to break-down the scale. Wood cedar shake roofs are proposed, which was typical or at least similar to traditional roofing materials. Horizontal wood shingle siding for the upper portion of the building will help keep the building to more of a human scale from the perspective of decreasing the verticality. The "small piece" characteristics of the siding will also break up the facade into a much smaller feeling. The use of stone at the base of the building (street level) is seen on some of the adjacent buildings and is being proposed for the duplex. This feature also breaks up the verticality of a building; is a practical use of material regarding our climate, primarily snow accumulation along building walls. The proposed building has been designed with vertical type windows (primarily double hung) with true divided light glazing. This aspect helps to break the scale down even further. .. February 15, 1995 Application Submission Page 4 Finally, the landscaping, especially the existing that occurs between Hopkins Avenue and the North facade of the building helps screen and softens the building from the street. With the additional proposed landscaping, the building will be broken up in the East/West direction to separate the mass of the two (2) units. 8. Attached are drawings that include: Site Location/Zoning Map Site/Landscaping Plan Lower Level Floor Plan Mid Level Floor Plan Upper Level Floor Plan North Exterior Elevation South Exterior Elevation Block Streetscape Elevation During the actual presentations, I will have additional photographs showing the Block and Buildings across the street. .. February 15, 1995 Amy Amidon Page 2 If I have forgotten anything, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me. Also, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully yours, 7/r Augu*dE-Beno, AIA .. February 15, 1995 DAVID GIBSON. AIA AUGUST RENO, AIA Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCOTT SMITH, RE: Application Related to Ordinance No. 35 AIA 1011 and 1015 East Hopkins Avenue Proposed Duplex \>. \1*Pi Dear Amy: 2351---216~#-~ Please accept the attached information for a proposed duplex, which is designed at 100 of the allowed floor area. It is our GIBSON Â· RENO ARCHITECTS intention to be scheduled for the next Design Review, which I Ill believe is February 28, 1995. 210 E- HYMAN I have enclosed the following: NÂ° 202 1. Application for Submission a. Name of the Applicant ASPEN b. Letter of Authorization to represent the Owner COLORADO 81611 c. Street address and legal description d. Current survey 303.925.5968 e. Disclosure of Ownership f. Vicinity map FACSIMILE g. Description of the existing neighborhood 303.925.5993 h. Description of the project i. Design Drawings 1) Site/Landscape Plan P.O. BOX 278 2) Floor Plans (3) 117 N. WILLOW 3) North & South Elevations NÂ° 2 4) Block Streetscape Elevations j. A check in the amount of $489.00 for the TELLURIDE COLORADO submission fee. 81435 k. Zoning form /â‚¬E 6 e 303.728.6607 ( FEB 1 5 1995 ) FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 / DS':2....r~.i. ' i- / 4 'fir'*,2 9 ; .. Thomas Fellman 801 N. 96th Street Omaha, NE 68114 (402) 392-1800 (303) 925-6538 February 14, 1995 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Application Related to Ordinance No. 35 Dear Ms. Amidon: Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson and Reno Architects located at 210 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 202 in Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5968 to submit and process the Application related to Ordinance No. 35 for a Proposed Residential Duplex above the eighty five per cent (85%) of the floor area allowed. If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 0 \A 0/-- 4 Thomas Fellman t t . 0 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 ORDER NUMBER: 00021517 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. Partial Release of Deed of Trust dated March 4, 1994, executed by Thomas H. Fellman, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County to secure an indebtedness of $900,000.00 in favor of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company, recorded March 4, 1994 in Book 743 at Page 524 as Reception No. 367588. 2. A. Certificate of non-foreign status, duly executed by the seller(s), pursuant to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code AND B. Satisfactory evidence of the seller(s) Colorado residency (or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92-1270. NOTE: Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code requires witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller) is a foreign person or entity. Colorado House Bill 92-1270 may require witholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seller(s) is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Forms are available from Stewart Title. 3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). 4. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s). I .. SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS ORDER NUMBER: 00021517 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, ENCROACHMENTS, AND 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 PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT. 6. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER. 7. ANY AND ALL UNPAID TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ANY UNREDEEMED TAX SALES. 8. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. 9. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in Book 185 at Page 69 as Reception No. 106874. 10. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions in Statement of Exemption From The Full Subdivision Process recorded October 31, 1994 in Book 765 at Page 976 as Reception No. 375934. 11. Easements, conditions and restrictions as set forth on the Plat of Fellman Lot Split recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67 as Reception No. 375935. NOTE: Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records the documents of conveyance in the proposed transaction the status of title will be updated from the time of this commitment to the time of said recording. If said update reveals no intervening liens or other changes in the status of said title Exception No. 5 herein will be deleted; if said update reveals intervening liens or changes in the status of said title appropriate action(s) will be taken to disclose or eliminate said change Continued on next page .. CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 ORDER NUMBER: 00021517 prior to the recording of said documents. NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy form. Copies of the 1992 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon request. .. ,. SCHEDULE A ORDER NUMBER: 00021517 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 1994 AT 8:00 A.M. 2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ 755,000.00 PROPOSED INSURED: HARALD DUDE B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ PROPOSED INSURED: C. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ PROPOSED INSURED: D. $ 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: THOMAS H. FELLMAN 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Lot 2, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67 as Reception No. 375935. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado OWNERS: $ 918.50 TAX CERT. $ 20.00 -74/14/X STEWART TITLE OF l ASPEN, INC. \J / 620 E. Hopkins AOTHORIZED SIGNATURE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303 925-3577 FAX 303-925-1384 e . 0 Exh 16 4- A A Cf-HorKINâ€¢z> + f + 1 t 1 N EAjT 1, HOFK.IN5 AVENUE \ \ e // 1 \ 0 5 10 20 30 40 yn -- \ - ..Il-----Il-.Ilill--I.*.-..Ill-li--Il lulll lili \ IALEâ€¢ 11=101 \ 54516 OF BEAM:INGÂ©; \ ROUND VIONUMENTÂ© AS SHOWN. --â‚¬EEED-=InÂ»:r--21 --- -/0--I--96 .SUKVEYOK'f. CEKTIFICATE 07 --- -%%.-1..22/31--2-2.--- ----- ---------------0 71Â·113 VAr REFAE:)ENTD A FIELa.&,e/Er 1, JA},â‚¬3 E K:[55. HEKEm- CEKT,rr-THAr --- i-- Ill-- --- - too MADE UNDER Â»1Â¥ 5UregÂ¥1' ,RCH 24, ]115 -------------===-r02 AL-rINE fof<VEY5, *C Br,__--_ < I. 2 -- ------- 87570Â© 25 . * JAN \ 75Â·00 ~ 10*'03-b ' FLUND= pATE,_-dE.Â·3&.9.KL__- L. 9- rEL.cow PL,tm / / 90*_ C,AF/t:r54% 'Â£ 67'Eov / i P i 1 13 / / * NOTE, ' / I / 0 / t C *0 -neus WEASÂ·.4,4WHERS 1-lovl '-' \ X2 TO OFT. Of SNOW ON THE LOT AND IN THE STXEET- AT THE , TI MIE.â‚¬F 50!UVET'. / - I - -- 1 /.-#. -- , N 1 \ / 1 LaT i ,/LDT 21 F ELLMAH LOT MLIT- /~~ ;27t r 9!I- \ , : HOODE UNCE<CONSTRUCTION ATTIMIC Or .SUMVEY) M /' fo / 1 1 29- 0 / 1 18 i 1 1 1 1 k 1 --- 105 1 // \ 2 ' i t \ 1 / / Â«*771, \ 1 /--4- / 1 \ rp,31=22--CZ..0/ /3 .//1 iii i-----**:-#*. ir i AÂ·)3<0,#0 1995 1 1 21 i lu / / '7~~24:,1, ./ / Ill/1 ./ 3. .'.4,Â·' r / 1/\\\ ./ fr,.,1/'91// â€¢ - - .Â·3.1/ i ----1 /\,0.1&\\AVI!11, 04* /% Rew ..ALLÂ· Â· r' Â·Fi*Led~ ' 1 1 \ ve &- 2-341 nes., 1 1 M~'PLâ€¢157/C 7523 ~------\ 9 0 1 4- CAP/ RESAA ex 7Ez. PEZEpt ~ MANHOLE ' 4/75~07'// 'W O.I TBM-/00Â·00 " # \ 3 40 ALLEY Â· BLOCK 33 - E. A. T. O -AULYÂ· , ,06 AUG 15 1995 ~ %,19 Alpine Surveys, Inc S-yed 3.24 95 Di- R.-m T- Job No 94-20-4 Clant HOWEIL 4 0-0 4.03 95 UHb - -DrDSKAn-11(Z MAr Pod Ollici Ba= 1730 A,pen, Colorado 81611 LOT- 2, FELLMAN LOT DrLIT- 3039252*88 t,LOCK 3,3 E,Alir ATEN 1DWNÂ©ITE, ADVEN, C50~~po CLEVELAND 6T RE ET 1 /22'12/==3 .. . 1 . / 1 / 1, * , I 1 !/, I , , 1/ , 1 / V 1 1, \\ /i / , 1 , i /1 / . , '-1 ...1 N , , , .....E , , I , , I , . 1 , 1 , 1 t 1 '\ .-eMWISF , , 1 I , I / ./ / 2/' , LOT 2 , f , 11 / Â£ 0 (Duplex) ; f 1 t , .. , SUE El_Ev 1Â¢)480' \ \ impa ELEV,O-0. ' I \ \\ 1 ' I t I ---- - . \ i k , \671 \ -3 9- \ \ y \ .,1- E# 9/ t , / 1- 1 - ~ AU 6 1 5 1993 1-=r--6*mal .Booll. Y%â‚¬14/Por* Bu- ,â€¢s~. 2,~CH 010 WF-t 12%/ 1- S, ~ SITE PLAN u.. x-Fl-GA g 1-101 1-29m. Wa"=1'-0" DeCK OCT liall,m) 50 S.F. - \ TOTAL B ZONIe -42 CLINE110,1 TIN 1.1 v 7/\4, OCOPMU 7, A2.1 anNJAV SNI>IJOH SNINcIOH .LSÂ¥* 9T0T 09 I TO i 1 !,1 1.1 ... 0 0 0 0 1 j 1 1 = I 0 K..U?* LT 4 - -- - --- - --' -- ----.- ---i- ----~ 0 81! livERee FLAN FOR ALL NOTES *0 Or-Â·16100* : i *--7 E- 4 0 'k A Aj - VV VV 1 -'re...WOI~'1'...'*LI,r#...,A'# *.#Â·.Â·"iÂ·,-*1 ~ -4 ~ ~ t â€ž -i- i 11:2 r-- - \ \ 11 i - 1 r----- LE * 1 . 11 11 c 5e= , 1 -1- - il 1 1 1 4 , 1 - 3 I 3 -1~-2-l,%Â« ff- ~ - - Tr- . .4, ~,0... --,2 '1 4. 1, -*r-'.21Â·'~'*~ <-2--. 4 '777'~Â¥~*Â»* "0Â»:t --0 *1~~- " '' Â·*r ~~tâ€¢ ke- ~S -'P>'Â»*!=r. . w 11 fl ..r : "= /41.-1 1 22111=._. T'*1 --- 1 1 R : L.1 'Ill-le + 11 1228 11 r'=1 a , 11 /129%. /41, -r-r ~41 1 "emi| Lt '00 4 8,411-/ lut 56-1 2 Bm- . '0-~ i q S'-51/2â€¢ 1 , a,al A 101-1. 1 9-1 00. 1 *In m I i -IM. a \49 ~ e a 1 3/4' DIA Ccâ€¢Inhajoue ' ~ n*9 08 . 4.'-WJ,ill=.C~~~em .- .7FI-.-- - 0 -&!9 b.4-~ 713Â¥ Â¥- 2 * ELEV --' 9 ~ ,-Lk,.411&/11 A b 1 / Â£/4,~=. 9 0 E <rn 'Â®fzT: I - .=1,0-0 -m Â£4 < 1 â€ž4 3-< I 1 1 ifi - 1 11 L .q-'Â»4 ., . Â£ 1. 1 b - 1 62/b,TESS&.51," 4 & , 01- r'/'. t.$*all Â·t .M,/*47 f I ...Â·11'.... .' 'A h h-.t. H r .// LBA~L- --14'1 11 4 -4 + 4 - -- - -%-a 1 41 COLL/14 -CM 1 . ? 1 , 7-71/2 14.-41/:22. t 14â€¢4 U:20 , 12'-11' F - i 22-oÂ· 27'-5 1/2â€¢ 15,4 1/2. ' \ k \KE.â‚¬1-4\\ 8 6,-0. f 7.-11.1 Â¢ 12-11. 4Â«1 ////0 i 44 m e AU,Â«01995 h (-~-) LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN r,EVE, -OPM=<Lj 9002%99~ A3.1 01 ... .'./.r~" ~U"i'.-I"Ill'-~,+I~'W'..il'A A+-t'il.MIM'M#W) 4 D o .Owle 00-11/ SNINdOH ISVE 9T0T 9 I IOT i ! I 1 1 0GTH 01 00'NidSV ... 0 Â® 0 0 1 Â¢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 11â€žki 1 '1,1 ./1 , 1 b 1 1 =1. 1 i i my!!i " i L *Vi - --0 ~ kiw M:wip-4.F--# 04 /' U 5/i Z=Â©J ,/ t Fi . 1 - f . M Il ! 1 ! 1 BEE ~EVERSE PLAN FOR ALL NOTE* Ah[) DIÂ·ENOICÂ»,16 :j 1 + 1 2110 3 ~ -11 Chi - 1 ..... =-26)l-=ji 14=XE - L EfEEÂ¥<E. --n~ Al J C tumia ., +p./ 1~,-Â· r~,L + Â» . .. - 41 \ V...~, IR'/0 -IIIIIL=&%2=:#fer./ 1JI. 1 D \-3 98 FIR'LACE ~ p I DI-CT veâ€¢IT *Lf .. 2 1 y r 1 4 i,k /2/. 0 ~- ' '~ MPE . . E-1 1 112-1 0 ELEV. 100-# =4 0820 A 71' CAN Lp 101-0. O.AN -u-TO 0-11 - : hi L 1 4'-8 9 L:r- Â·Â· 1 11 ,% 4 - - - r. 1 R . :<Elli DRIVE . Nor, -1- r-1 V tA 1 , i i tt~St=......'I-- * 22 Culli , 1 -- 1 1 . I #tr~' in----' 1 e \ J ADJI 1 7 Â·#un K 2, I - Â«< <~.UG 5 ,-ue 2.-7.- 1- veit; 19 #\21& â‚¬ Tle Li. inne 4.-,11 DEIX \ t . - 1_ -4 9 -2 - -&#N 22 V . *-- -,------ - - CD \~ : 7 - 69'll/----+921--t1"".9/......" k. -r ...li b ' i r~-.2'â‚¬04 x 59-6 1/21 ' Â®Â·83 .0'441: .1 -Cr) 1 . 1 , 4411'--Tri i. - qe,f-3 f E29 1 EN71er,-0.:w + CCNC. MORCM Â¥aw qi:ili--M 4 I'0>4~;:~ 1-0 - 02~-~-11~ L_'' !<a; 7 --- 2- ..4.---2. .- ----. -- .---- - - --- .. ....r-----,- 4T - ".- .4- --,--- ... ... -C'. i:=51 -T- 1 \ --IÂ· STÂ©.2 ve'ER 0 Â©LÂ© 1 d46 M-LACE r/'A ME,r ' . 4'-00 , 414â€¢ 1 1.41 1/2 : 2'-0 1/2' 141-6. 12.-1110. . /4. 1 -0 V ='-O. 27-51/2- . leÂ·-6 1/2" 12MIr ~ 01 . 141 21 e.oÂ· A k f I. // ' i. . i / IC ,11 100 W i. 1. i 0 0 0 - MAINLEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~~- A3.2 Cl eo SND[dOH 9I0T V TIOT A 1/11 0 a V E 0 7 0 0 'NidSV 11I OGÂ¥ HO'100 ' NldSV 91 Indfla 00 SNINdOH .LSVE 9I0T OF TIOI i 1 1,1 *0 , f te' --- fill 4-I." iy' Â®Â® ee Â®Â® \ /5 fit Iff- 549 Il ' hu z . 2 9 2 1 - \620% 7 i- 4 1 1 t 41 .OILSC .e- IC 1 .OF, f ..4 I ..1. I k f .b-L 1 lim .- i 1, IT 11 1 L 1! y i 1 0 11 i @ Â¢11 - .. EDI fl 11 1 1-01[0} ~4= - - F ./.2,2/-7/-./.i' e'ni ; -- -I-I --4 ~ 1 I I.: T 1-e'Â·y,0.Ilf-40 4 '777- \\ 19 117-Eli ./ 1 1 - 10/ . ,\\ 9 , /~ 111 9=2~: 1130\\\ 4 ( ImE:i Fwi b 1 y - 11 ' 11_JIK- C \ , l~ ! 1 / 1 1 1 1 111 x = 4 = ImI, I 1 v '{ 1 x r..L- i .4 Â£ 1 4 1@ 1 / 1 1 /// 1 e k 1 i 1{*31(/IN 2 1 11 1 0 0 41-@---1--1 @ Â®i b l 9 48 0 , k 1 6* 1..,let -4 1.4 i=2 \\ 1 ~-.-- - ---' /..- .1 ~.,--r---~ 1 1 Tri= â€¢ ./ . b 9 1 f K \ 9% 1 T (-41% 1! 77 9 \ I i -:.1 2 Â¥ \ ..1 \ i.0.10. 1 \ . A '-- - "--------------- ----------------Â·--Â·-Â·Â·- Â· i ... #-,e Â·r .0-19 9 1 - 1 241\ u \4 - j 1 2 1 I. 0 - Câ€¢ .. _.... -_ , , - I , , Â§--- --4, 4 Â® - 1 .. 11 r *FR . .$/ .-*I . I -I .--/ I~.-I*..- t+-.i-.- .~I/ i 1 M 1 4, , 1, } 1 1 4 1 1 . I 11 1 i' 1 ! 3 - -4440 1 1 1 1 1 il i i 1 1 1 I t.O-,C .O-11 1 '' , 9,1/NE dek N71=I 29001=I 13AE-I aadan ~ 1 3 - 6 \ all SLOR \ 0 d.0. - I GLOft \ 1 0 - 171 1 t Â£,5 \ 1 8'LOPE SLOME 3. die 36 6.0. - â‚¬' l. 1 hi e G 1 1 4 t 10 7 J i A' SLOPE M.Â©PE 1 1 1 L-----------3 1 1 . 1 C 1 1 1 9 -i ! 1 1 1 41-10. 1 21.-Â« 42. 25'-~0. 4. 1 Â®Â® 2 V .Al f LN 11 'dÂ©\ \ 92 4,; CD 0\ Z / X -1 70 , r* 1.5 / 171 2 07 t1, M \9 FA 5 1 - u.. 146; ..1 . te Â¤ ~t ' iii 1011 & 1015 EAST HOPKINS DUPLEX ASPEN . COLORADO 110-11. .t,/1 NV'lai 9003 .. 11 14 2& 14 REVISIONS BY 0 16 , V )~611'4~ - - - *froÂ· pef c Mt:,0. 9#44;,1 9 1%,b'-1,/z,â€¢â€¢ I - 2 - - Â®Â® - ' Â® Â®Â®-I l - 1 -- - r - 7 / 1 6/ 24. - . eÂ®l ..... - - Â¢ 1 1 - 7 "0604 0 C 10 -â‚¬3 -fy.r Â· 7 'obot,/4" ~ - 1 j .r- 1 - *.11411 '4.- 84 , i\ 7- . - \ -I *0- 7~ 1 5-reÂ· purÂ·, 64-/ 1 1| 6**- 1 4 -4- -r- r- r ---+ IA * Sh *-T-JAWALW' *%FA TJ C / t>Â· ' apur# *ELLY*nal_ __FP~47-; de. â‚¬ 141*1* ~pu. < 04.4.* af .1- t 4 10Â·â€¢Â¥Â·â€¢ MbeÂ»- 4 1 = 4424Â£ 1261-11* 7 - 1 -M,(08*/1/3---L. MELE*EL 1 24'- 414% 1 4 -- - r o DLY, p W.... 4 57 --------------- - - 11#-1901 WINDOW SCHEDULE Â»Â»-=~2Â£-tzi-J- -- --- - ' HOP-6 DUPI.EX PROJECT NO. DATE: 1Â£ - 6..42 *44*,|GLee R.O. SIZE MANUFACTURER NO. TYPE GLAZNG REMARKS ---14-' A 5'-5- 4â€¢-7 '5/8- Â¥-- 21-2850 C-Â£ 1- D- L- E T - - 119#0- 8 M 4'-11 3/8- ,-9.- 11-2454 0-, 1~ -/ Low E ' C 1'-5- 1'-5- W..11. S~,111 C.In 1- Im. L- E -- - - - D r-91/2- 4-11 3/Er Woit- 9*1* 481/2-1654 C)â€žth,d 1- D- L- E ir.A/:1. 1. Gi 1 11 '1 -1 1 .0 ~~ I - ~ 2- 1/ --1 Ils-2'/4 E r.1- 4Â·-7 3/8- ..011 9.1.1 . C*,/ 1-D-Laâ€¢E 1 F 4'-10 4-7 3/r W..11. 9.1. 21-2050 C-Â£ 1--/L- E 'i , - d#*12- UbÂ·|eLE *11,1616 G 7-9,n- G'-13/r W,=h/glld 481/2-10Â§0 0*hi 1-IduwE Â£ ---- - /*Mt)M 3 E-V W-57/V Wi/2= Shl- 12-40-56-12 Fuy r ~- L- E iÂ» ; | H 7-91/2- W-*= Sal- CÂ»04 ka 1- ~- L- E K 3-9- 6'-5 7/8- W.th. glid 12-40-5&12 1- hill L- E L 11'-1- W-h- Shld (1114 Me, 1-b- L- E - - -' - M 5-1 1/2- 6Â·-5 3/8. W.-- 911. 561/2*44 F/ 1.-,I LowE Glass C... 1- D- Low E -4 W.th. 9,1- Ch- Ara 1-b-IL-E P 501 1/2- w.th. 9*1, C.t,I Arch 1- I- 1- E N 5'-1 1/20 11 2 412Â« ve,AgE*- 1 11 1 11 - - -/1 . .â€¢be#â€¢te M 00Â«162,te- 0%161Q '2 - -#Aa..304_ 18.44. -m 1 . 1 - 1 4 10 En#, Dal- 1 1 . .,4\ 1 1 !01 SC- 1 \ /4> 34__ - ' - ~ Drawn 74- -=,4 - -----â€ž=.240~ ~----- ------4----4 1010, Dcru t..LE-vmbq 7 A 4.1 1 1 , 4, ~fj! r Sh,0, . 1.2 â‚¬4. I i Of Sh-â€¢ it?1?N/Ear*~- ' IXY 3ill' :' 1_i 'i' 1 SNINdOH 1SVa SIOI 00Â¥1!0100 ' N346Â¥ . k ..L ./ i r. 1 I.9- -0- -A % .. 4-9 7 U Â· 0 <B /9 f 'f r.4/ r-u-41---4+Ar,-mr r I -trry-,2~ / 1 1% 1. 1 11 1. lib .1 11_.1.1 1 - 4.-4 - .. d 1 1/ Lrl \ T . 11'I 4 -1 1-Nt 1,1. I ' 1 1 11 . 11 L 441-:ill\ 9,Â·14 lillm , ~ -1 -1 111 4 A f o~ 4 ~'i ~e-ili~~' Â®i JO_-11 ---Ul d, 1 f.l *i I Â®liA 1 8> e. 1 1--1~-"Â°J~1;1U 1- ~Â»~ 41 il't i I 1111 L.Â® 11 1 1111.1 lilli lili ,3.1 /'llii,lii :111111 FA##I N~:m ' t; | - 1~19pbl#Qt I 3-, -- ir,4 : yin, Ill I 'LI L ~ 1 1 Ill . = , i rl 11 i , pÂ·Â»= 4 1 I /-7,-- -- 11. 1 L li - /1 p.'di. .@tl Cll 2 41 11 il~~111~11~F 4:12 4- - N..11.- 1 j Ill :1 ' il i. l j ,~ .' ibrp)<Eugrt#AWN M"~ j'*0,1'EA,Ju=' 1 -1 1 7/ -- 1- Â£1-11.111149,-Iff}214Eft-Wh~+11-3-22,42 -1 11 -"' 0114Â·@ 4-1 * ill ~11'11111 11141,11~~111!01111.prfll' p 1 I ~119011 4 .<P .. 1..........1-1- -- . -7 1111~11~;1111'JI,P~~ 0 - 11 i in- Ill 521EZE . if 1 - Ilel! 3 1.1,, \107 e E-3 g ~ . [98 . . '1- 1 1 lili 0 1 11 1 1 F - 1 9,1.11 ' ~' 'i /' e %\ 1 1 0 4:, i 11 1,1111,1 1 1,1.ililli 1 p F \,/ 4 i. . J .1 Â·1.-- 1 11 i Ir 1 - 11 lilli , 11,1 -- 1,1,1 11 . 1 V lili 11 !,1 .11 1.- 1 1 11, 1 1 . r 'ru l. 1 : t.i 1 -- Â·t 1 , 11 L F:, 'v "-- :.1.:â€ž-:Â·Â·n, -2 , 1 : 1 + ~-- ~- "' L.I--Wf---1-/ -11.Lilit..111~121. i. fh'll .\.j i dil; . 1 1.i. thr-=~1...1= 3/||,1,6,]li!:L,, , - -1, 1 +A -7.=2 1. 1 ... .... -Â© Â£Â· 1 1 Ill. 4 + 1 1\31 1 f v 412 1 4 i % i g 0 4/8 14 F 918 1 4 if 1 1% 9. 9 -4 % 9.1Â§ 4,4 i k 1 13 f ~~~- ~ ~ ~ 43__ 1 1 n 4 # 1 R -0- .---- 1.----,ti 1 1 0- -t -7 . 0 1 ;111 1 4\ I i- fl 2 -4 - 11 'E 03 *1 01' , ,1 h C 0 9Â¢ j - '47 & 49 ' > 1 4 i i i 1011& 1015 EAST HOPKINS DUPLEX i iw 4 ASPEN,COLORADO , 0 Exh,46& 5.1 41 41 -* l.2 0-AÂ·Â« ~JAU /2, LOMEA-v- ce.+ le 41 30 LA =.0/&/t,Â·y -r,Â·.e 0."'fe'iTY u Me i 0.0...=Â¥ S.1.- .i'*Â·r-(.L- -J-00 91=-Gâ€¢ 1 1 . i . 94 - C ,/ / ,-///â€¢)*~CT- 5,Â·1 /&*Sli.2$ ' ,- ./Câ€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢Rl ,â€¢-4*Â·Ce C*S=F- i / A f.i/Â©00 -1WeeR Aâ€¢Câ€¢=ei,1/5 1 /OF Â· f ~,cocc> S; CM r.,G -10.12,-14 i 1 5 V:21322 776OM 904#* A 4 0:7 -1~ -, 1?.. 1. *.1 '. 60 67 -I - .SL AU 1 , *t,/ 1 inivmm=Ls- r-r-0/9 '-lit; . 't 1 . lip lilli 1 4,1 / ...g=SSXFU 1,K21714236-2â‚¬1 F -P~ 7//=,IV..10~~1 i brÂ°~'71 - U L=- ,-0=ekrr, 0, FAFT,=Fl , 1111111 H'jili'H 1111111 RE-ali 1 '9\ J 1 ~~~FE~ -1 21@Lar'im~t . 5=\l 4.meâ€ž.4-/4. REMERimmilw#pRAmmill - 125758'92Â«= .1 i r 1, 11 Ji 11- 1 r-IMT /ouum 1 7 â€¢2 1 11 fl 1- E-ji i j -4 )11 n _ IMMI ......T ----* 1 -/ --- ---I -' -I:,1,;,/*-- . 04 + F~ h Ft ./.91=-f--- 4 mul %1 trJmafTIT.'.li1Illi..'9"fs-'.....iliali*-I..-I./I.':.''e'......--/ tilili.'.....-1 -./.I- - Il . -../ __l- rt 1 5 1 <SL- 1 4 1 921 /COad-r 1 / i-T. râ‚¬Â»~<'N; K..2 U .grr~>Je a.esÂ·E Li 9-r-042 3/4./2 E.961 Hopkins Avenue Looking South Streetscape Block Elevation 0. ./. 1 GIBSONÂ·RENO 1011 & 1015 E..t Mopkirl- C]up-x 0- LE= -0. . 16* The Aspen Times â€¢ Monday, October 23, 1995 0 Sidewalk 1 continued from page 3-A debate is a desire by the owners of tHe large home ~ behind the city's "monster homes" regulation, Ordi- to not lose the chunk of their yard that once covered F nance 30. the city's sidewalk easement, but has now been "A strict adherence to city code regarding the removed to make way for the sidewalk. ~6 street width and sidewalk would be contrary to our According to Garton and others, the owners of ~ hard-won Ordinance 30 and Aspen Area Commun- the property have said they will pay to put the dirt ity Plan," the letter continues. back in place if the city changes its mind about the But city staffers, including City Manager Amy sidewalk. Margerum and the director of the city's community Bennett, who said he is "sympathetic" to the ' development department, Stan Clauson, argue that concerns of the P&Z members, said Friday he the sidewalk is in keeping with the goals of the hoped the sidewalk construction would be put off AACP, because it is on a busy pedestrian thorough- today while a special meeting is held to talk over fare leading to the Hopkins Avenue pedestrian the issues, including the belief by some that certain 1 bridge over the Roaring Fork River. streets should be left narrow and should not be ~ ,Clauson also claimed that one aspect of the lined by sidewalks. .77 Monday, October 23, 1995 â€¢ The Aspen Times 15-A inty officials examined in the Thompson-Willison case, Osgood Room of the Redstone Inn. It's destruction of but members hope it is without the same open to the public. property. The electricity. After a series of anticipated meetings, night along its Task Force member Bob Moyer said the Task Force will make a recommenda- f to inventory Mid-Continent representatives have some tion on the Coal Basin development to its :re historically idea of how many residences they want to parent organization, the Crystal River :rs bulldozed put up at the site, but they haven't yet Caucus. Â® chance and turned in an application to Pitkin County. The caucus will forward a recommen- h act that P&Z The goal of the task force is to get dation to the Pitkin County commission- :e. some facts and look at the proposal from ers, who have ultimate review authority. many different aspects. "There's been a lot Malloy said the commissioners suggested coming of hearsay," he said. formation of the Task Force to help the ce will look at The task force meeting will be held Redstone-area residents' participation in se the county Wednesday, Nov. 1, at 7 p.m. in the the review of the project. Monday, October 23, 1995 â€¢ The Aspen Times 3* LP&Z kicks up a storm over new sidewalk By John Colson sits. According to several people Aspen Times Staff Writer familiar with the project, the Plans to install a sidewalk at sidewalk work is being supported the corner of East Hopkins by local fire and safety officials, - Avenue and Cleveland Street because it will widen the street 2 7 Aft ' - were to be put on hold today, and make it easier for fire and -e - while city officials wrangle with other emergency vehicles to each other over a variety of maneuver. "community character" issues the But members of the city's -rl ; , Illilli.Millirtrit1... sidewalk project is said to repre- planning and zoning committee 'lmtr 4 ~aY - ..2.....i==87# sent. last week engineered a delay in = **44 - 1 21 The sidewalk was to be work on the sidewalk, maintain- - -4 installed by the owners of a new ing the sidewalk as it is currently 2 -= milipr hOUSe being built on the corner, designed goes against several of - . - 5 .Jt~ p-'64~ ~ al[ which for years was nothing but the city's planning goals. 3 f 2 11&1- - - Â£ vacant lot full of weeds occu- "We feel that the removal of 1 i~'' ~al .. * pying a bench of land well above the natural berm and widening of .r-2 ..Â·2----- -._....1.y. the streetlevel. the street have exposed so much 2=*ALk/*Wil*&4&3*41%M~MH.--<f-,1-:4**qUen . The construction project, con- building mass and spoiled the 34= -3--- sisting of a home and landscap- pedestrian experience," said five tivil - 2*, 4 ~..1 ing designed by the architectural members of the P&Z in a letter to _ ~ J~.~.LI:-VE 3 firm of Gibson & Reno, has been Mayor John Bennett and the city 4â€¢= - , _ -+~"b- - .- -- -- 4 -_~~~ going since the summer, and is staff. - 4:'*2427.fte- 46-2 -I _-t.~~-f~:1 ---i- t- r= 2.------ nearly completed except for the P&Z chair Sara Garton, noting $ -- I te~_ 2--- ---5. ---~-7*Ir sidewalk and landscaping. that the sidewalk project has cut The sidewalk is being built away the entire dirt bank along a city-owned easement, between the street and the house, - which required the removal of maintained that the house now much of the bank that used to has far too much mass to fit into Disputed ground: The P&Z says it doesn't want to see a sidewalk in front of this new house, at rise from the edge of the street its surroundings, which she said the corner of East Hopkins Avenue and Cleveland Street; some city staff members disagree. pavement to the level of the is contrary to the principles Travis Caperton photo. bench on which the new house I See Sidewalk on page 16-A , 4* The Aspen Times â€¢ Monday, October 23, 1995 The World & The Nation Fast Focus Presidents, kings and ministers Spain celebrate U.N.'s 50th birthday Sheep invade Madrid L MADRID, Spain (AP) - For Madrid's By Barbara Crossette would require long discussions with the And some pointedly chastised those, f motorists, Sunday was a woolly - if not wild Re New York Times Russians. President Clinton is scheduled chief among them the United States, -day. UNITED NATIONS - Under to meet Yeltsin on Monday in Hyde who do not pay their bills. 1.:'.The Spanish capital's chaotic traffic was sunny skies but with minimal fanfare, Park, N.Y., to discuss Bosnia and other In a speech that echoed themes hear~ halted briefly on Sunday to allow thousands of presidents, kings and ministers from issues. all day, Prime Minister Jean Chretien of bleating sheep to pass through town on their every continent gathered Sunday to The special session of the General Canada evoked the mixed emotions Â· 1 way from northern to southern Spain. salute the United Nations on its 50th Assembly was called to commemorate with which many world leaders view 3 The parade was part of the second annual birthday in an atmosphere mingling dis- the day - Oct. 24, 1945 - when the the United Nations. After listing what demonstration by sheep farmers and ecologists appointment and hope. Speeches took United Nations formally came into should be done to improve the organiza- hoping to save the ancient herding paths, or note of past successes but warned of being with the ratification of its charter. tion, he said that dwelling only on prob- ,Royal acks, that crisscross Spain. future challenges. The three days of speeches were to be lems betrayed a lack of confidence in 4 The Royal 'Itacks were established by King The day had barely begun when Rus- Â· interspersed with dinners, parties and a the future. Alfonso VIn in 1158. In recent decades, howÂ» sian President Boris N. Yeltsin indicated Lincoln Center concert. "And Canada will have none of ever, they have been severely damaged by in a speech that he was prepared to take Heads of state and government from that," he concluded. ft construction projects. a tough line on issues of importance to more than 140 countries began arriving As always, presidents and prime h In Sunday's march, about 1500 sheep were the United Nations and the United Sunday at 7:15 a.m. in a two-hour-long ministers also took the opportunity to ' r herded down Madrid's central Alcala Street - States - the future of a peacekeeping procession of motorcades. bring their own problems and programs which once formed part of one of the routes - force in Bosnia and the expansion of "This is your home, and the future of to the world's attention. as they continued their 450-mile journey from NATO. the United Nations will be what you, Clinton was at their forefront. In a the Picos de Europa mountain range in the Yeltsin charged that the Security excellencies, decide it to be," the presi- 14-minute speech - about twice as north to southwestern Extremadura. Council was being bypassed by NATO, dent of the General Assembly, Diogo long as President Fidel Castro's and one :r Dozens of people lined the route or walked as the alliance moved to take over com- Preitas do Amaral of Portugal, told the that garnered barely half the applause a â€¢lang with the sheep as they headed towards mand of the Bosnian mission, thereby largest gathering of world leaders ever generated by the veteran Cuban leader .-6 n n ._ha,21- ' '.Ud=-Lhe nne.nerl the ge.qqinn - Clinian-fu,a~-,-6-laaa,a,~La=1111-givelv / 1 -,- ..1~lj y r./ 42 4- - , 1 1 ./5.- 7 f jb< ; - -'.w. . i, , '-' '' 1 POND . : /J 0 . - .1 / , , -% I. .Â£ . I . , '' / 1 -'' 1/- - Â· Â·l <-b/ ,/ \ r /4 78 f \ \ , \ / 1 Ef<. 1- / 1- -----1- ,__.__--.-Â·,- inÂ¢077-- LU=kf.1-2- 2 Â£ r- f\--Of./.-9, N i \ 11\ 4 -.166 .\4/ . - .22--UZ-- /Kt> 7Â«12 *112-;*-4;6-2,t :*E 1 14- - . -- , /4, - -7 1 - k -It Lk LA \ i \1 -- /i - \*34- 16 J 1 1 /Â«Ir--3 / 1 4, /L \/ 1 --rzl n. -7910 %- 44,34\ 1 9\ S 6 1 ij -l 1-_-3 94 , ~j%. m< h V. '4 i p-53337=-Â» - % <347% tut: 1%-- 6 11 -) mt.>gl-0--1 -u,- b' ~-._-- MW fpx< FORK 22EZZILS~' -2/~ th ==ZEDL _ / 1 -4 1%141 1/\ I. , \ \ /*311/V-Liss.=.:,~I'll./ r 0 4 -- 4 \9 3, - ~ 61 L4 < 4(1.- #1 E-~ 1 9 A.\01.6-- ~ . t - Â«27Â°73:zr-;.=-------c-=x=>=:>0.-,g---C-fÂ»- - . xj---- --=Lr -,+.. 3~. , : L< - 3 \i 6/ i in 1 c tZ, -74 ROW~ N 1 9 - - - - 2/4 -1 + 1 L-Â·1 / t -~1---2)1%,W%LL 1 3 L < 1.~4 k 5 , C 1 - 3 1 1 jr- 1 . A k #/ i -1 U 1 SMUGGL E R GROVE RD. 1 -71 %11---1 1\ 1 1 y 1 4/.3 , 1 \ f \ - -1 ) 1 \ ' t-Lb~f- . I Â«4=--Â«titi~of rl i K. a M. 74 -0 U =-1 6 ; f X . 1.4 blpiR-: 1 ~i~~ - r. -- 1 i 1 14 Â« AREA ; 1 PARK I NG -7 ; li<.72 I kpi , AREA X ; 1 K~21-' 1.-d 11 1, i I.-'. 1 1-1 , \ , 1 -.---- F J ---7/f' \ /,/1 W A h ---------4-79 ,A + . \ (,~........ --- ---~fitÂ»/// ./// /./ l ('. , ..~ 1 1 .\ ' 1~-0~t--~ fo_-11.2~--22-23~rf-f. _)1~- \ 4 JA'43. A?k 1.-f. 7;13 1 // .7 h e 6/HOPK I ~4 5 AVE -+12211.-=7-4.,1 /< 23' *1529/5-4--1. :/#*ir< // / i \ ----71 1 k .4 - h r, < - L-- - L 3 -Â«1 L,/5 2 ---2 -__-1- & Â·. i e-Â· 7 ' K--- --- , I - -- " i.2 3< h \ - 4\ 1 !.t '' 11 40 :rl - i I '1 ' ' ' c< '4 ~ 1 -71<// / 1-r--1 1 f 1 , //f j , 4 4.-1 ,%4 ~ 3- ~~~ / 1 + l . ..' M , 14 \1 1 )1 -L-/7,-431 U \\D Â«b 4--- A p'-1 F ki- --7-- ,- -9.-,- PO 1/ 1 / 1\ i (11 F.\ 4Â·'I~ V 'l 4 1 L= 1 \ :> , \ - r- 11\ 101 1 5Llicil' 51~,st ~Am,16<s==16Â£4,19 x 1/ \Avo'. 7 \42 14. 1 1 4/\\ ; 4 --Njjift--1'1 '4.1 1 44- . 4~ 7.-1,/P M-% .Â· hi 5 1 ...~ - . 1 f 41 1 '1 . t f 3 ; 1 \.1 1 ~ L i -74 j OID-1 \ f \ 1 \ 01- 4-1 -3 -6, : bi, -Â£ - 1 P W / r k ' M -t ~ th-2 4~__n ~----~ -1 ~ ' 7~ T \- L- 3-{ ) 4 Â·.. 0 1 5 3 \, 5, , h.~ <f_- 1 \\ 1 r \ AvEHUF DALE .&/7 \ \ -2.-- ' 1----1â€¢~ :'/----'' XYi ~ 3 <- '., 1 -7'I- " ~ Ur , 1 1 C . --.- 4__ ' 1/ 11 11 r-*i- - - -- .Â· ----t.-- C / % li 1-7 /- / ( L ____~ A j j /,Â»-- F ,-fY,â€¢4Nplv E ' 14 1 // r. ' ,---1 i h 7/ /-4 J _-L ~ At 1/- IL 1 w p97,0 < ----_1 +T<fl-Frt, 1 / 2 1~ f-- = 3 ~.----lili -- 1.11-7- i 1 \ <#r' C it hi I r --2 - .' _&. . .<* _2. - .I.. ~ i Il ~ f (--f (' Fil-yi \ 1 1 1 ~ 1 4 11-2 \ 4 - f + f \ b K - 1\ \\4 1/V,) Anlik/, 1 1 \ 2 , 1 -,Clf --1 f,-- \ Al ,\ '15 \ ,/r// d/,)(C j Ollfool t. h-~ f- 7.3 - - -1\ Ff- - i~ ~1 N K- M i PARKING / 1 4 Myct-2Â«Â« ti)1~4TL7 ~1 r\\-4 4 T), f AREA 9/ -1.--_L-JL- -- _-_ --- --1- ---â€ž- --- --- --r ----\---7 / 11---- 0 1 1 3 - <-2-- 4-41 1--1 1 . )1 irpi~, f 11<~2 " ' ,-/ < PARKING AREAiL 11 _3 1 1 ' i) ici . --/t \ $ c----fa ~o-ti % 11- li -fl#%7 i~ - -41_~ ->bc A-:i>,~t221â‚¬Jf<-3 ,< -7.--/ _ f / ff< litii 32 -1-~16 2Â«-t ll--~ '----~<6---Â·4 -4- ----- 1, r -:.3 E---2-'RE L jkf( (1-1#.A - 1 , /1 l <, LL:/ , l.3-1 E-71 r--J 1 Â£ 1 : -: ----11 ARIE.A ' ~ -1 2- 7 1<.1.21 - h 1 / 4-\ 0 \ 4 )0 Â«\ 9 'f 1 1 1,M u . 3 A IP; f i P 0<4 6 ./1,2,1 0,/Â«644 - 7.5-- d 'A/'940 1 t__ - , - ---4 / GIBSON Â· RENO ///3 -. 1-2 -- l4, lc[q . n , .--1/jurrk ..L ; --% --- X Â» Â· 74 57 =-2217 . - i ARCHITECTS /-- --1 -\ . HI / 01-ZE-- 0 [1 \ .- /-1.--1 /7 Il f-' c.~ dult) 1\21 f --- i ' 1 . . I k ' 1'4 'Hi :, t '1 11 /,/r/ ; r I E---- --/ v.Â·-Â· f ' , . ~ '' A i 1 7-' \ , 1,;i Ilit Câ€¢ '0 51â‚¬E ' '-1, >* 1 r r Fo . 00 )1 1 #: - S[t~ 41, ILL 12 LE 8- 2-2 â€¢ 1 -- . 0, . ==: ==L - 1, - 1 . .1 11 -1 - '11 - 1 9 2 .r 1 1 -m -L Â© 1 01 1 1 e --. i 1 : 0 L-- . U 1 I *'- 1 9 - "1 1 . 1 U ~ ME 2 3Â£ D I L - 'P ~ tu 2 , mi-1 j b Pl i i U 1, 1 PROJECT: SC AL E DATE: PEI'. 14,1495 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Ouplex i N 11.â€¢Mil ,-1 -4- DWN BY: ~00,~~pR DRAWING NO. PROJECT NO, GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS .-I LÂ»29mlrU--12--4 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9==T Vile â‚¬>M).1-61 a R37 l.-thtl~_;: FROPE,rry LINE uo!:.eAel B LIqnos 11141-1 1,45'laM . 0 . ) t 1 3 1, .... 1 ../.~ e.0.:4 'Age<, 1 4 1&. 1.1.1. 11 4 9,11!14 -- r */4 * 0, I 4-LIA , ..5 -1= lit '13X L . 1 4 i;,C/-4.8 â€¢ 41.thaÂ»â€ž- 2. 1 18.,53. ''Ir "it â€¢â€¢r:-Â· , r. .mi... Il '' Imjr, k -21%~=~- - 11.*giE.aaÂ» 1 ---. 7 J Um#:IME:!E.,2 1 :1 0-1- 1_--__Â«_EE" 1 V ...1.1 ~r.20 -r--~ 0 -1/1,415+Yaa 6 /4-/0 &~74~~~~' --1 3 *Vp 8/8//t./., 0 0 0 0 4 . 1 0 01 Vt'' 1 1 1, 6 , 1 , 1 i . . . . 2 .. . .2 04* .2,81"p84 - D. C . ... lixitlittill.'ll. *- ... I ./ 1 1. . ....0 :. 70-7 .--- .-----I----I -Ill.'Ill--Ill-- I Ill- --6 1 1- 1 -- -- 1 PANTâ€¢Ky .. . 0 r.wÂ· -I ......... '........... -- I- I 0 , --4221- +F:=:Sir,irrir 18*~L 0 . t- 0 6 iD 20 . Upper Level Plan MOEM...2......1 - -1/011 = 1 to. PROJECT: SCALE DATE: FEED. 14,1945 1011 & 1015 East Ho kins Ou lex DWN BY: ,~,g,~24 DRAWING NO. PROJECT NO. G|BSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS \1332Â·%~0:th/,37 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 7~T . 1 .. 0-1 N- rl:et'Efer>' LINE --1->i- 1 .. 4. I . B---- r. 1 11 1Â· ~-2- --41/9/5//Th. . . 1 , 00 ' h AA. BE.fiR:JOM . r i i: fl - 20 *la : , 1 . 1 t 1 07 - 1 -4 7 . .6 --6 1 1 XII 0..d. , I -- I 0 I I -- 3 1 . . 1. Tri I . - *A,B'..<E~- h . - 1 1-_1 . 12 1 N 22 I . --I---* r 4 - 1 . I 1 . 1 I:- . . . . . . I. . 1. - - Â· 1---Â· n 0 1 ' .' . tensâ€¢CK LNE:'11 . . I ... I. 1 . ./ 1 Â¢213452}~ T.l V.-- 0 nere Rly LI/e -3 , Im. k.-4.- Â·1 .. . ~ .1 Mid Level Plan 1/af = e-ou PROJECT: SCALE DATE:PEe. 14,190!5 ~ 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Duplex AC ./All ....pil DWN BY: DRAWING NO. GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS ..i' PROJECT NO, 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 7'1' . I... It D. I ... 00 M,9-52* 1 _10 . ur-===~ .aa o U,- 9xw L- HALL --0 [7 O.W. 30.1 0 ./ 1 A.P.u-:i* f-9 -01 I 4 .IR 1 1! . â€¢i .I A .Â» 1 . M 814. 9% /1 ---- i . MERA~91251-2 1 511 x lib 1- --- I . .. I *.I. . . . Lower Level Plan h,WUJ----~C tibil c i LOâ€¢ PROJECT: SCALE DATE: Fee. }4,144 5 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Â¤uplex ~ ~ DWNBY Ad;-N. DRAWING NO. PROJECT NO. GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS 2U--CIAWMVE-'P 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 7=*T 6 LEVEL Ar M P - 1 Â»41 il me mmrrm 0-00 C|' I ~ m 0 mgm . f . 1 0.00 15 A *ngm â€¢ 1 mt %*fi , limi 1 0 1 0 ' , '0 4 L m F 'B I . m .9 - e 1,9 ~ 10 . . DinÂ» 1 l .-1 1 ) 1 1 <tu:<Wit : 1 3 y# i mr .. 111Â·.. r Â·. *%.. .. 1 , In 11 m X 0 1 - 11 C. 4 & iii . 0 + 1 f - 1 1.-7 1 l PROJECT: SCALE DATE: PED. W, 1995 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Duplex 1 + DVA BYÂ· ,4*'B DRAWING NO. GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS Â«Â»a. PROJ ECT No. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 78/ O :107 40 .le,4 ase ueld 5 Fl o F 1< C 0 5 .. .. ./ 0 -A.er _. . --'Â·Aul- Covvsker ce><\c v'< *-~ln i s. -EZIJAU V.42.- 1 1 ~~0~~ l~ 44.4 i O 9 4-/ t 0.0...=$==.9 4--1./. -opeer>Â· w â€¢e 4 1 -1â‚¬7.-~Ty UNE .=2OPE==ry' L.:... ......=.L .1000 -10-G --*-Cul'CÂ»=~.L -0.0 9,0 45 fl ./ /,~-/I-/ACE' 2-1 ti/gL~ ' A+7 - Lacile. 3,-4-"le et=CF ,~.coc -mw~ ..%== 41 1, f | A /14 //~//1/-4~ ,+41Â«il~- ~-71>Â« ~ ~ _-g~~ ~L =f- Â»~ /pe-25.:eu' 4,,K' '111:LU'*' , -'=XX5 341 =. P.c= k0~WI~,;111111 ~ lili.. ~ -El lilli 1 h.4 '.-*295~- El.1 ~401-Pâ‚¬k 4 1 1 WIAI/-*--- 1-LI.- ----- ITFU&/p,9~~ 2-7.5;&VM- UY FTjÂ©32 , 2% 73;Â¥ 4 -4*"'~'- u,des. 1 , Cj 1-11=. lf' I~ 8 521 -01*,11 1 110Â»- ti j <115 ~_- L Ilf----~Fi WIll, Â·111'h~r--- Â¢T,2-1-*1'U' , - . 11 1 .LUr, L=- -cce,rns 'Eigiaae#,Imilrirl'~11:lifiEESE,/Fl' 00=-9....Ill,/ *=M - f 02 11 - 11 .IP r.Â»-1 2=Â»-1-TAL 1 1 i 8711 1 1 1,11 - . .111 . 4-*1 -31 0 - U 11 - I .Al,1111. 1 1 - -t===#==2-U -= .r .-- - r -6.4 e i mE--7=; tr--M+-g. 4$.0~ -r== , . DM - ==-t- 4 rr=z,a= --==- .-, /~~ .7==>- -& --M B ---imili 2- - lilli...MH 1 glfE+*--2--- . 4-*--/ - -IL-/.~ ---- 6- 1 S.-Â£68%7 - -- .- i glucco /r,0-â€¢<iNS A./.1 1 k 02 3/age ~ 25%*- UA.â€¢JC~C> r-S: 84./PÂ¥=em di -,04* ,-De el 0 2 -1 -4~L2.-- Hopkins Avenue Looking South Streetscape elock Elevation - H GIBSON-RENO 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Duplex Ul e - -el ...'I ./5, - S103.LIHOEIV ONabl 9 NOSBID L L9Le OOVE3O1OO'NBdSV ' 202 31S '3nN3AV NVAAH .LSÂ¥3 0 LE 'ON 103rObid - â€¢,4.Myal.Kn~ 'ON DNIMYHO 281â‚¬V :*8 *0 xeidna-sup)!do,4 49921 g LOL B L bob 5661 + 7/'AlalÂ¥0 311Â¥09 :103rObld ft * . 98 -xe *1 LA * . - , oi J J .a DI 111 4. -1 Z lili 3 f. 0 El .0 % i 1 1 ' -la =I 11 T---1 l 0 4 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 OK % *12 - i '8 IMBI 0 f !1 0 lic 4 2. I ' '* E-_ -__ * 94/ 2 + ~ - 1 -- C 1 6C 0 1 Â« 1 01 1 â€¢â€¢ 0 Â· I - 1 . f - ej[ >& - 1 ---- 1 0 2 0 0 2 Ly'h~ _ - 2 111 9 IN J 4! i ilk / 4- E 0 1 n 3 92 ht>, ineneia pfoFEÂ¥2Ty LI NE 1~*c>,"ew:rÂ·y u..te: 1 F'Fas,PE;2:Ty 1-INE 4--) MNIEFery UNE Ve*rt-,CAL- Aleat> 'St:Dth,G Â· FROFER:ry' L INE HOX/SZONTâ€¢L WOOP S/O/68. O/0 Aef-HAL:r SH INGLES -- de:CD#g er-t<E ecxne ~Fli-ir-1 1 95Â» - Â¤ ,~/ < weop -EMBEA Acce.rts r-- - . I HOR 12chrTAL cLE:*,Ne 9-t/MPE 0 0 WOOP 5/ Pt NG ~â‚¬*pr. ~ ce=#/ S.+41â‚¬;2 *4. 4 v....=AL - Cp . , 23 1426899 jo\) m Stet~Â«9 1 P I C Â» 2 23 4 -~ MORMZâ€¢:>#TA n t======i ' â€¢ r WedÂ© 569' -11,7 1 i 00- 1 000 '1 0 rim ~* n R Fin exe. 1 4 11*â€¢m,=m"rÂ¥ ta lu - Billitit Ill 1 11 , A- GE!,~el IM 7@1%41149 2 2, - I Fo Â£~â€ž1:,MU, 52* ==5~ I . I L.' IZEL-1 . - al-EVEL-ANC - .. .. 1- 11===P~ --- - 11 , 1 -' -I - 1.11-1 1 111 - - l-- RIVER emove'l)/S /1 g-,u<sco ' pkvprjus Â»482 1, STDJE: 84:SE 5-1042 m.besÂ·E 120<w 1.,AA#Disoâ€¢*re evâ€¢Â·peR EE>46@- LAIPSCAVE *U PPER O 0 0 22 =:22Â»8-*05:22 Hopkins Avenue Looking South Streetscape Block Elevation 194*44--I--1 tw':: 1 Le,â€¢ 7*0.,4, Â¥919' GIBSON Â· RENO ARCHITECTS .. 1011 & 1015 East Hopkins Duplex 7 ./ F ...... IELEDYNE K)51 07502 [ 4 1 3 I *N # i %-9 ~ 0 5 10. 20 30 40 5OFT 1 1 1 < Â·50\LE> 1"=jO' ; 54515 OF DEAKING 5 fOUND WONUVIENTE) A5 5HOWN. 1 5URVE'roK'a CERTIFICATE 1, dAIVE) F Fti.DEE, HEK.!Imr- CIERTIFY THAT THIS MAP EA 57 HOPKIN 5 AVENUE ~ REPREDENTS A FIEL-E) EURVEY FEKfÂ©Kl/129 UNDER. i Â¥IY ZUFERVISION ON APKILIA I 914 OF LOTS, A, e Â¢ . 94 WES 1/2 OF (I> PLE)01< 33, Â· EAS)0~121~4)WNISITE , 1.. / ASPEN, COLDIWO. ~-es idÂ·NES,X i ' 1 1 L.<Btr + * ALANE OURVEO, INC ein--~-=L.,44'Wt'tr--/-4------ (ZEZEs=Zu=L-Â« 0 -------. 7924 L.5% *60 suidve t. c '1~*OF CO' *_/ -- %9-* O 7 -+0-- ---- . 0-/--- ----7.--7--7--- 1Â£ 7926* ,--11. / 7928* / 1 / \ r !/ \ 7930* 0/ / 1 / -%-- ---- f 1 1 -- fE#ALD' ------ - FOOND. -- ---102 45 KE-84,< ~VELLOW PLA67Â£ CAf>*EgAR, Ls 9/64 4 1 1 1 /-------~\\ #4 4 ' 1 \ 1 395Â°07 '//,E 75Â·00 L 075 0721"6 30 13 4*: k \ b og 5*519 OF BEARING C \ - r NOTE: BUILDING HEIGHT TO MEASURED FROM HISTORIC GRADE. \\ \ 7932* 1 EXISTING CONTOUR LINES TAKEN SURVEY SHOT ON 4.13.94 , m BY ALPINE SURVEYS, INC. 1 1 --- , 9 / 14 / 1 / .2. HISTORIC NATURAL GRADE EXTRAPOLATED FROM COOPER 0 \11 i J s Ic'-~Ir~9 -Â»- AERIAL SURVEYS IN THE MID-70S. INFORMATION PROVIDED / PER BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUEST /.Â»4Â· / 1 k \\ . 1 , / 2,4.-2 / 1 / / \\\ f / 96 -- \1 :.Pe'. . 00 11 1 4 . 11/ ..%44" 4 * ,,1~,1,) A ~~ 8 C D E 1 tr;*... 436 10 .....,MI. 111 0 11 / 111 f 6 4,/Â·' -- -1 =bu i i i i --- ykv b\\\ 1 - 7 \ 4 0 i \ 1 0 \\ ter>%4 1 1/ 2 ; 1. I lij \/04 ,\ 5*'3* 1 1 \ \\ \ AN 4 /il 4/ / \ \ \\ 7-4 8; /00 \ 7926 / \ \ / / / 1 0 \ / 4,2 // ~ -4 3 \ â‚¬.: 12 41 \ 43142. \ 3 EL.5:>' . \ lu & \ -*-1 \ f----. 4 &=LAE--1 1 \ \l L.-1 2 / N \~ 7934 TY PEDESTAL -' 1 keed. , , tgrierÂ· / i 0 1/ 8 75 Â· Ock 67932 7934 / 7936 * . TEL. fEPED'LA L N 75 01'll" W 1 (10/Cb , 9 9- 7928 \ FOUND'' 7930 1=ES bEWEK MANHOLE 7936 72>M =100Â·00 ALLEY Â· 6 LOCK 33 , 1-4,1 l re;' 4 UAl k I 1 1 1 | EÂ¥ upon any detect in this survey within thr- yeafs aher you limt Nico- such ddect Alpine Surveys, Inc. surveyed 4 ID 14 0 L Revisions 4 Â· 29 Â·94 -rk#NÂ©FORAAER, FEC)551AL5 Title Job No 94 20Â· 3 NOTICE Accord'ng to Colofado law you must commince any legal act,on based , In no ,vent may any action based upon any dellct In Ih,i suoil be commenced Drafted 4 Â· 26Â·14 dI-IP BUILDING FE.KklIT DURVET Client FELLIVIAN -h:Â·'~ 7729= 1 00 + LOTS A, 6, W 1/2 C, BLOCK 33 , more than len yeais frorn the date & the con,lut~ shown *eon Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado . I 303 925 2688 EAST AS>fghl TO~!TE-, .AsfEN, COLE)K620 . Â¢*E. 0 ' 614Â°50'41" W 100Â· 00