Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.222 W Hopkins Ave.HPC032-99
2 22 ll) {--lofk..6 AU« del 4 9 2735-124-54-023 HPC032-99 ,==3 019 9~ UJ ' " Williams Condo Remodel Ao p \< hs Minor HPC Bax (42 -1 i &1 1«i< 401 6(Zil Zoit ¢& PARCEL ID: |2735-124-54023 -BATE RCVD: ]12/1/99 # COPIES:1 --- CASE NNBO|HPC032-99 CASE NAME:~Williams Condominium Remodel PLNR:|Amy Guthrie PROJ ADDR:|222 W, Hopkins Ave CASE TYP:|Minor HPC STEPS] OWN/APP: David and BJ Willia I ADRi267 Roaring Fork Driv r Cts/zi ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~925-6773 REP:~same ADR1 C/s/Z: 1 PHN1 FEES DUE:~125 -~ FEES RCVD1125 STAT: ~--- REFERRALS~ REF:| BYI DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| CITY COUNCIL: REMARKSi pl BOA: CLOSED: ~ BY:| DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ ~ PLAT (BK,PG):~ ADMIN: . DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. David and BJ Williams, 267 Roaring Fork Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 212 West Hopkins Avenue Unit #5 Aspen. CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Minor HPC Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan HPC Resolution ~-99, 12/15/99 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) December 24, 1999 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) December 25,2002 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 24th day of December, 1999, by the City of Aspen Community Development Direc}06- (- kAL_ gk,472 - J 1 Juli,€Kim Woods, Community Development Director V G.Planning.Aspen.forms.DevOrder PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 212 West Hopkins Avenue, Unit #5 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, by Resolution No. 59, Series of 1999 of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk, City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on December 24,1999. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AT 222 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, UNIT 5, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicants, David and B.J. Williams, represented by Jenny Twelvetrees, have requested minor development approval for the landmark property at 222 W. Hopkins Avenue, Unit 5, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves altering doors and windows; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 15, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably fof the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 15, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards. and approved the application with conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC minor development approval for 222 W. Hopkins Avenue, Unit 5, City and Townsite of Aspen, as follows: l. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location o f all exterior lighting fixtures when selected. 2. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 3. No elements (beyond what is approved herein) are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 5. The language o f the Historic Preservation Commission resolution will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 6. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 7. The double hung windows on the front fagade are to be restored. 8. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9. The reconstruction of the chimney is approved with staff and monitor acceptance of the specifications for work. 10. The proposed addition of a skylight is not approved. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 15th day of December, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTO] PRESERVATION COMMIS N MINUTES OF, DECEMBER 15. 1999 32 MOTION: Gilbert moved to grant minor development approval for 212 W. Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions: 1. That the transom be eliminated above the door. 2. HPC sta# and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures when selected. 3. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas Of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 4. No elements (beyond what is approved herein) are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than -what has been specifically approved may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC stajf and monitor. 6. The language of the Historic Preservation Commission resolution will be required to be printed on the cover sheet Of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC r3esolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC stajfas part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are know and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Omcer prior to applying for the building permit. 8. The double hung windows on the front fagade are to be restored. 9. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings -with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 10. The reconstruction of the chimney is approved with approval of staff and monitor specijications. 11.Skylight not approved. DISCUSSION David Williams requested further information regarding the bedroom window which is important to him, as he has to live there and spending his lifetime hours there and the denial o f the skylight. The house sits back off 11 ASPEN HISTOI PRESERVATION COMMIS N MINUTES OF. DECEMBER 15, 1999 the road quite a bit and there are trees in the area and cottonwood in front of the building and there is an evergreen tree on the side. He does not understand why that skylight is such an issue when it sits so far back off the road. David asked about potential problems with the windows and who to contact. Amy relayed that a monitor will be assigned and should be contacted if problems arise. Staff and Monitor can resolve issues as they come up. David said there is potential egress issues with the window. Amy asked what the means of egress is? Jeffrey stated that egress is not only defined how to get our but also getting in and that should be researched. David said for safety reasons he is concerned about the windows. Suzannah relayed that the windows can be restored for adequate safety. David said he is asking for balance for the boards desire to perform their job as historic preservation and at the same time take into consideration their safety as the board makes the decisions. Amy relayed to David that the HPC has handed this requirement to 300 other property owners and the board is trying to be consistent. The HPC will try to find a way to make the project work. Jenny said all the other units have a transom window and they are there because there is very little window area on the south side or street side of the house in that area. It gives wonderful light. Heidi said since the board is against the skylight and after hearing Jenny' s explanation for light she is in favor of the transom window. Susan agreed with Heidi and Jeffrey stated the elevation is significantly altered. 12 ASPEN HISTOI PRESERVATION COMMIS N MINUTES OF. DECEMBER 15. 1999 Amended motion: Gilbert amended condition 2 to allow the transom window over the door but the head heights of the doors and windows would have to align. Heidi second the motion and mended motion. YES VOTE: Roger, Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Motion carried 7-0. Jeffrey is the monitor. 333 W. BLEEKER STREET - WORKSESSION no -minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer '~Uln/ RE: - 242-W. Hopkins Avenue- minor DATE: December 15, 1999 SUMMARY: The subject building was a single family house that has been converted into apartments. The applicants own "Unit 5," where they propose to add a dormer on the west side of the roof and to change doors and windows on the east side. The structure is a designated landmark. APPLICANT: David and BJ Williams, represented by Jenny Twelvetrees. LOCATION: 212 W. Hopkins Avenue, Unit 5. MINOR DEVELOPMENT No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.B.4) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 Response: The applicant is planning an interior remodel and would like to make minor modifications to the outside of the building. On the west elevation, a new dormer is proposed in the same style as the existing dormer. The new dormer would have an undivided window to distinguish it from the original one. Staff finds this addition meets the review standards. On the east elevation, the owners would like to relocate doors and windows. lt appears that these were all added recently, when the building was made into a multi-family structure and the stairs and deck up to "Unit 5" were added. The proposed new windows are more in keeping with the style of the Victorian house than the existing windows, but the HPC should consider whether it would be more compatible with the original structure to use larger double hung windows rather than paired double hungs, and whether there is any opportunity or justification for aligning the new windows and door over any first floor openings. The new door is also acceptable, although it would be preferable to eliminate the transom window, which should be restrained to the front, and most important original entry points into the building. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are numerous historic residences in the neighborhood. This proposal will not affect the character of the area. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. th Response: The project will not affect the significance of the building as a 19 century home. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architectural character of the building has already been significantly affected be elements like the second floor porch and deck. The proposed alterations may improve the appearance of east fagade and will not negatively affect the west fa~ade. ALTERNATIVES: The LIPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: • Approve the application as submitted. • Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC grant minor development approval for 212 W. Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions: 1. Consider whether it would be more in keeping with the original structure to use larger double hung windows rather than paired double hungs on the east side, and whether there is any opportunity or justification for aligning the new windows and door over any first floor openings. 2. The new door is acceptable, although it would be preferable to eliminate the transom window, which should be restrained to the front, and most important original entry points into the building. 3. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures when selected. 4. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 5. No elements (beyond what is approved herein) are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 6. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 7. The language of the Historic Preservation Commission resolution will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 9. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated December 15, 1999. B. Application. C:home/amyg/cases/minor/212wh m ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name luilliAMS (419 86 MILiern REN\abel- 2. Project location 2-2.- 2- W E.37 A¢>Pilk)6 AUG· A-'59Ek) 1 CO 2/4/1 (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 4. Lot size 5. Applicant's name, address and phone numberikqi/*4 dJ-- 01//,4% 44 1 Realk< ¥·Ckic 0286 - AGibru : ce 9 /61/ 9054 0773 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number , 740¢a U A BWE- 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD X MinorHFC Stream Margin Final PUD - Relocation HPC Subdivision TexUMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 03+39 .51-1€.ccru [ter- - Re:5 C O€N-fi A--' U 5.prI ESC) 54*a-,-- 1 <DN Ir- 55- - \ 909·D Ktt a N\ 9. Description of development application 13 \Mot Rrhic©EL 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 423 Attachment 1- Land use application form V.A. Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form 085 Response to Attachment 3 yes Response to Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Address: \ Zone district: \ Lot size: \ Existing FAR: \ Allowable FAR: \ Proposed FAR: \ Existing net leasable (commeb@al): Proposed net leasable (comm*cial): Existing % of site coverage: ~ Proposed % of site coverage: \ Existing °/0 of open space: \ Proposed % of open space: \ Existing maximum height: Princioal bldc: Accesorv bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal Ala: Accessory blda: Proposed % of demolition: \ Existing number of bedrooms: \ Proposed number of bedrooms: \ Existing on-site parking spaces: \ On-site parking spaces required: \ Setbacks Exist,.ig Minimum required: \ Proposed: Front: , Front: Front: Rear: / Rear: Rear: Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: FronUrear: FronUrear: Side: Side: Side: Side: Sides. - ~~ Sid~: Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: Sides: f Existing nonconformities or encroachments: , Variations requested: (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage vaMance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zo ne d istri cts) ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information: 1. The applicant's name, address, and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on bi half of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments; liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development review. 4. An 81/2" x11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW All applications for minor development review must include the following information: 1. If determined appropriate by the Community Development Director, a site plan or survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. 2. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. 3. A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. 4. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application, including a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. ' 26-AL- Dance< PT-lok) COP PRoPERT tr EXHIBIT A UNIT 5, THE GARET CONDOMINIUMS, AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR THE GARET CONDOMINIUM RECORDED AUGUST 14 1980 IN BOOK 393 AT PAGE 76 AS RECEPTION NO. 225956 AND ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 14, 1980 IN PLAT BOOK 10 AT PAGE 28 AND SUPPLEMENTAL MAP RECORDED NOVEMBER 29 1985 IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 92. 1 11 1 ' lilli Jill 4-L-P lilli 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 /5/»// FR#~, liu- - II3 L - T. O. 99.COND ·PLOO 1--21- --------- .--_--_- .IliS --- - -- - - ---3 --1 P .-- gr.-01 EIBST FLOOK- _ _3 a___ _ 4-- i INEST ELEVATION E_*1671 14 6 U .-t- 6 | WEIN PORMEA EK1911 NG DORMeg TO #[Al-c,-1 rD R.EMA j N EXISTING AS IS --4 --- - - TU o. OECD N P FLOOK 22-7---- _ PER REFELE,65'rf t=:LOOFCIEZI--- - 161 ESl- ELEVAT ION - PROPOSED /1-/* i 1 H .- --- / / 1 1- ------- --.--.-------4 - 1 - ---- -- -221- EA€,1- ELEVATION - 2#9 FLOO_A - EXISTING KM--- s FEFLACG EXISTING WINDOWS ~~- 12 EN S DOUBLE-UU,4,3 WOOD - TKIMED MADOKS ¥>Y MARVIrd Og. SIFI- 1 111 Ij 11 1 -- 12€FLACe .cx:>012- Al/ SIM. sntd X Doo'24 v4/ TRANSOM /14»V'6. - \ f HAra-1 ALL e>erER.1 of- -re, M 1 Stpl,46 TO 9,4/ STING. ' I A-- - E----11 EAST ELEVATION - 2.Ng FLOOR - PROPOSED 14. T. S, 41'2"< ?1104 31-11' L 5'-4('9 " 32--4#211 61 - C)/1 L 11 ! 42 1 il I G'*191-ING GADLE . I DOF-ME, 1611+400 W 4 1 1 CLOSE T --- -A - - -4-- - - I- - - - TT - - ---- -- LINE OF EAVE - 16(PROOk,1 F-'"-- . 4- 7 1 66 01200 M \ - j J - L- - BA T-U ADD M - 6609 6 -2 I. -7» I. 09 1 1 I 1 1 LI~vlk,GROOM , Pl-Itt-IEN _ i I £ fl FLOOR FLAW - il EXIST-ING CONDIT-CONT I 1 11 1/4 11 = 11-on 1 5'-4, | 2'-1" ~31-21411 . 1-411 8 4 1. ~ *48'- 1 1 " ~ 6 '- 6 " ~| CL 61 F - - 1-2-22=-771=7----4 C KI 712< ~ 4'-6" 57£ Ear 4 %61-01/t 6/-6/ 31-1" , I- 614 " .11-1 It .41-1(411 ~ 1 -L -,r EXISTI RIG GAI:bLE || + ~ h I PRoposEP = DORMGR WIMPOWL -1/// C 1 P./.-4 --~-/P /1 DORMER KINPOW 1 lili TO MATEU G><(ST-1 kIG - 4 1- - - - BATABOOM i W + 0 - 3 - tz--- - _82©KooM- - -3 Fr A F Et It 1 -3 U 0 J,8 -7 .- /f.1 ----------- il D C LOG er I -1 . 11'1 1 1 -[ 1.1 1 F UF 1 1 1 1 GI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIVINGKOOM 1 1 1411-CAEN 1 1 FLOOR PLAN -Il _ 11 PROPOSGO CONDITION 1 11 14 l 14 /1 e 11- 0 11 ~[1~on 5'-4" f f~" ~ 2.1-111,21~1, slf- 01-~- U 3'-U" L 3'-4:2' ~,IL~11 N Gt/1 N I N Co w 4 ENTA¥ I STREE-1- 3 1-0 0 1 91-4211 , Ar . ...1 '& -s·.1 ~·~Aw,Ma<*ir 4--pfr:~ . ..1-4 *73.ammilill*6&6/*/ *ey# L -- .Ati<.1 '. 7't &/.tAG 4. 1 i I; 4 'di*/'.1/ ' 1 ,/7.:Ar·,I~/' 1 '11.: , 1 --=1*111!1111111 2*/ I R&..£44. 1 / ill¢ R I. ..2 1 E -1 p./ r .- -:41 A - %30· ~ e . 1 fI66•q/ .MA.**44 +W. -UF. 23 ~ 1 43 :0 ¥2 4» fl 1 --,a i> 42=9 7·*,1/0 I 42'1'ar///.#': i/#024:- ~ 1 1 9- 9.1'./&: -9. . 0 41 ' ' I ™.-i.- 1 602 . 14»-,1 - A .. :1 . :.2, 1, 1 : 1 L 1 E- /1 , $ ; * 4449(U :·<f A 9:" 1 1 i - 4 1 i U VU« 1 9 '. *41,~4 44 ' - . 1 Ir 4 .' 0 .. r- i . I 1,-· ...2'M. 1 1 If: %42 , t ," 91.-,-4- .,39 a ! 46;il . Dk/1 1 f :.40. KIE-IN PORMWA 9%1911-h[6 DOR Meg -Nal,4-1-014 -2-FROF12 7-0 #[Al-cpi iD REM/4 1 Kfy - 3 151«1-'Gwr h) f-7 - EXISTING AS 1,6 -.=-1- : - 1 1 lou- -2- 1 1 J U I It i -- . . -70 0. ©ECOKIP FLOOR --- - -- - -1 -- - {-~-f-JUJ - 31 1 4Ll~+ 21UAL -7 - --- 1.--- -4.-==/3 ----U' 11 1/NEST- ELEVATION - FROPOSED 14-1--6. 1 r .--1, 34©4*brocal RECEIVEn JAN 1 9 2000 495LA- CLO Abr Cl . / rl 1 Aft . Ga-o *(Y a , ocb COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT 499- U £ %4%« Lese)€-9 AN* (10-9/44 ~*, U_axy-C--___ ~-e-~ Q-~t9 SA el U.314.a*b 3 -22-2-- 43 4ke©k_- h,_-1 cus e.u_o C- u Uk *-9 p~-0 Sak, 411 CCUuLAX ~t k o U__3~ - oul-o< sla® a - - 14 6a ~..CZ) U.* (~A\1 e__,~SL £5.3 t~5 , 14\9 r.. 1-3 r \