HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.533 W Smuggler St.A10-97
CASJ;"""'i)AD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O~SPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 2/18/97
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCELID# 2735-124-10-001
CASE # A 10-97
STAFF: Mitch Haas
PROJECT NAME:
Project Address:
APPUCANT:
Address/Phone:
OWNER:
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: J anver Derrington
Address/Phone: 520 E. Hyman Ave. 925-5590
RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
533 W. Smuggler Design Review
same
Patrice Kahn
P.O. Box 7665, Aspen 81612
same
Applicant
Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
PLANNING
ENGiNEER
HOUSING
ENV HEALTH
CLERK
TOTAL
$450
$0
$0
$0
$
$450.
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING $450.
ENGiNEER $
HOUSING $
ENV HEALTH $
CLERK $
TOTAL RCVD $450.
TYPE OF APPUCATION
Staff Approval
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
REFERRALS:
D City Attorney
D City Engineer (DRe)
D Zoning
D Housing
D Environmental Health
D Parks
DATE REFERRED:
D Aspen Fire Marshal
D City Water
D City Electric
D Clean Air Board
D Open Space Board
D Other:
D CDOT
D ACSD
D Holy Cross Electric
D Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
D Aspen School District
D Other:
INITIALS:
DATE DUE:
APPROVAL:
Ordinanc~ # t/- 9"=1' (~')
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
rpDh~
Date:
Date:
Book
,Page
CLOSED/FILED
ROUTE TO:
DATE:
Ju/.;y!11fn- INITIALS:-&
.1",
DESIGN REVIEW AI' PEALS COMMITTEE
,-"
MARCH 27,1997
Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4: 1 0 p.m. with
members Gilbert Sanchez and Roger Moyer present. Members Bob Blaich and
Dave Johnston were excused and Jake Vickery was absent.
Other staff present were David Hoefer and Chris Bendon.
533 WEST SMUGGLER
David Hoefer received notice and the Board has jurisdiction to proceed. Hoefer
explained to the applicant a quorum consists of3 members and a full board is 5.
He said regardless of the size of the board at least 3 votes must be in favor of the
appeal. The applicant may wish to continue the meeting until there is a full board.
Steve Buettow disclosed a conversation with Janver Derrington regarding the
comments from the last meeting. Hoefer stated from a legal perspective, there is
no problem.
MOTION: Roger Moyer moved to continue the 533 West Smuggler
Design Review Appeals Committee Meeting to April 10, 1997 at 4:00
p.m. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 3-1.
Meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
I
.'-'"
DESIGN REVIEW A... PEALS COMMITTEE
-
APRIL 10, 1997
Chairperson Steve Buettow opened the regular meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with
Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Dave Johnston and Jake Vickery
present.
Other staff present were Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon and Julie Ann Woods.
MINUTES
MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the minutes of February
27,1997. Dave Johnston second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED
533 WEST SMUGGLER
Gilbert Sanchez stepped down. Mitch Haas, staff, explained this Committee
found that the applicant did not comply with the "inflection" standard on 2/27/97.
He said the applicant has made a number of revisions and staff felt these changes
still have not complied with the "inflection" standard. The applicant is requesting
a variance based upon the design more effectively addressing the issue or problem
given standard or provision. In staff's opinion, the "inflection" standard is
intended to respond to the issue of new construction over-shadowing or dwarfing
adjacent, existing structures by not respecting (responding) tothe design, mass
and scaled closestto the proposed building. Haas said this Committee has to
decide if the new design more effectively addresses this issue than would a re-
design. He summarized the changes made were the location of the entire structure
moved as far to the West side (5' side yard) as possible while maintaining the
minimum setback requirements. He continued that this shift enabled an extension
ofthe front porch to wrap around the side to the portions of the adjacent structure.
Staff finds it still doesn't comply with the "inflection" standard because the
standard requires the one story element be 12' in depth from the side and this is 8'
including the over-hang.
Charles Cunniff, Architect, stated they were trying to comply with the "spirit" of
the ordinance without necessarily being able to technically comply with it 100%.
He said on the average there is more of the "inflection" than needs tp be applied
and they did not want to mirror what is across the way. He said the standard calls
for a dimension and did not want to convolute the design just to comply with the
ordinance.
1
r-,
DESIGN REVIEW A.-PEALS COMMITTEE
,-"
APRIL 10, 1997
Bob Blaich asked if the sketch on the far right was the original proposal.
Cunniffe explained his client wanted a "french country design" and were trying to
pick up some of the shapes of the house next to it. He said the house next door
had far less "inflection" with a variance to the over-hang and set back line. Blaich
asked if the client was going to occupy this house. Cunniffe replied that it was not
certain at this time.
Haas explained that the variance had site specific constraints. Blaich said the
scale ofthe house and the one on the corner was what was of concern. He stated
the encroachment of this other house could be more than was expected. Cunniffe
commented that the model depicted the context with what could be done. He said
if someone else develops the parcel, that was what could happen within the code.
Blaich said the block has a certain amount of integrity (in terms of architecture).
He noted the "french country" goes against the neighborhood especially with the
materials used.
Roger Moyer asked Cunniffe to describe the neighborhood. Cunniffe said it was
an eclectic neighborhood with very modern to Victorians inappropriately added
onto, to low design content buildings. Moyer asked Amy Amidon ifpart of the
design application process included a written statement of how their design
worked within the neighborhood. Amidon answered that was in Ordinance 35
which was dropped when Ordinance 30 was adopted. Jake Vickery questioned the
number of feet from the other house. Derrington said it varied.
Richie Cohen, public, stated that his interest in this project varied, at one time
owned the house that was being demolished and lived in that neighborhood for
years. He said there was a variety of properties all around this house which reflect
the character and part of the charm of the West End. Cohen did not think the
intention of Ordinance 30 was to create a series of look a like Victorians or
modern houses. His interest was also that of a Realtor as part of this transaction.
He asked for approval of the variance.
Vickery stated the design met the intent of the Ordinance. The applicant moved
the house as far as he could to the opposite side as the existing one story house.
He said there was a generous side yard set back and 161/2 feet to the property line
from the 2 story element of this house. Vickery noted that he did not have a
problem with this project.
2
,,-...,
DESIGN REVIEW A.-PEALS COMMITTEE
-
APRIL 10, 1997
Haas noted that staff was mandated to work within the "letter ofthe standards"
and the Committee was to act within the variance criteria, (He personally agreed
the intent was there). He said the variance criteria does not ask if the intent is
being made. Haas stated there were 3 criteria: 1. the design more effectively
addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to,
2. deals with site specific restraints and 3. thehardship. Cunniffe stated there was
sufficient set back. Vickery supported the variance based upon criteria # 1.
Johnston appreciated the porch with a solution that worked. He said the model
may not be accurate, but understood the intent.
Blaich asked the purpose of the tower. Derrington answered that it was a stair
tower with a powder room. Cunniffe said the tower was a feature to keep it
Victorian. Blaich noted the variance was not the problem, but felt the house
would look bigger built, than the model with the materials used which will
dominate the neighborhood. He said the issue was not the design which was a dis-
service to the neighborhood because they have done other houses that work in the
neighborhood. Cunniffe commented they would continue to work with materials.
Buettow noted that they have tried to be in compliance with the constraints.
Moyer felt the house was charming but it did not belong in Aspen. He stated that
the Committee would place itself in a very dangerous position voting in favor of
the project. Moyer commented that Ordinance 30 came about for this very house
but maybe Ordinance 30 is not strong enough to deal with houses like this and the
McCoy houses. He said if this were a HPC project, Cunniffe has addressed the
one element, but what about the one long wall on the other side. Buettow replied
that it certainly brings back the appropriateness of materials and shapes which
reflect the guidelines of Ordinance 35.
Cunniffe said they might want to consider victorian sandstone and rather than
stucco from a different country. Moyer thought that every person building a home
in Aspen should consider how their house will work in the context of the area. He
gave an example of a man who came to town, spent $8,000. on a an architect and
was turned down by HPC for his project. Moyer continued that he took the man
on a tour of the town and the man said he had made a big mistake and three years
later still has not built on his lot. He said it was an amazing experience for him.
Cunniffe noted that it was not neo-victorian. Moyer said that would not happen.
3
1""-,
DESIGN REVIEW A... PEALS COMMITTEE
,-"
APRIL 10, 1997
Blaich noted that people who come and live in their own houses have more tender
loving care put into them and the house fits into the neighborhood. He said the
spec houses are the ones that do not fit into the neighborhood and sit vacant with
for sale signs.
Cunniffe invited the Committee to look at the house after it was built and realize
that they Iistened to the Committee's comments and the house then got better.
Buettow commented that Cunniffe's other houses in the area had been done well.
MOTION: Jake Vickery moved for the Design Review Appeals
Committee to approve the request for a variance from the inflection
standard (Section 26.58.040B) for 533 West Smuggler finding that the
design currently proposed meets standard #1 the design more
effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or
provision responds to and deal with site specific restraints of the
inflection issue. Dave Johnston second. Steve Buettow, Jake Vickery,
Bob Blaich and Dave Johnston for, Roger Moyer against.
AppROVED 4-1.
Vickery discussed the vagueness of the inflection standard. Blaich noted that
there should be serious consideration of the reworking of Ordinance 30. Julie Ann
Woods replied that they have heard that loud and clear on Ordinance 30.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
A work session on Water Place Housing foloowed the DRAC meeting.
4
,-"
,-"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC)
Mitch Haas, City Planner Ac\
Stau Clauson, Community Development Directo~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~_'
533 West Smuggler Street, Appeal of "Inflection" Standard
(26.58.040(E))
RE:
DATE:
March 27, 1997
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section
26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application
for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or
obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application
consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if
an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design
Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to
the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review
Appeal Board"
The applicant is requesting a variance from the "Inflection" standard (described below) in
order to allow the proposed design of a single-family dwelling at 533 West Smuggler
Street. The application is attached as Exhibit "A"
APPLICANT: Patrice Kahn, represented by Janver Derrington of Charles Cunniffe
Architects.
BACKGROUND: Community Development Department staff reviewed the application
to construct a residential unit at 533 West Smuggler Street for compliance with the
"Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal
is not in compliance with the "Inflection" standard, Section 26.58.040(E), which reads as
follows:
If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1) story in height for
a distcmce of more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed
building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be
one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet.
It is the Planning Director's interpretation that this standard requires that, in those areas
where the house to the east of 533 W. Smuggler is one (I) story, all adjacent portions of
the house proposed for 533 W. Smuggler must also be one (1) story for a distauce of at
~
,-,\
,-"
least twelve (12) feet inward from that portion of the proposed structure closest to the
shared lot line toward the opposite lot line.
On February 27, 1997 the DRAC found that the design, as then proposed, did not comply
with standard 26.58.040(E), and must be redesigned to comply with said staudard. Since
then, the applicant has made a number of revisions to the proposed design. Staff
continues to find that the revised de$ign does not comply with the "Inflection" staudard;
however, the applicant has requested that the DRAC review the revisions and consider
granting a variance.
Before taking into account the design revisions, the standard under which the requested
variance is sought must be pointed out. The applicant is seeking a variance from the
"Residential Design Standards" pursuant to a finding by the DRAC that the proposed
design "more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision
responds to."
In staff s opinion, the "Inflection" standard is intended to respond to the issue of new
construction overshadowing and dwarfing adjacent, existing structures by not respecting
or responding to, through sensitive design, the mass and scale of the portions of the
existing structure that are closest to the proposed building. In considering the variance
request, the DRAC must decide whether or not the proposed design more effectively
addresses thi$ issue than would a redesign that meets the standard.
The Proposal
The applicant has, as mentioned above, made a number of revisions to the proposed
design since the February 27, 1997 DRAC hearing. Most notably, the applicant has
shifted the location of the proposed structure as far to the west as possible while still
complying with the minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. The lot adjacent to the
proposed five (5) foot setback is vacant. This shift enabled an extension of the one-story
porch on the front (north elevation) of the house so that it wraps around to the east side of
the house and provides a one-story element adjacent to the one-story portions of the
existing structure on the adjoining lot.
This porch would, it should be noted, be set back ten (10) feet from the shared property
line. In effect, the closest two-story element of the proposed structure would be
approximately twenty-seven (27) feet away from the one-story portions of the existing
structure on the adjoining lot. The reason that this revised design still does not comply
with the "Inflection" standard is the fact that the one-story element (porch) of the
proposed structure would have a depth of just six and one-half (6.5) feet, as opposed to
the required twelve (12) feet.
The applicant points out the fact that the distance from the easternmost portion of the
one-story porch to the westernmost portion of the porch is some twenty-six (26) feet.
However, as staff notes, the one-story element of the proposed building closest to the
.
-
/-"
adjacent structure has a width of only six and one-half (6.5) feet. The twenty-six (26)
foot width is arrived at by wrapping a one-story element of six and one-half (6.5) feet in
width around a two-story section of the structure.
Although granting of a variance based on the circumstances of one specific situation
should not be construed as a precedent for granting similar variances (i.e., based on same
design standard or variance criterion) in other situations with differing circumstances, the
applicant has requested that a particular case involving a variance from the "Inflection"
criterion be brought to the attention of the DRAC.
The particular case of interest was located at 923 East Hyman A venue (Schrager House).
In 923 East Hyman case, the applicant was granted a variance permitting a one-story
element of seven (7) feet in width for the length of its entire east facade. While this
project was granted a variance from the inflection standard, the variance was granted "for
reasons of faimess related to unusual site specific constraints," namely, a setback
requirement established in the contract to purchase the property. The lot now in question,
533 West Smuggler Street, does not contain any unusual site specific constraints that
require a variance for reasons of fairness. Rather, the site in question has inherently more
flexibility than most lots because. both it and the adjacent property to the west are vacant.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC review the proposed design
and site circumstances in order to determine whether the proposed design "more
effectively addresses the issues" that the inflection standard responds to than would a
redesign that meets the standard.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package
-
,-"
L tx'~~rr" A ",1
~.
~~
'.
March 17, 1997
Design Review Appeals Committee
ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Aspen, Colorado
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
re: Re-submission for appeal review residence
for 533 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
Following your review and rejection of our previous proposal as not conforming to the side
yard Inflection Standard of Ordinance 30 on February 27, 1997, we have revised our proposal.
We took your suggestion to study extending the one story porch element back around the stair
tower and revised our sketches and the study model to show it to the City Planning staff.
We had a meeting with them on March 7 and discussed the merits of our proposal. We have
pushed the house to the West as far as possible, which allows the porch roof to be 8 ft. deep at
the stair tower and still fit inside the required East side yard setback. The staff commented that
this does not technically meet the minimum 12 ft. depth in their interpretation of the Inflection
Standard. However, we pointed out that along the street frontage elevation, the width of the
porch is now 27.75 ft., narrows to 8 ft. and then widens to 11 It, at the point where it is parallel
with the bock edge of the one story garage of the adjoining house. Thus, the overage width
(depth) of the proposed one story element adjoining the neighbor's house is equal to or
greater than the minimum 12 ft. standard.
We believe this is in compliance with the spirit and intent of the side yard inflection standard, if
not the letter of the technical interpretation by staff and is deserving of a variance by DRACo
Particularly in view of the precedent set by your having granted a variance for the residence
at 923 East Hyman in August of 1996.
In that proposal. the street elevation one story porch element was interrupted by a two story
element toward the front of the lot which extends 17 ft. back before a 4 ft. deep stepped-
down one story roof element is introduced which then extends on back to a one story element,
which is a roof deck over the garage, similar to our proposal. The two story element at 923 East
Hyman is only 9ft. away from the adjoining one story element on the lot to the East as
compared to our proposal of 15 ft. at the narrowest point which is 56 ft. back from the front
(street) property line. At the closest point to the street, the two houses in our proposal are 50.5
ft. apart. We believe this is much more gentle on the "streetscape" than the one which you
granted a variance to last August.
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS' 520 EAST HYMAN' SUITE 301 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 970/925,5590 FAX 970/925-5076
("""-I
r-,
In consideration of the above, we respectfully request that you grant a variance to the side
yard Inflection Standard for 533 West Smuggler at your next meeting on March 27, 1997, Thank
you for your cooperation in this malter.
Sincerely,
-D
--
-
FEBRUARY 27,1997
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
377 Sn,VERLODE DRlVE............................................................;............................................................................1
533 WEST SMUGGLER.............................................................................................................................................3
926 EAST DITRANT - BRASS BED...........................................................................................................................5
MINUTES.....................................................................................................................................................................7
8
.~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 27,1997
Chairperson Steve Buettow called the special meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with
members Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer, and Dave Johnston present. Members
Bob Blaich and Jake Vickery were excused.
Other staff present were David Hoefer, Sara Thomas, Mitch Haas, Amy Amidon
and Julie Ann Woods.
377 SIL VERLODE DRIVE
David Hoefer asked the applicant if the notice was posted 5 days prior to the
hearing. David Panico said it was noticed. Hoefer expressed the committee had
jurisdiction to proceed.
Sara Thomas, staff, stated the applicant requested a waiver from the Ordinance 30
Standard to the garage setback requirement. She explained this was an uphill lot
and visibility from the street is very minimal.
David Panico, architect for the applicant (Alice Brien), stated the lots were
minimally buildable lots in this subdivision. He said the access points were
tortured at the downhill side of any of the grades. Panico said there would
probably be other requests similar to this one because of the steep slopes. He
noted for the garage to meet the intent of Ordinance 30 a vast amount of
excavation in the front yard would be necessary to get the driveway low enough to
gain access to it. This would also create a "pit" in the front yard and the residence
was about half of the allowable FAR.
Roger Moyer asked ifthis was part of Williams Ranch and was a photo available
for the approach to the site. Panico said it was part of the Williams Ranch and
supplied a photo. Moyer questioned the only approach to the house being
underneath. He asked if the garage was protruding from the house or was there a
portion of the house above it. Panico said the portion was above it and the site
plan shows the one story garage with a deck on top. He said the entry is on top of
the garage. Moyer said the application did not seem sufficient.
Gilbert Sanchez asked why the garage was located in the center of the lot because
it seems like a large amount of excavation. Panico said he was trying to break the
1
-
,,-...
DJ!;SIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTRE
FEBRUARY 27. 1997
house into two separate elements because the house has no yard and this was a
way to create an exterior private area.
Moyer asked the commission and staff how these Williams Ranch lots would be
handled since there would be more of the requests to this committee. Panico
explained the design is almost dictated by the restraints of the site and the top of
the roof would be all that would be seen from the street.
Dave Johnston said this clearly does not meet Ordinance 30 but questioned the
appropriateness of the height on the site. Steve Buettow asked if the driveway
already existed. Panico said it was already cut in as part of the plat. Buettow
stated there were three elements, two of which were very nice and one garage
protrusion. He noted the garage being seen first, was one of the reasons that
Ordinance 30 came about. Panico noted the garage was turned at an angle so it is
not the first thing that you see but rather the main element of the residence is seen.
Sanchez agreed with Johnston about the impact not being significant. He said the
excavation in front of the bedroom window seemed unnecessary because it was
the only flat area on the site;
Buettow said the presence of the street scape with a dominant garage in front is for
this committee to decide to approve or not. Panico commented there were
extenuating circumstances regarding this house and Williams Ranch with a
convoluted evolution of Ordinance 30. Sara Thomas explained the free-market
portion of Williams Ranch is not subject to Ordinance 30 as it applies to floor
area, however it is subject as far as the design review standards. Unfortunately
this was not clarified when David Panico brought in a permit for the lot next door
and it went through without having the design review standards applied to it.
Thomas brought this to Panico's attention, but he was three days away from
submission. Panico stated that the person has to be in the residence by October 1.
MOTION: Dave Johnston recommended the Design Review Appeal
Committee waive the standard that the garage must be setback ten feet.
from the facade of the house for the property located 377 SilverLode
Drive, finding that criteria "c" has been met. Gilbert Sanchez second.
Roger Moyer, Dave Johnston, Gilbert Sanchez for, Steve Buettow
against. MOTION APPROVED 3-1.
2
~
/"'
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 27,1997
533 WEST SMUGGLER
Gilbert Sanchez stepped down on this issue. David Hoefer stated the applicant
supplied notice which complied with the jurisdictional requirements of this
committee and may proceed.
Mitch Haas, staff, explained there was an oversight in the packet and the
elevations included are incorrect and the revisions are replaced in the new
handout. He said the "inflection standard" of Ordinance 30 which deals with one
story elements of an existing structure and the element of a proposed adjacent
structure. Staff felt that all elements ofthe proposed structure next door to an
existing one story structure should also be one story for a distance of 12' toward
the opposite lot line.
Haas stated if a standard is up for interpretation, it would be best to refer to how
that standard has been applied in the past. He referenced Jan Derrington's model
to show where the one and two story elements are used. He pointed out the
portion of the house (model) thlit does not meet that standard.
Janver Derrington, architect for applicant, stated there was at least one project that
was approved. He said a duplex: at 1225 Snowbunny Lane went through after
Ordinance 30 was adopted. He commented that the interpretation seems to have
evolved since then. Derrington expressed the open area and two story element (a
stair tower) with steep pitched roofs which is encouraged by Ordinance 30. He
noted the footprint of the house is much smaller than the one next door that
occupies three lots. He said that since the lot has huge spruce trees, the house is in
scale in that setting. He felt that the application of the standard complied with the
reasonable intent.
Moyer asked for photos of the entire block. Derrington supplied the photos with
the opposite side of the street also. He said there were 4 lots in this Carrish
Subdivision. Moyer said the verticality of the house is still unique to that block.
so, at present it is out of character and even with a new house on the corner.
Buettow asked if the corner lot house would be demolished. Derrington stated
that it would and sincethe lot had such huge trees on it, the new structure would
probably be vertical also. Buettow asked if they were at the maximum height with
this house. Derrington replied that they were slightly below the maximum height
3
-
-
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 27. 1997
with the cupola. Haas stated the real intent of this standard was so that a new
house did not "loom" over the adjacent house by size and scale. Johnston said
from the model the entry looked very small with the two masses on either side. he
commented that the mass down-played the entry.
Amy Amidon gave background on Ordinance 30. She said that this was one of the
very few provisions (especially in the West End) to protect Victorians from
becoming overwhelmed by the new construction. She stated that the interpretation
should nqt be changed aCross the board for this standard.
Moyer responded that this is the reason we have Ordinance 30 and it does not
meet the standard. Buettow said that when Ordinance 30 was originally discussed
the "inflection" referred to street scape.
MOTION: Roger Moyer moved that the Design Review Appeals
Committee find the design as proposed does not comply with standard
26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code and must be redesigned to
comply with said standard. Dave Johnston second.
Dave Johnston and Roger Moyer voted to. approve and Steve Buettow
denied. MOTION, APPROVED TO DENY 2-1.
Moyer asked Amidon if the applicant could come up with a solution without a
complete re-design. Amidon answered if the applicant could find one of the three
standards to comply with then maybe a compromise could be achieved. Haas
stated they would work with the applicant. Derrington asked if the roof element
was the reasonable approach because he was not sure what was expected.
Johnston did not mean it as a directive, but was open to any discussion. Moyer
noted it was up to the applicant and not to this committee to re-design. Derrington
asked if the element had to be inward 12' all the way from the side yard to the
back of the garage area. Buettow believed that was the motion. Moyer said that
the project should take on the character of the block and asked if the material to be
used was stucco. Derrington affirmed. Moyer felt stucco did not lend itself to the
character of Aspen. Amidon said that if they met with staff, and the re-design met
the standard, the applicant would not have to come before this committee again.
4
---'\
,~
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 27, 1997
926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED
Steve Buettow stepped down. David Hoefer asked for the posting of the notice.
Augie Reno, Architect for Silverstream, provided the notice. Hoefer stated that
the notice met the requirements and the committee had jurisdiction to proceed.
Julie Ann Woods, staff, explained the Brass Bed Lodge has been an on-going
project that was recently approved by the Board of Adjustment for a carport at the
rear of the property. She continued that they were also approved by the City P &
Z for a change in use (from 29 units to 6 units) and a voluntary ADD. She said
they wanted to make some changes to the exterior elevations of the existing
building and realized that the building did not comply. The window standard and
the height measurement were the reasons for the Ordinance 30 Review. Woods
stated the building is non-conforming to the Ordinance 30 height standard and the
way that height is measured.
Hoefer stated that this committee could review the height standard even though
the building existed prior to Ordinance 30. Moyer said since this committee could
review the height standard, then the applicant would not have to go before the
Board of Adjustment.
Woods commented the changes to the building will make it look more residential,
adding more windows.
Reno introduced Rob Tobias, Silverstream Representative, and noted the building
has been vacant since it was constructed 8 or 9 years ago. He said the project will
enhance the neighborhood once completed. Reno said in 5 or 6 areas the glass
exceeds the 9' and 12' band area. He noted the property has nice views and the
big band on the building blocks the views. Reno commented the purpose of
Ordinance 30 was to prevent the large plate glass walls from the 1st floor to the
3rd floor. He said the amount of glass proposed, 3' would be the maximum with
those elements broken up by the balconies and the band. Reno stated that the
glazing does not start until 9' from the floor and is only 8' of glass. He said the
window does not start at the floor but about 3' above. He noted that the elements
occur on portions of the building that are significantly setback from the property
line. He said the relationship between pedestrian and building are from 30' to 48'
apart.
5
-
,-"
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 27,1997
Reno stated the building is linear with two horizontal wings and a simple gable
roof. He said the building has a strong mass (almost institutional) and they want
to break up the mass with the 6 gables in question (adding vertical). Reno said
this existing building was brought into non-conformity by Ordinance 30 and felt
that was a hardship. He noted they do not want to add to that non-conformity but
are trying to relate to the existing ridge of the building. Reno stated from a
construction stand point, also, it is easier to use the existing gables rather than
lower them and have to reconstruct the entire building. Reno commented there
will be new landscaping also, which will seem to lower the building.
Tobias added that architecturally the gables are the same height as the existing
r()of line and seems more gentle. He said the Brass Bed was bought through fore-
closure and wanted to do something other than a lodge. They want to enhance the
neighborhood with a first class project.
Johnston asked what the function was and why the front dormer was so high.
Reno explained it was the fifth unit and faced north. Johnston asked if the ridge
was going to be taller that the existing. Reno replied no, the dormers would go to
the ridge line. Sanchez asked what dormers were above the height restriction.
Reno said approximately 2' the way Ordinance 30 measures. Sanchez questioned
the balconies provided separation from the tall glass areas. He asked if the
balconies had open railings. Reno said the railing was wood with vertical
openings.
Moyer asked the purpose of the building and ifit would be condominiumized.
Reno stated there would be 6 two bedroom townhouses and an ADD. Moyer
asked if the glass doors would be taller. Reno answered they would not be
changed but the triangulated glass that is being added. He said the upper floor
. doors will be wider.
Sanchez felt comfortable with the triangle glazing and the south side probably
won't be seen from the street. He questioned the large gable on the north
elevation with excessive glazing. Sanchez thought even a lower gable would
accomplish the vertical break up of space.
Johnston said the re-design was a welcome relief to what is there now, and the
gables at the ridge line and below the ridge satisfied him. He commented that the
dormer on the north was a little high and liked the look of the project.
6
/~
DESIGN REVIEW A"PEALS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 27.1997
Moyer said the south side, the height adjustment was valid. He stated the re-
design was a welcome relief to the current state of the building. He noted the
north side did not affect the street scape and felt the project was well done.
MOTION: Dave Johnston moved that Design Review Appeal
Committee waive the standard that FAR be calculated at 2 for the areas
in the 9' to 12' "no window" zone for the Brass Bed located at 926 East
Durant Avenue finding that criteria "c" applied and further
recommended the height definition of 26.58.040F5 be varied to allow
the existing height non-conformity of this building to continue because
the shell of this building predates Ordinance 30. The height of this
building was in compliance with then existing zoning when the original
project was completed. Gilbert Sanchez second. ALL IN FAVOR,
MOTION APPROVED. 3-0
MINUTES
MOTION: Dave Johnston moved to adopt the minutes of
12/12/96. Seconded by Gilbert Sanchez. ALL IN FAVOR,
MOTION APPROVED. 4-0
Julie Ann Woods stated for the record that Gilbert Sanchez was appointed
to the Design Review Appeals Committee to serve as an alternate. Dave
Johnston becomes a regular member.
Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
7
~
,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC)
FROM:
Mitch Haas, City Planner
THRU:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
RE:
533 West Smuggler Street, Appeal of "Inflection" Standard
(26.58.040(E))
DATE:
February 27, 1997
Pursuant to Chapter 26,58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(8), of the
Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and
approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land ~se reviews or obtain a De-
velopment Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent .with
the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application
is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applic-
ant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review
Appeal Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board."
Community Development Department staff has reviewed the application to construct a
residential unit at 533 West Smuggler Street for compliance with the "Residential Design
Standards," (See attached Exhibit A), Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance
with the "Inflection" standard, Section 26.58.040(E), which reads as follows:
If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1) story in height for a
distance of more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building,
then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one (1) story in
height for a distance of twelve (12) feet.
It is staff's feeling that this standard requires that, in those areas where the house to the
east of 533 W. Smuggler is one (1) story, all adjacent portions of the house proposed for
533 W. Smuggler must also be one (1) story for a distance of at least twelve (12) feet
inward from that portion of the proposed structure closest to the shared lot line toward
the opposite lot line.
The DRAC may find that, either:
. The design, as proposed, complies with standard 26.58.040(E);
· The design, as proposed, does not comply with standard 26.58.040(E), and must be
redesigned to comply with said standard; or,
. The design, as proposed, does not comply with standard 26.58.040(E), but that the
DRAC will grant a variance from said standard
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" - Letter from Amy Amidon, former Historic Preservation Officer
Exhibit "8" - Submitted application package
,-."
.-,
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
~.
~~
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611
PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076
DATE: February 14, 1997
TO: Mitch Haas
COMPANY: Aspen Community Development
ADDRESS: Aspen, CO
FROM: Janver Derrington
PROJECT: Smuggler
JOB It: 9647
ARCH ITECTU RE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
TELEPHONE:
REGARDING: DRAC Review Application
WE ARE SENDING: ll1I Attached
VIA Hand Deliverv the following items:
o Shop drawings 0 Prints
o Computer Disc(s) 0 Samples
o Specifications 0 Copy of Letter
o Change order
o Other
DESCRIPTION: Eight (8) Copies of Application Documents
TRANSMITTED AS: 0 Approved as submitted
o Resubmit
copies for approval
ll1I For your use
o Approved as noted
o Prints returned
o As requested
o Returned for corrections
o Return _ corrected prints
o Review & Comment
o For bids due
19
REMARKS: Please let us know if you require any further documentation
anver Derringto AlA Project Architect
Smuggler Partn s, LLC I Lennie Oates, Esq. I File
, ~ .,.;".-:....~- ~ -~..,."", _..~.......,_. ...:........,...........
... ...;.:..........."~....,....,,.
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
,-"
Smuggler Partners Project:DRAC Deposit Fee
.'
520
I-
i
!
1
I!.
,~
i~77
9277
1997
1
, !
.,-,~
'" ~
AMOUNT ..:,..: :.~
**$450 .66*~*'J
'::;:;;:J
".'.""-i
" ''''-",
_'OJ
~
/
1""'.
,-,
February 14, 1997
~.
~B
Design Review Appeals Committee
ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
City of Aspen, Colorado
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
re: Submission for Appeal Review
Residence for 533 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
We have submitted the proposed project to the Aspen Planning Staff for as recommended in
Application Procedure and were found to be in compliance with all but one of the Residential
Design Standards in the Aspen Land Use Code. Please refer to the attached letter from Amy
Amidon.
The standard in question is 26.58.040, E. Inflection. We believe that the interpretation taken by
Amy is excessive and goes beyond the reasonably inferable intent of this standard.
Specifically, she has told us that the minimum 12 foot side yard inflection of the street frontage
elevation must continue all the way back along the side yard elevation facing the one story
element of the adjacent structure to the alley. If this were the case, it would become the side
elevation of the house, not the street frontage elevation if required to continue back past the
stated twelve (12) foot point.
In the proposed design for this project, we have a one story element which is sixteen (16) feet
along the street frontage elevation and sixteen (16) feet along the side yard elevation facing
the adjacent structure. The one story element of the adjacent structure on the side facing the
proposed project is a one-car garage and entry which is backed up by a two story element
which is the full width of the total structure all the way back to the alley. The two story stair
element of the proposed project is roughly parallel to this two story adjacent structure in
relation to the street frontage.
Furthermore, the conical roof shape of this proposed stair element is reminiscent of the
numerous huge spruce trees that exist on the subject property and the adjacent property. The
steep roof pitches and massing of this design are in keeping with the intent of the Residential
Design Standards to be compatible with the predominantly Victorian West End neighborhood.
We would also like to point out that the rear (alley) portion of the proposed project steps back
down to a one story element for the last twenty four (24) feet of the structure.
CHARLES CUNNlffE ARCHITECTS' 520 EAST HYMAN' SUITE 301 . ASPEN, COlORADO 81611 . 970/925.5590 fAX 970/925-5076
1""'..
I""'.
In conclusion, we believe we have in fact met both the letter and the intent of the Inflection
Standard in question. We respectfully request that you give your approval to our application
regarding this matter. You will find attached the required supportive documentation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely.
-
Ja ver Derrington, A
P ject Architect
enclosures
TEL:
r--,.
Feb ~ 97 13:26 No.Oll P.02
.'
SMUGGLER. PAllTNEllS, LLC.
P.O. Box766S
AsPEN, COLO"RADO 81612
Pebrwy 13. 1m
AlUhti'rlltlM bJ lfq""'"
City of MpIm
CI>mlll1lllity Developmenl~,
130 Sou1J1 Gtbla &reel
AcpeJI, CO 81611
HAND DRL1VERRD
To whom 't 11IQ' COllceDe
'l'bia ldIa' dIaD. -=rye as aofhorIzadop for tho fol1owbla JJllDalludlvJdualt 10 Iepl'CllleDl Smuggw
l'armers. UC., III conuectioa wilh.. Deelgn Rc9iow App1il:ation rdatios to hJ.'c:d 1 aud 2, Carhch Lul.
Spl~ ~Jia& 11) f:lII Plat dweof l.'CCOtdc41uly )5, 1995 in Plat ~ 31 at Page 1', Tbc right of the
lIIIIIenfaDad to fi/8 lllld ptoc:css the J'ladgn BevicW Appficadon is bIIIlCd upon the Pun:llaae Cot:llCact
attacIlcd IIentb wb:reIn &naaJel' PutIlm, u.c bas lM\lUdt:d &0 purc]IIIe tba IIbove -..ihel.\ ~
frPIll Gc:clqll L. I!lll Sbaroa G. Carisc:b. Ow- 8lIibDrized ~ 1@CbaJk.s CpJlnlft\: Anbitctts
Bt m EaIIlllYJllllllo.Avaue. A&pa1. ColOl'lldo 6llII 0a1l:a Hugbet ~ I; Oa1'dcdWllU, P.C. ,& S3~
DaIt BapIdu. Aspen. Colorado.
SiollcreJy.
SMuOOUlllPJl1lnmB~. u.c.
-=:::.
VZ.d
IOI~ 'II ..,........,~,~ J.
. ,.--'" ~....... Z .€J .lh. lOT 1f3J- - .
FEB-13-97 THU 14:19
CA~CH
~ _.....-'...-~... --".,- -'- ". -..... -,,:;:',,::-..;.....;..:-.;,..........:..':.;.',.,._'._,.: - -'-' ..:_;. - - - - - ''''.~ ".'''''.;., .. -'..._;':.:..:.'-.:~;;::-;~':~~~:.:;~::.:;;::.:.;:.-;:-;: '.;. '':'.. -.. - - - :; -'';'' ;; ;. .: - - ::..;. ~-,..::-:::...:..::-:.:~:; :.;:.....-....::.:. -'.:,.- ..:.:...
P. 03
/'
J ,.,;
,
"
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
February 13, 1997
PIlge2
Confirmed by legal title hok\er:
~~
George L. Carisch
~ 0: f!4~/:'
Sbaron G. car:iSCh
FK1amc
Enclos11l.'es
~ATA~GlUft~0',~rJU1:l1t1pd
fAX NO. 8~7@72@3
.r'\.
-
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1. Project name A residence for 533 W. Smuggler
2. Project/ocation 533 W. Smuggler Street, Aspen, CO, Parcel 2 of Carrisbh
Lot Split (Lots C & D, Block 27)
(indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds.description)
3. Present zoning R-6
4. Lot size 6000 SF
5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Farrell & Patrice Kahn/
PO Box 7665, Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-5531 AKA Smuggler Partners, LLC
6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Janvei' Derrington of
Charles Cunniffe Architects, 520 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590
7. Type of application (check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Stream Margin
Subdivision
GMQS allotment
View Plane
Lot Split/Lot Line
Adjustment
Conceptual SPA
Final SPA
Conceptual PUD
Final PUD
Text/Map Amend.
GMQS exemption
Condominiumization X
Conceptual HPC
Final HPC
Minor HPC
Relocation HPC
Historic Landmark
Demo/Partial Demo
Design Review
Appeal Committee
8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures,
approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the
property) The existing residence is sin9le family use with five (5) bedrooms
and a studio caretaker unit comprising approximately 3500 SF. The property is
four (4) city lots. which has been leqallv subdivided into two (2) parcels,
known as the Carisch Lot Split.
9. Description of development application A new single family residence on one of two
parcels previously subdivided out of an existing residential site containing
four (4)ycity lots (30' x 100' each). The existinq residence is to be
demolished.
10. Have you completed and attached the following?
X Attachment 1- Land use application form
~ Response to Attachment 2
X Response to Attachment 3
r"\,
"'"'
ATTACHMENT 2
GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
All development applications must include the fOllowing information:
1. The applicant's name, address, and telephone number, contained within a
letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone
number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
(See Attached)
2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the
development is proposed to occur. (See Attached)
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is
proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance
company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the
names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens,
easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development review. (See Attached)
4. An 8 1/2" x11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of
Aspen. (See Attached)
-
-
ATTACHMENT 3
SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
All applications for DRAC review must include the following information:
1. Neighborhood block plan at 1 "=50' (available in the City Engineering
Department). Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings
on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet.
Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory
dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the
houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one
living level). (See Attached)
2. Site plan at 1"=10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject
parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of
100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site
with 2' contours. (See Attached)
3. All building elevations, roof and floor plans at 1/8"= 1 '0. (See Attached)
4. A graphic verification that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary
Mass" standard. (See Attached)
5. Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of
the block, including present condition of the subject property. Label
photos and mount on a presentation board. (Previously Submitted)
6. A written explanation of the requested variance and a discussion of why a
variance would be appropriate and would not compromise the intended
goals of the "Residential Design Standards." The applicant may provide
any offsetting design features that may mitigate impacts of the variance
requested. (See Attached)
.' JAN 31 '97 W09AM C~~S CUl'lNlffE
,-.
1".2/3
"
January 28, '1997
ill
Charl~s Cunniffe Architects
Attn: Jan Derrlngto!'l
520 E. Hyman, Suite 301
Aspen, CO ,01611
AsPEN . Pm:1N
. . Cl'1I&UNI'I'V Dtvn.oM.tftn OIP.....~).tlNl'
Re: 533 W. Smuggler .
.Dear ,Ian:
The Community Development Department has reviewed your application for
c;:,Irr.pllance with tha "Residential Design Standards." We find that the project is
. not in compliance with the "infleCtion" standard. Sf/ction 26:58.040.E. which
reads as folltlws: '
If tile street frontage of an adjacent structUf6 is one (1) story in height for a
distance more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then;
the adjacent portion of the proposed building musr also be one (1) story in heigflt
for I'.l distance of twelve (12) feet.
This standard requires that in th'ose areas where t:~e house to the east of 533 'AI.
Sm:Jggler Is (me stOlY, the residence proposed for 533 W. Smuggler m~lsi also
be one story and at leas,t 12 feet across. .
Your l)ptlons for addressing the "inflection" standard are to restudy the proposeci
design or to apply to the Design Review Appeals Board. Please 'call me al 920
5096 with any furthei questions, or julie Ann Woods at 920-5100 after February
3. .
.
.,,"- ,,"""'" '/"
.....lncerely, ./. ~ ~...
.''''' ~,..,:l-"" /1/ /
f__;- 6.." tL._'
,e,' -,
Amy Am1don ',,-
HISlorf;! Preservation Officer
/.
"
''-..
!30 SoUTH C"LI'NA S,..., ' AlPIN. C"w",oo 8161l-1975 . PHONI 970,920.51l9fl ' FI,,970.910:'439
Ptll\IGJ\IfIloIC1tltdP,pn
,-"
i",.)
""""
...,;;
FNT
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date: 11/01/96
at
08:30 A.M.
Case No. PCTl1390
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992
Amount$
PremiumS
Rate:RE-ISSUE
LIABILITY COMPANY
Proposed Insured:
SMUGGLER PARTNERS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED
RATE
(b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992
Amount $
premiumS l
Rate:COMPANION
Proposed Insured:
GEORGE L. CARISCH AND SHARON G. CARISCH
Tax Certificate $20.00
3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or
referred to in.,.t.4is Commitment is at the effective date hereof
vested in:
GEORGE L. CARISCH and SHARON G. CARISCH
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County
of PITKIN, State of COLORADO and is described as follows:
PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2, CARISCH LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED JULY 24, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 37 AT PAGE 75.
ISSUING COMPANY: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
970-925-1766
970-925-6527 FAX
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Schedule A-PG.1
This Commitment is invalid
unless the Insuring
provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
i\
r'I,\
~
'"',J
FNT .
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit:
1. Release by the Public Trustee of the,
Deed of Trust from : GEORGE L. CARISCH and SHARON G. CARISCH
to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
for the use of PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY
original amount $500,000.00
dated March 16, 1992
recorded March 31, 1992 in Book 673 at Page 276
reception no. 343081
2. Deed from
To
GEORGE L. CARISCH and SHARON G. CARISCH
SMUGGLER PARTNERS LLC, A COLORADO
3. Copy of the Regi,s.t.ration duly stamped by the Secretary of State of
the State of Colorado evidencing registration of Smuggler Partners
LLC and Trade Name Affidavit or Certificate of Authority of Smuggler
Partners LLC evidencing the names and addresses of the Members and/or
Managers authorized to act on behalf of said Limited Liability
Company.
4. Deed of Trust from: SMUGGLER PARTNERS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
to the Public Trustee of the County of pitkin
for the use of THE LENDER TO BE INSURED HEREUNDER
to secure : $500,000.00
5. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and Ordinance
No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted.
6. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s}. (This
instrument is not required to be recorded)
7, Completion of Form DR 1079 regarding the witholding of Colorado Tax
on the sale by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real
Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required
to be recorded)
8. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale,
Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied
with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be
delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in
which the property;.is situated)
...
r-,
',.
....)
'~
FNT .
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines,. shortage in area, enchroachments,
any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose
and which are not shown by the public records. .
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, lahor, or material heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
S. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any,
created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the
effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by
this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed
for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district.
"i .,.
7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City
of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 433 providing as follows: "That
no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver,
cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held
under existing laws..
8. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on plat of
subject property recorded July 24, 1995 in Plat Book 37 at Page 75.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCTl1390
,,,,
h
FNT
~
..J
'~
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND DISCLOSURES
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following
items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION
WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED
HEREUNDER)
Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2;
NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective
insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family
residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of
that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an
exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics
or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is
extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A
satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company
against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed
by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit
must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items
and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon
request, ?~~-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the
Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for
further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing
contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any
requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or
materialmens lien coverage.
NOTE:
Pursuant
(a)
(c)
If the Company conducts the owners' closing under
circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or
filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company
will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage".
(b)
to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122);
The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing
District;
A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County
Treasurer's Authorized Agent;
Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of
such districts may be obtained from the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County
Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to
the proposed insured unless written instruction to the
contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of
the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provi~~ons and Schedules
A and B are attache~.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCT11390
~.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
,-"
AUGUST 8,1996
923 E. Hyman Avenue
Wolff stated the applicant, Phil Schrager is represented by Gibson Reno and
propose to build a new residence on this lot, it does not comply with the
volume and inflection standards of ordinance 30, the adjacent parcel on the
East side is a designated historic resource. Wolff said ordinance 30
identified these windows within that area inappropriate due to issues of
scale, Staff agreed windows on the South side will be o.k. to maximize
exposure to the sun and views of Aspen Mountain, regarging inflection a
one-story element must be provided the full length of the lot line that is
adjacent to a one-story structure, the structures on the East side is one-story.
Wolff stated their interpretation is there should be 12' of one-story structure
on that side, there is one constraint, a covenant of the lot split states the
parcel to the East of the historic rock maintain a 10' west sideyard setback
to distance this development from the duplex being built on the lot next
door, therefore their building envelope is 5' narrower than would otherwise
be allowed. Staff recommends to meet the inflection standard that they
provide a 7' one-story element the full length of the east facade of the
structure and allow windows to violate the volume standard on the South
facade only.
Proof of notification provided
Roy Parsons, architect stated they feel this design as it is not only meets but
exceeds a lot ofthe language of the design guidelines, heights are within or
below the acceptable height guidelines and they have incorporated steeper
pitches, they tried to approach massing by breaking up the elements along
the front facade, they have a clearly defined entry, mixing of window sizes,
they tried to break up the massing so along the front facade it has the one-
story look the elements of the two-story building behind it are smaller in
scale and step back from the street, the front porch is stepped back creating
the face ofthe two-story element well behind the adjacent portion of the
street facing building. Parsons stated they feel they have not only exceeded
or met the standards of the design guidelines but have more than answered
the constraints they have been given and think this is the best solution
possible and the friendliest way of dealing with their neighbor rather than
being closer to them.
2
,-"
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
.,-,
AUGUST 8, 1996
Auggie Reno, Gibson Reno stated the majority of the trees along the eastern
section of the parcel exist and are mature trees, there are a few trees they
will add in the back. Reno said they feel the design of the one-story porch
going the entire length of the building, which is 12' does comply with the
inflection part of ordinance 30.
Johnston said the applicant submitted elevations to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and asked if they were still true.
Parsons stated the modifications that may come as a result of putting in
proper dimensions and making working drawings are minimal.
Stan Clausen, Community Development Director said it has been stated that
this project meets the inflection standard, Staff believes it does not meet the
inflection standard, what Staff has given over to the Committee is an appeal
from the applicant with respect to the inflection standard. Clausen asked
the Committee to respond if this is an appropriate design, if this meets the
intent of the standard.
Vickery asked if the 12' is measured parallel to the street.
Clausen responded it is parallel to the street.
Moyer asked what the applicant meant by it may have to be closer if one-
story is required.
Parsons responded the upper level comes across the narrow section with
three basic building elements, a kitchen, living room and a study area.
Parsons said if they have to shift them over they will have to rearrange the
floor plan in such a way to accomodate those programatic needs. Parsons
stated if they are required to have 12' of depth of a one-story element, the
only way they can accomplish that is to take the lower level to the setback
line.
Vickery asked Clausen ifthe 12' is measured from the property line.
Clausen responded it is measured from the closest building element..
Public asked why it is 10' on one side and only 5' on the other.
3
r-,
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
r-,
AUGUST 8, 1996
Reno responded they are required to have a minimum 5' setback on either
side for this lot because of the square footage they are required to have 15'
overall, for example they could have 5 and 10, 7.5 and 7.5, ect... Reno said
added to that there is a deed restriction on this parcel because the adjoining
parcel made a deal with the city to require a 10' setback from the western
side.
Parsons stated the main, primary window is to the South off of the living
room and there are five dormers, they propose glass within the no window
,zone. Parson said the living room is the most critical because it is South
facing, the primary view looks across the alley directly at Aspen Mountain,
they do not feel there would be any break in the intent ofthe design
standards. Parsons stated the dormer windows are a result of the massing
and breaking of the roof planes, in addition the roof peaks have truss
elements at each location which help obscure the upper portion of the
dormers, he said they have provided 9' of glazing and feel it should not be
detrimental to the scale of this house and would like to maintain the
continuous window, the side windows are not visible from the street,
removal of the windows may be detrimental to the character as well as
cutting out light and view for the owners. Parsons stated they are asking a
two-fold waiver that they be allowed to have the South facing living room
window and the dormer elements without the volume FAR increase.
Reno stated his understanding of why these elements were brought into
ordinance 30 had to do with scale, they wanted to get away from large
entries and portions of glass that gave a different scale to the street,
particularly from a pedestrain access. Reno said in reality they are allowed
to put glass from the floor to 9.5' and then not allowed to have glass up
until 12' and above that glass is allowed, with the dormers they do not have
more than 9.5' of glass for what they are asking, the difference is the
window sill comes up 3.5' and the trusses on the outside obscure some of
that, so in reality it is less than 9.5' .
Mr. Robinson asked what the height ofthe buildings would be.
Parsons responded the center ridge is about 31.5' above existing grade, the
other is at 27'.
4
!""""\
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
~
AUGUST 8, 1996
Public asked if they knew the height of Chateau Blanc as a point of
reference.
Parsons stated that it is considerably higher and has a flat roof, they are
about 1/2 level above existing grade.
Ron Kanan, representing the adjoining property owner "the rock" stated
they are in favor of this design as it is proposed, they like the idea ofthe
porch and think it is probably the best scenario with conditions, they are a
little worried about the sqft., they are also in favor of the glass in the
dormers and feel it encourages more to happen up in the roof areas which
helps break up the roof mass, when you take away the glass you take away
the reason for a dormer. Kanan stated it is hard to take away the view of
Ajax Mountain.
Alstrom stated that he finds certain aspects of the design very pleasing, he
said that Reno's office has stumbled on a really nice cascading roof affect to
break up massing and thinks it is demonstrated very well in this design, he
is concerned with the east elevation and agrees with Staff comments on the
inflection standard, inflection is very difficult to define and a difficult
standard to communicate. Alstrom said he did not have a problem with the
volume standard issues they are presenting, he thinks the volume standard
needs to be redefined and amended to deal with view oriented glazing as
well as passive solar, the only thing he does not care for is the two-story
high masonary walls with the cascading roof lines, he suggested setting the
second floor masonary back one foot so the building also cascaded with the
roof and that would be an acceptable compromise for him, if the walls
cascaded with the roofhe would say the reflection problem goes away.
Johnston said he thinks the two-story walls are a big consideration but he
thinks the attempt has been made and is very pleased with the roof design,
the building needs to go with it a little bit and agrees with Alstrom on some
of those comments.
Vickery agrees with what has been said and reminded the Committee of the
criteria used to make these determinations.
5
-
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
.-,
AUGUST 8, 1996
Moyer stated in HPC one of the elements they dealt with as a result of the
AACP when a house has a large wall going from the front corner to the rear
corner, against an adjacent structure it is always looked at unfavorably, but
Alstrom's comments of the compromise might work, he would ask for more
thana foot he would like to see two, the heavyness of the stone lends to the
long wall, he has no problem with granting relief on the windows.
Reno said the definition of what inflection really means needs to be looked
at very seriously, when reading this it can be interpreted, understood or it
can be confused in a number of different ways.
MOTION: Moyer moved to grant a variance to the
inflection standard, requiring that the second story on the
East elevation be moved in between 12 and 24 inches to be
dealt with by Staff and the volume standard is waived
meaning the windows for the South and all the dormers.
Seconded by Johnston. AU in favor, motion carries.
Buettow stepped down.
Vickery asked if they had plate heights over 10'. They do
not. Vickery stated if they were using the old volume
standard relating to plate heights they would not have an
FAR penalty.
Buettow reseated.
Upper East Side Townhouses
Bob Nevins, Planner stated this project is in the William's Addition which
is somewhat different than other parts of town in that the lots are 125' deep
vs. 100', this lot is 7500 s.f. the width is 60' not 75', they have a different
setback standard than the typical R-6. Nevins said the lot orientation is
different, they go in an East/West direction the original townsite is on a
North/South axis.
Buettow asked if this is the rear lot and does not include the front. Nevins
said it is the front only, it is a duplex lot. Buettow stated the southern most
lot is the one-story existing house. Nevins responded that is correct.
6
;
r--.
REOOIREO SETB/JCX
AT GARIGE ONLY
o
r-,
ALLEY
-----,
WNJ(
o
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
REOUIRED SETBACKS
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
A1.3
SITE PIAN
1/16",:= 1'~H
ffi
o
o
0
'Iff'"
PORCH
....-
0 ,
L____
WNJ(
~
0 0 0 0 0
o
o
5'-4'
o
o
SMUGGLER STREET
~II
(~r!
."..,~'
"';"':i?',1:J"&;; -'-
'.,...,'."';.,~'''.;'.~.".. .. ...'"
A RESIDENCE FOR
533 W. SMUGGLER
CHARLES CUNNlFFE ARCHITECTS
ASPEN, COLORADO
!..., ',;;';,'-;i/:/
52lIWftIYMANAVE.OS1JlTE3OI"ASPEN,GO mm'TE1f:~S9Cl.FAX:3/0025-5076
220 E. COLORADO AVE.. TaLURlOf. CO 8l43S . TELE: 3Wl2&-3733 . FAX: JO.1In8..9S67
r".
-,
ALLEY
REQUIRED 5' SET8N:K
AT GARi-GE ONLY
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
UPPER
/.EVEL
DECK
o
o
o
o
o
TWO
STORY
FUTURE
RESIDENCE
/4'-9'
If-(f
o
o
0 0
((JAR/JGEJ
TWO FENCE
zr... "... STORY
COMMON
ONE PROPERTY 0
UNE 0
STORY REOUIRED SETBACKS
UPPER
/.EVEL
DECK
NEIGHBOR'S
HOUSE
S.-(f
0
L._____. ----
0 PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
Wf'U( ~
.------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 W.SMUGGLER STREET
SMUGGLER STREET
PORCH STUDY (SIDE YARD INFLECTION)
1/16" = 1'-0"
ASPEN, COLORADO
520 fAST I-IVMAN AVe.. SUm: 30l . ASPEN, CO 61611' TEU:: 3O:Y.l25-5S90 . fAX: 3O:W<!5-5076
220 E. COLORADO AVE.' TEllURIDE, CO 8l43S . TELE: 30m8-3738 . FAX: 3031128-9567
~II
~~
A1.3
EB
A RESIDENCE FOR
533 W. SMUGGLER
CHARLES CUNNlFFE ARCHITECTS
SITE PLAN
A2.1
LOWER LEVEL
PlAN
W" = 1'-0"
MECHANICAL
STORAGE
/-
r-
[,
II
I'
,I
~
U<HrWE"
/--
/ WJ.C.
BEDROOM #4
D~
LJ
DD
BEDROOM #3
I l
I I
I I
___J
BAR
EB
A RESIDENCE FOR
533 W. SMUGGLER
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
ASPEN, COLORADO
~\
I
CORRIDOR
i-',
r ,..=- ----=-- -ll
IL===~I
U<HrWEU.
E
EST MSTR. SO M
r--------
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--______-1
FAMILY RMMEDIA
BOOKS
"'"'"
VISUAl.
~II
~~
520 WTHYMIIN liVE. 0 SUITE JOl',o,sPEN,CO 81611 "'TR.E:J03925-559O 0 FAX:3<W-l25-S076
220 e. COLORADO ^VE.' TEllURlCE. CO 81435 . TEll;; 3031728--3138 . FAX: 3031128-9567
A2.2
MAIN LEVEL
PIAN
WH = 1:-o~
'I
CJ
n
WORK
AREA
o
Ell
U Ell
EB
A RESIDENCE fOR
533 W. SMUGGLER
ASPEN, COLOAApO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_.J !..
CAR GARAG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-"
SKI G W/SHELf...1:fpIE
MUD1..AUNDRY RM.
~
D
CORRIDOR PATIO
STO E
TH
STAIR HAlL
FOYER
PORCH
v-,
UGHTWEU
MASTER BEDROOM
HIS W.I.C.
HER W.J.C.
o 0
MASTER BATHROOM
~
~
~II
~~
.,\,..,~\~...."...;-:.<,..;
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
S20 fAST H'ilMN ....Vl.SUlTE JOIOASP'EN,CO Sl6I101ELE:3Ilm5-5590' FAX:30$925-&l76
220 Eo COLORADO AVE.' 1EJ.URlot CO llU35 . TW:: 3031118-3138 . FAX: 30307.l:&-!IS67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
,-"
KITCHEN
I
I
I
I DECK
I
I
I
L__
llfllf
llfllf
llfllf
A2.3
EB
A RESIDENCE F
533 W. SMUGGLER
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN
'tiS" = 1'-0"
ASPEN, COLORADO
520 fAST H'r'MIIN AVE.' SUITE 3111 . ASPEN, CO 816T1' Tn.E: ~om5-5590 . fA!(; W3'J2:s.507&
220 E. COlOAAOO AVE.' TELLURIDE. CO 81435 . TELE; 30am:~3738 . fAX: 30mll-9S67
~II
~~
.
~" - - I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Rl:Nt<:1ED 1../"5"'('17
A2.3
UPPER LEVEL
PIAN
W"= 1'~"
EV
~.ARI
~
1Il1ll
1Il1ll
1Il1ll
I
I
I
/
(
I
I
I
I
I
\
'"
KITCHEN
SITTING
",,,;;.:;, ......~'
- - -.I'
I
I)E'''~ ,,,
-~~" . J
I
r-,
1J()~~
Tfl:6 't>ft fZ.M- '?"l?1 fa. M~
tJ'O T l? a ~I e.u;; tUJOt:;J2.
N e:W 1<--'2. oa;.r.tPktJc.'1'
ct..ll$$ kM- Er\J 17M arr 'rO
Lt.~. C. p,;'f I&fe-N L....U.c.
I
I,
I
I DECK.
I
I
I
L__
----l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
~
I
CHA;J&-GJNNIF-FE -AR~TE;;
A RESIDENCE FOR
533 W. SMUGGLER
ASPEN, COLORADO
A',
'A
~II
~~
520EA5TtMNINAVf..'S1Jrn:30l'ASPEN.C0816tl'Ta.E:~590'FAX:3lWns-3076
:00 Eo COLORADO Ave.' TEllIJlUOE. co 81435 . TEli: 3Om&-373S . fAX: 303'72&-!1S67
DINING ROOM
~::::J
:i II
b
UVlNG ROOM
0" '...~~-,,_.,.. .-"~ -.~ "'CO' ---,._,- ,--.'" ,'~" . . ,. ":-~::~"",~;~:: ::'~:~?:!;':,;c<"~
,-" -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I~ ---71
I I
I
I
L
~
""-co'"
10:12 TYP.
UR.o.
~ ---7
A2.4
A RESIDENCE FOR
533 W. SMUGGLER
EB
ROOF PLAN
118" = 1'-0"
ASPEN, COLORADO
520 EAST HYMAN A~' SUITE 301 . ASf'fN, CO 816T1' TEll: JI3m5-5590 . fAX: JOm5-S076
220 E. COLOIW)Q AVe.' TELlURIDE. CO 81435 . TRE: 3031128-3738 . FAX: 31lYT2l1-9567
1/3 Pr,OF PITCHED
ROOF HEIGHT AT
24'-8"ABOIE
EXISTING GRADE
~II
~~
~~. SmUIl3HVml~IIYI/3'166111l~IIIAdO:IO
. , , !9S&iZlIll!:'X'Il' 8!:lt'IIUIEOC11l1.' /1I:J101unlll1' tlI9ZX1I8' "l^IIIIIVlllIllJ:l"l1lll
9lIIS'51.&IEOC:XVl . 00IS'51.&IllIl: 1111 . 119191J:l'HldSI . IIJl: urns . HVW!H"l1lZl
.~ U:>U'H:>UV 3:J:J.NNn:> S31UVH:>
,-."
3'7(1oH . "-:;/,;:jd9' J. "CV
,,".c.I 31 ?J?nH ~
''A'v''N
----~O~9i-.
~
lii
t
),0
~;-
\L.
~~
" . . : 'J'
" "
"
I.
11
I,
,
~
e)O
....0
-rL
::11
t~
-!' 0
.iU~
::t:-*"
,~vw
1\0-1 =:7;.
I-
~
~
..J .
1ll 'Z.
- ~
rQ ~
f;l I ·
r~ Q
dI\!) ,I
~- ~
.
N
~
'\..
~
"
,-:Jj
\)
H
~
1ill0
. I
\
oJ
]j
~ I . i
/"i. i
w:
W
!:,
!' >~
"
....i
-
il'
\
.,Ii
~
1'\..
r
,
-
r-,
,
I
i
I
( .,
~
~
.'
II
,
- -H
I
0= '.
1i\
r ,-
r
7
-1
0 "
L
j----
I
L..,
+-\
~
"- ;:l-O
- \ ,
~ !
"-
..b
"1
'.t~D
..~
A3.2 GtJ\U~Gk~
,.,?f'~,~t?~
RLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~.
520lHYMAH. SUllE301 . ASPEN,C0816!! . ruE: 3Ill192S-5S00 . FAX: 3IllJ92S.5II16 ~~
Z!IllCOlORADOAVE,' 80X2863 'IEllURI0E;C081435 '11le3lllJ128.3736' FAX:3Ill1128-9567 ...
G COPYIIIGII'{lQ92.ClIARtESCUKNIFFEAACIlITECTS
,....".",,,.....,
.~...~':;,,',.
,
,
A3.3
'-""'M";"'~'"':_"~'.'
I,
~~
~~
I
~m-
~
J
-l
~
z.
""'-
\'
"-
-l\
-"j
, ........ '. : ",~ -'.0',.,',' ...."
;".___,_.'-..,..;.C_,<'......-I"",,~..,;,:'^',....';.
r---
I
IT--,
I \ I
U__J
t-'- - -
..'......."......,...._....,.c.............
.,',-;;,~~,~:;;::;j,:;;'''".;:~.:._,"'''.'-~i;,..._
I"'" ;
,'-'
I
I
eMu. G,G. ~p...
'5 p~c., ttou?.E:
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
52IIlHYllAll. SUITE:Il1. ASPEK.C081611' TEl~JIl1J925-5590. FAX:3111915-5076
22lIlCOlORAOOAVE' 8OX2863' TRlUmDlC081435 . TEl~:i03/l28-3T38' FAX::JII3I128-9S67
o CllPYlUliHT1l1l2.CllARlESCUQIFfEARCHlTECTS
. u....__ :.:. :"~~'__'_" "".~_,_.,.~;.
~.
~m
',' ......,'.:_.,.:."_..".~i..f,;':,~.
L!1~ S13lJnm".~""li6IJ"9""OO.
. , " 19SII'!lIIin::XVI.lJtLtiWin:~llI' ~ J101UnlllJ' t9ilXOI . 'lAYOOVII01O:J,'l1l!!
&lOHlBIin::XVI . ~iMOC ~1ll . 11111 III 'NldSY . lilt IIInS . HYIt\H lOll
.~ U:nUIH:>UV 3:f:fIN~~I':>11
'" ,J
; . \1.
, ,
,-\: ! I' .
I....:
. . ".,tt'jir
l '
, , ,~.
, I
, -'rlu,.
...,}
,
'-\ '
~o;~f}~~ ".ev
"
\. ."
~...
~.,
,-iI .'.. .
j~1 ":::.'.,
:lg.,.
'11\.' " './, :.:
d:' ., ""
..,. ,
~
I-
'7
III
E
w
J ,......
uJ '
_ 2
):~ ,-
it 0 ~
~_I ~ ....
\l'I.9 _I I~
w- tl It"
"7 V "-
~ J'
i"
I
L-:-r
r-- -1'
I 11
L__Jt
,_:.:::1
I
.L__
'--11
I 11
L__.J.,
-r--~
...l
'x, Vi
,,'?;"'
7:
0,
k
.(
>
lli
~~
'. I)
, t
lt~
~ 11
-.(~
.l1l
i I
~
IeIEJ
IEEE3I
(J"l) ~ [il
'-....0 ~ ") II
1Jl7\l ::: (j)
",0 \1 -1
~I -
--.1 I -
rn
\fl 0 I
~ -
\1\
~ <
)>
-;
{\ -
(j) 0
~ Z
~
~
~
Z
11
r
Q
~
G
L.
V
633 w..
HARL! NNIFFE ARCHITECTS (j3.
520E.HYMAN . SUITE3Il1 ' ASPEN,COST61t ' TElE: 3113/825-5S00 ' fAX: 3113/825-5076 (j3~
22OECOlOMOOAVE.' SOX281i3' TElLURIOECOSI435 'TElE3ill/728,3138' fAX:3illI728-9567 .l
c COPYRIGHT 1992,CHARLtSCUNKIFFEARC1IITECTS .
A~N.I CD/....of<.ADO
"...,
IjJ it - :z:
C ~ 0
~1il = 1J
'-.... ('I II -!
..0 X ~ 'J:.
..J.I\ 0 t:\
V' -:. V\
~ ~
\J m
-{ m
-i
'"
\.l'I
(J
In
-<
J>-
~
~
Z
11
~
Q
.-
o
z:
'-..../
tlt
r
\it
~
-=-J
o
L
~
lEftf8t
~
lIt
533 W. 5M\..IGJGtLE ~
A'::>fE.N I GOl-l!)1<A PO
~.
11 I I I
Ell
J.. . . . .1
lEEEEll
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS ~.
520E.HYMAII. SUlTE3DT. ASP!N.OO81611. TElE:3Il11925-55III. FAX:3Il1f92!-5076 ~
22OE.OOLORAOOAVE" 80X2863. TElLURI0E.C081435 . TEl!:3Il1f728.37311. FAX3Il1/128-956l .l
c COPYRIGHT 1992,CHARLES CIJIINIFfEARCHfTECTS
;
UPPEP- 1..eVl;t...
Pec.I"-
"
,..~ ~ p.. '-(
CBNcM.ON
f'IQ:>~
(~-e.) L..lJJS
,
.oNe: <7\OI'2---r
-"
~,
ALL:.e-i '.
.~
....<...... .~.: ...
I
I
~
~' ~e"t",....q;. e..
~e.t!>'/JL...,..
.-.-"--
(,lr~
LFvl:t..
~~
I
11.0
TWO $/O~'T'
F<A 11A ~E'
~GO'?I De7JC.E
I
I,S
.
.
I (c,O
~e:/l(lh,eep
'5>l?I1S-A<=-l"-
I
IJ;",O
~~~TY
l--tf'll? _
?~?\J'l.~MI..l c:;.~
-SITE 'PI-At'-1
\/(~II=- I~o"
~ M. u. 6! ~ Le-r<- <so T.
~o~ <?TUDY C'7\PE "1'A-f<..D INFLEC.TION)
. ~/4/q7
5'3:3 W. 5MU6iG LEl<-
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS (It).
:~.:.~:D;A:EUI~E:X'~~~;;~~U~:~:81~ rr:~:=~ .F~:=llm
~,?f'E"N I COL-OB:-&PO .'. OIll"'~I\lI!lll.CHML!SaJ'''mAllHIIl&tS . . ..., ",~ ,'c.
',.. .r;,.. ,- ,.-' ",',.., .. -, " "i~',"''': ;';',':.~...",',".;.:;'<".",<,,:..c'..~',.",...,',,:,~,:,"'.::,'..,:?/,'.,'..~':',,"~,.'.,'.'.'.':_ c,,' -";":"- ...: ">'.'" ".... " :,,: ',":,,_:'-,::,:",,;,,;"~"-\,:'.',:~;'~...,:,J,,',',~?".,':""""""':"":;:"""',,';',;,:,""'.,",.,',.'.. '
";:;.~,;;;L';'~}":,."",,.., " . " , ",,,,,,.., ',;,.;, <,
,j
~ '
\}lit - z
,,0 ~ 0
~~J I~ ~
.J) J: -;- :r:
-J tl' o~ '0V
~ ~
\J ~
-( (TI
-1
f'\
\J\
1J
tn
~
~
~
:z.
11
~
.Q
.....
o
l
'-.../
\It
r
111
~
~
o
L
r-,
..-.,
,. < ...
[fItt8f
lEttt:EI
~
tEl
533 W. 5M\..lGrGrLE R- .
A'='fE.N / GOl-I!>1<A Pc>
13
CHARLES ClJNNIFFE ARCHITECn (j3.
52lIlHYMAII. S1II1E301', ASPlII.C081611 . IRE: 3Illf9!S.5590 . fAX:3I3J925.5Il78(j3~'" ,
22IllCOlOllAllOAVE,' sox28lli. T!LlVRIIIlC081435 .me303fl28.3l38. fAX:3Ill1l23-9587 , '1:;'
atmlGHT 1992. CHARlES ClIQIFFf ARCHITECTS~. .;
\'-";''''''1"'';
,
,
.
I""'"
~"",. ,~
,-"
.Sl
EE31
~1) -s:: fi\
,",,0 ~ -yo E
\)}A) <:: 0'
'-."n II -\
..i):I -
-1 \ -
~ 0 111
- \
\1\
1J <
-C ~
g -
0
,- 1..
~
~
~
-
1-
1l
r
E
.-
G
[,
63'?W.
I \
HAR. NNIFFE ARCHITECTS r.
52IltHYllAII' SUI1!301 . AS1III,IllS1S11 . Till: :Jll1925-55!KI . fAX::Jll~ [III"
Z!IlE.CIllOAAOOAVE. .IlOX28S3' rEllUmDE.C081~ .1B.E.:Jllms-ml' fAX:3tllms-956l\ .. g;/i.....
o ~19!!2.tKARtESCUNNIFFfAllCll\ntlS:)~ .."'. .
. . ,'. ."-,,.,.,'~;t';'!41!J!!$~
^~N J ~9F:ADO
'If.
/"
\,;,.,:},{;,~~I;.:~
'-
'/)\ \ ,- t
I 1/
11./
~
b
~r
~
\ 11 I
\ 'I,
I:, '
\ ,
I
1 I _I ----- ,-
1/ " I I n::::-------
t' DIII~
I
10 1'-
I 1\
----1 I
~ -----1 I,
I I
1'1.., I I
1"-.., I . .
--~ ;11 10/ ,(
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I "'---
, .
--
r:
\
,
L
-1
r [-----------
-----------
I
,
~' ~ r-.
I ---..;/ J-1
.1/ /
'\
,'---[ J;r
"-
_r/
:,J
FIFTH ST )
/
~
'I..., ,
, r
I I
,
I I
,
, ,
, I
, ,
I ,
,
r 11'\\
I ",1-
I
I
"1
"'i-
\. --.......
~, ~ -- "-
III "~\
"' ,=,
-.. ,
Gl
!l '
(Il ,
, -,I'
"''i
,,;<....,
J
~~' ~
1''Il I ~
r-..... ---
...E:
,
I
I .
- t-i l>
v I r-
----I ~
-1 < I
I -----
I 1 ~~
1 'a
I II
\..____1 < CI ~
, ~ -
.: -,-- -"'_'_"._,, -____+ ." ._,.,lL-____....
I I
V' ./\ Jil
l' J I I
I I'
I '
I I /
I I
I
---I
/5
.-
'-----{ l'
!I
,
--:r:
,
, I
, '
,
I:
I
I \ I ,
..
.
II
. {l- (JI
.... 0 . I> .~
~
\1- I I I
\ "C'L ..1/. _ I I
, J -?1--1. "
,
L-
V
:r::
"I J
""'--
~'
/
""
_ 0<
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
I
vf ~ '
_____.J / :\
\
/
II
(
I
I
I
I~
I \
IJ I
I ' r
I
I
---- I
I
J : 0 I /r" '\
--- I
~II
I I
I I
? I i 0-,
, I I
~ll ~
, \
! '\
\ \
I _J
I
I
:----. ----I
r- I
I
1
1
I
I
I
~--- ~
,\
V
/A-~
O'l
'r-
,'",
;;0
'"
...
--------- ----I
. .
"../ -::::::::::::::::::~
'{l-
01
Ci)
CoIl
L
/ I
\ \
1
J--. )
~
Q
.-/
)
J.
\
", 1..__ ~
,
I
,
(fj
~
c:
'.. G)
- - .~--- (Il ~-_.___ ~
i 0 m
. , 1/ < 1'\ ':U
\"V. I (fj
\.\,\ " ~
J:===d
\, j'
/
~b~~~~~~~~~"
I, ..c,t:, -,
) -
~
(
,.. 'tlI Z )
I'" m
,~ G; rL.
~ a;
'tI 0
r- :u
) I
Z 0
^
/
~ ~\r (L:.
. )"'-..1\11~
f'< I I
I I '-.. I
L I I "
I I. '--
r--,I
J I I
I
, I
I ,
-II
J I I
~I
/1
y\-V- Id.
, II
I I ~
I I
I I
I~
I
I
-:.:.: :.
)~
\
""'"' '.i I
I ~/:
,I ,
/If I I
I' I I
I J~ I
LJ I
,...
c-_~
___.J-'
JL...,
'"
--__'. 51
--...... ...... ~
......-... ~
~
~
a
-
~
'"
~
"
---_:- ~
--..---
-~
l~~~~
~ .-J~ '
\
\
"---
L i~\ .
~
, -\
I _
1_________
l~"
- '--------
------...-
,
"
" --,"""\
, J
'c.
J
- -t...---- ----....
1__-
------ -_.:~..~'::...
/~
~ . "- -,,'\
......... \
EB J; n
" ....
~