The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.337 Silverlode Dr.A12-97 CASf'PAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O-",rPEN DATE RECEIVED: 2/15/97 DATE COMPLETE: PARCELID # 2737-074-29-007 CASE # A12-97 STAFF: Jalie t.f1I1C \VVOd1 SCiY"'''''........ PROJECT NAME: Project Address: APPLICANT: Address/Phone: OWNER: Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: David Panico Address/Phone: 1533 Juniper Hill Rd, Aspen, 81611 RESPONSffiLE PARTY: Brien Residence DRAC Review 337 Silverlode Drive Lot 7 Alice Brien 1216 Vine St. Aspen, Co. 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 APPLICATION Staff Approval # APPS RECEIVED 8 # PLATS RECEIVED 8 GIS DISK RECEIVED: P&Z CC CC (2nd readin ) REFERRALS: Yes DNo Yes DNo Yes DNo D City Attorney D City Engineer (DRC) 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: OrdinanceIResolution # Staff Approval Plat Recorded: Date: '3'.J.,.. 2"7, /997 Date: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED ROUTE TO: DATE: INITIALS: r- .... LS COMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW AdEA ,<""'-"", l'EBRUARY 27,1997 ...................1 377 SILVER LODE DRIVE.........'..............................;.....................................,.,.............,......................, .........3 ...................................................................................... 533 WEST SMUGGLER......,........................................ ...........~........................................,........................................5 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED.............................. 7 .............................................................................................. MINUTES....................................................................... 8 ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW ArPEALS COMMITTEE . r'EBRUARY 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 if this 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 I ,~ DESIGN REVIEW t\t"PEALS COMMITTEE r-. 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 "COO has been met. Gilbert Sanchez second. Roger Moyer, Dave Johnston, Gilbert Sanchez for, Steve Buettow against. MOTION APPROVED 3-1. 2 ~ DESIGN REVIEW ArPEALS COMMITTEE .' EBRlJARY 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 in~orrect and the revisions are replaced in the new handout. He said the "inflection standard" of Ordinance 30 which deals with one story ele~ents of an existing structure and the element of a proposed adjacent structure. Staff felt that all elements of the proposed structure next door to an existing one story structure should also be one story for a distance of 12' toward the opposite lot line. Haas stated if a standard is up for interpretation, it would be best to refer to how that standard has been applied in the past. He referenced Jan Derrington's model to show where the one and two story elements are used. He pointed out the portion of the house (model) that does not meet that standard. Janver Derrington, architect for applicant, stated there was at least one 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 ofthe 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 comer, Buettow asked if the comer lot house would be demolished. Derrington stated that it would and since the lot had such huge trees on it, the new structure would probably be vertical also. Buettow asked if they were at the maximum height with this house. Derrington replied that they were slightly below the maximum height 3 I""'- DESIGN REVIEW Ar PEALS COMMITTEE ~. . t<EBRUARY 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 not be changed across the board for this standard. Moyer responded that this is the reason we have Ordinance 30 and it does not meet the standard. Buettow said that when Ordinance 30 was originally discussed the "inflection" referred to street scape. MOTION: Roger Moyer moved that the Design Review Appeals Committee find the design as proposed does not comply with standard 26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code and must be redesigned to comply with said standard. Dave Johnston second. Dave Johnston and Roger Moyer voted to approve and Steve Buettow denied. MOTION, APPROVED TO DENY 2-1. Moyer asked Amidon 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 recdesign. 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 ArPEALS COMMITTEE . J' EBRUARY 27,1997 926 EAST DURANT - BRASS BED Steve Buettow stepped down. David Hoefer asked forthe 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' and12' 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 ArPEALS COMMITTEE .--. r'EBRUARY 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 harrl;ship. 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 standpoint, 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, whichwill seem to lower the building. Tobias added that architecturally the gables are the same height as the existing roofline 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 openmgs. Moyer asked the purpose of the building and if it 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 reliefto 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 Ar t'EALS COMMITTEE ., i<:BRUARY 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.Q40F5 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. Jackie 7 1"""\ ,-.. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee 'tM C,,"- Co=""'" Dowl_ DlrectM~ Q,.)IJ Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director,._:. .. Sara Thomas, Zoning Enforcement Officer THRU: FROM: DATE: February 19, 1997 RE: 377 Silverlode Drive - Appeal from Design Standards SUMMARY: The applicant requests a waiver of the Ordinance #30 standard related to the garage setback requirement. APPLlCAl'l"T: Alice Brien, represented by David Panico LOCATION: 377 Silverlode Drive ZONING: AH-PUD PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EV ALUA TION I. Background - The proposed project is a new single family residence, of approximately 2800 gross square feet, located in the Silverlode Subdivision. II. Site Description - The proposed project is located on a steep, hillside lot of 12,374 square feet. The lot is on the uphill side ofSilverlode Drive. III. Waiver Requested Standard: All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum often (10) feet. IV. Staff Evaluation - The Committee may grant an exception to the design standards if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria: a). yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff response: The project does not further any goals of the AACP. .1""'\ /"""'. b) more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or Staff response: The waiver request does not address this criteria. c) be clearly necessary for reason offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff response: Given the constraints placed on the building lot due to the steepness of the terrain, staff feels that the proposed location of the garage is acceptable. The garage has been angled so that is does not directly parallel the street. which staff feels has reduced the visual impact of the garage. In addition, the building site is significantly elevated in relation to Silverlode Drive and therefore has a minimal visual impact from the street. V, Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Design Review Appeal. Committee waive the standard that the garage must be setback ten feet from the facade of the house for the property located at 377 Silverlode Drive, finding that criteria "coo has been met. ,-., .-, DESICN BY DA VID PANICO Ms. Sara Thomas Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. February 16, 1997 Re: Lot 7 Silverfode, Brien Residence D.RAC, Application Dear Sara, Accompanying this letter is the completed application to the Design Review Appeal Committee, A letter of summation follows and addresses the Ordinance 30 review standards point by point General By Aspen standards the proposed structure is a bit of an anomaly for a free market residence. The Applicant is proposing to build a residence that is well below the allowable FAR. even if it were 100% above grade. The allowable FAR. for lot 7 is 3117 sq. ft. The proposed residence is comprised of approximately 2800 gross sq. ft., and will use up only about 1400 sq, ft. of the available FAR. The design attempts to relate to the structures that probably existed on the hillside site at onetime. The two elements of the proposed structure are intended to mimic the appearance of two miner's cottage's in shape and scale. The fenestration tries to relate to the traditional organization of street facing windows typical of the building that house's Gracys. - The variance from Ordinance.30 that is. being requested is site driven and ultimately does not deviate from the intent of the ordinance, The variance relates to the location of the garage. The point of this section of the code is to try to move what is considered an undesirable architectural element from the most prominent side of a residence, on a nonnal residential street, to a less offensive location. The.lots in the Silverfode Subdivision are all substantially elevated above the street they front on thereby mitigating the visual impact of the garage. The practical reasons for the garage being where it is are related to the steep slope of the driveway which, without a massive amount of excavation, only allows access to the lower part.(the frontmost part) of the building envelope. If the applicant were forced to locate the garage per Ordinance 30 standards the apparent vertical mass would be increased by 1/3 due to the resulting need to dig the garage entrance into the hillside. For these reasons 1 request that the Design Review Appeal Committee grant the Applicant the requested variance. * Denotes points where this application varies from the intent of Ordinance 30. Building Orientation BOX F.3 AlifL. "')LORADO 81612 PHONE 970 923 5394 FAX 970 923 1260 .1""\ ~ The proposed residence is comprised of two main elements with a connecting elementand.deck between them. The-Iarger.ofthetwoelements istangentfalto .Silverlode Drive._ .__. The entrance is orfentedtothe street There is a street facing principal window that opens into the living room that is parallel to the street The width of the house exceeds the width of the garage by more than 5 feet *' The proposed garage does not set back the desired 10 feetfrom the facade of the house, Building Elements The garage/deck element comprises a one story street facing element that exceeds the 20% minimum. . Build toUnes This part of Ordinance 30 does not apply due to the fact that all of the adjacent lots are vacant. Primary Mass As can be seen in the enclosed elevations the proposed structure is divided into two distinct elements with separate roof structures, thereby satisfying the intent of this section of the ordinance. Inflection This part of Ordinance 30 does not apply due to the fact that both of the adjacent lots are vacant. The residence under construction on Lot 6 (adjacent lot to the west) is two stories tall at it'seastemmostelevation though, like the proposed residence on lot 7, more than half of it's mass is below grade. Garages and Driveways *' As stated previously, the garage for.the proposed structure does not setback from the facade of the house the desired 10 Feet The proposed garage is partially below grade, but does not exceed 24.feet in width, nor does it comprise more than 40% of the front facade, Areaways There are 110 areaways on the front facade of this residence. Calculating floor area ratio All aspects of ordinance 30 regarding the calculation of floor area ratio will be met. As stated previously, the proposed residence will be well under the allowable floor area. BOX F-3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 PHONE no 923 5394 FAX 9iO 923 1260 . .- -- ._~,' ,._.,.,.,--:,~,: .' ,.::-;":--- ,- -''Y"i',~: :,',:';' ~-',:,~ .:"',",; ?"-\ .. . ,'-" Heigfit .. -..-. ...m. .... -As.is:-noted.graphic:ally.;oncttJaelevations..the proposed residence. is.. well under- the. ........ '~maxflTllll'lffiefgfit. 17arimg: The proposed residence.willexceed the parking requirements by providing two spaces in the garage and, at least one in the driveway, If you have any further questions I will be glad to respond to them at the meeting on the 27th, BOX F-3 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 PHONE 970 923 5394 FAX 970923 1260 .. ... ........-....,.... .._"'-'"'...."...~",.-. ..,......-:."...._~_...."..,.- '-'. ~\ ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATlON FORM ~~l e N g.E S I Oel\lGE ~;'1 51LVE1Z.1-00E. D1ZIVF:. .LdI " HjU-~,c.MS l<t.i\.lCi4 '::;UBDlvi<7trn (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and boundsdescripticn) 3, Present zoning P. u, D. 4. Lot size lz. I -; 74 $ 1. Project name 2. Project location 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number M~- ~L10.::. I5IZIEN, -1'Z-IG? V11\J~ t?T:,ChP1=.i"ICO tdCt'l2.. 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Db-VID Pbl\ll {n 15:B c)u N. I PE..il. 1-11 L L..' iZO t.:-7FCI)J {J'L f'--l ~ll 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 CondominiumizationL 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) V~C1::-"NT" (...AND 9. Description of development application ~ NUM.-f7~ Of HI-lITe SjUfFtS -.ff f()t::f(2. illTI-U"',OME NITIJ LFnErzt..7bNO N(JMif?Fv~ ClN ~. 1"'7114l=v>c, WtiU lfl7l\F\.ltL ?F~FSFN"'6.T1()N" OF A ~e{F; elF L.ANO ~F. '7TIZ1JCn.~\1p. ID_OCJ;1JCI.--T (;N -mAr- ~le,. tf ~D . . . . 10. Have you completed and attached the following? L Attachment 1- Land use. application form 2S- Response to Attachment 2 L Response to Attachment 3 ,,-., ,-., ;;,' /1J'.rA1e4 ~/Vf-4-S ~ / ~.~ ~ /;Z/~ (//-i/~ S7; 1,,,,,--,- .- hl-S/ tS"N, u. 97; 9;2-? L,C~j-~ 7 ,A-u~~;e~ 'Z C. L},4/h/>.::J /lAhV;c 0 0;= /...j-;f3 J7t A/ ;' /'€ t<!.. #1 t...-L ~ ~J ftJ s /l 2:/Y' 0 Q . "'~,-.- / 97 ~ <1;23 .53 9fL- ~c /f'e-~re..s~ r Me:. /,0 des-ri" If'ev,etU >:--<.. lr" I ._____."_ ...__.-___~__._.'__'._.__.__.__'____.,______.___~",_._'__0______, . ,_~,_,_",__,__________'___,_____".,__.._____.___.__"...-'--,..-.-- <oq;.IV~ <J..vtP~ .:/~ r- ,-J =--- 0 o - "2 V il ,,! f d; .' I III . I I }t/'J/ ;p i/ ~.' $~ ~ \ \ ~ ( ~/!/ 1,( j[ ~ (' ~ .l.S 3:)~~= I!;/ · 0" '\. .~," . ". y' 4' / ,/ _0'. cs-.-S,/ ~ I ~' "'" ."'Y1 '" j1 ! r;;;;, "" ~.~ t--l > 1:;1 U ;-,. r--, . }r-,,, L'-@ .",,-;::- WU ~~~~~:Q7jUTl/l'J # 1/-/ U-- II ;, ~. DA~LJ!J~ 0'" f!' ,U c..J , ,;' , 21 :f1 V · ~. uLID a<< '" 000' .;, OlJ/~/ /r-;/r-; 'L.!o~ul . IJ~r-.,'~ of / /i~/ uJo! D- o- .J ~ Ul 71 ....I' - ~ r-:. ~ .=:.::... ). \ ~ z ~ ~ ~ . \-' - \\fJ .L. ..;t. l- .\:.1 ~ o > .-1 -:---.. ~ --..J r 1-. a -.J I l I , i , , I , : 1 , ! i i \ \ i. , --_1 . . t- ~ ~ z .s \- t:i (j ~ D -1 z .::l , ; . '(-. . " 1"""\ . ~ . .~ ..:;.. 4' ..J \L -0 , uJ- 0,,-- ~ ~. --., -Ill \1'-;... , ./ . j i I . I I I , ; i ! i i / I . I I ! ! \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . I I I ~ . " " ...,..... . . / . ... . ~. .."......-..~- --,'" _.^,uo _ .., ----------. -. .,,----.---- . II 11 11 I ~ I 11 ,-., ,-., iJ II ji Ii / ilj)~ /'14. ~ ~ II 'i Ii Ii ..JJ ~ ~ 1 /02/~ t/cM.v& ~, &, .19J" ~~_5" ~561' ~,()~/~ II ~ I::J? 3 dZ... i.pW ~ ~ ~;e~- J c" II II 'f7~ 1"2-3 .:J.37'~~ ~';~'-e~ ~4J II .I~~ II 11 'I I, i! , 11 -.,~~ II II 11 n ~ \ ji 11 I' II i) 11 II .1 II 11 I' 11 Ii Ii " Ii !I il 'I Ii II II II II !l " 1i ,I II " 1! '. " :; ji ,I 'I \1 !! :i ~ 8 ...:'~<'? ''--'' ,1 1\ ~ ii I' II jl ~ ) ""'~, i"'.....',.,~ ~';;,;. I '-l: 10 <:: r1, " - ..-,. '-;-l I -l I I t: I I -~ I: -* --"", ~ ---J I> , I '- ... , ._-- ro. I , r , 1 <$< I U -l I Q-- ; I .J _ _oil '" , I , r I I IU. , , -( \ , . p .. -l I ..:...' .~,.'. .- --.....-. (} I i!- t . , ." ----- r 1~, __ w_'h.. II I'. II I, I, (" \ I .__.... ._~":":-,,..,,..,....,._.. J i I , . I I l ) l.' z (} }I -1 1; r: rn \3>. -; 'l"tJ,~.~..":lr,- rif~"':I.(~I':)~:~"''''- [ ~ _._____ L.TI ,7 I I [-.' .. . m'-... . " ......._ _"' '. : _. .______~.--. '::T" . .c"~~~:/.' '" _, ___,._____._ ,.... ... ..~f '. ,~?JP.,,;. : ,x'.'.- ".' . n~;;6 J .. ~ p'.-... I. I I' ,I II , I f: I II II II II II II. II II I -.,.", I-! -- (11 r rn "- )> -1 (} Z I...' I: I , ' r , ,Mr , I \ I I I ...JI> 'I I I J " II I , . ~ II I I 1 , I I ~ I, 1 : I I ,--' II r:: :":-:. '_ -- . I . , I 1 k J , I II I I '. j I I 1 I it , I I I II-. ~. -'. I- f , ~ j .--.....:. .~ " ~. .,. , \ ."~,., f t '!~ ( ~ :11i. ) I I \ ..'..'" I.., -'. ... - - . \. , l -. n t 1 ~ I. ! 5 ! u~ ~~ u ~~ e ez i i i :;'"tl t::I to t::I ;... ... .< ttl :;I~ <:: O'J ~........ - ~ >l' () c .< ~ I~ l> U' -I f1l 1- (1t ,~ < t 1> ! -I , - ~Q Z 1:.._ I I, , , I, ! I , , I' , I ; I " I, Lr~" -n i r---1,1> ~l !\~ ; I~: 1>""'<" , I}.- II II II , I II II II II II II. I I' I' ,I II I' , I " 11 II II ,I ,I Ii I j. L --_.- -I' II II Ll.-- -- -.-.T--j. ~ .rl '01] ., ... Jr- . 'I. -~ i.' . \' .:. I ~ . ... I II . . I ' l !:l!1l.,..'.........'......I'.11 !..,~I'II , ,,'. j III ,. l ,1'1 '.'\'.'..'\'.\'.""...1'.,'.. .1.'" ii' . ,:, r " ;,Tll\..,\ .,; :' ~ ..,. I 1:"P:+':I;~'1f:' .' ~ . I ",I.) .jllrM>>\. ,I' f... i,....L,...',.!tl,'..1II . .,.\,. "',, .' i ' :,.!It,r (, . . ',I'! il:..l'il".!,fl:l j.'P\ ;~'iT*! I lil " ,.>,1.. . ".. . .1;'. ,i. ,. I'... .I" ,.' I .:. I. ',. .1'.' I' . I.", I 1.',.1\ ,!:\ lill'I\. I ,II I' ! I ., . ./ . ,.,. ." . I i' \,tl,." ... ! I L .flit.I.lili'liillt 11,,1" '1.1'" ...,1.'\'1111 , .! ., "'1 . (, :.' .' !; . .~ ;,' : l' .. : ,-- .il i Jd ----',.J.:.... ! '. ii' R1Plr1Q'~T , , . , i i : I . n 'IT''t r.'1J"~ --- -'-- ., , ~. ~ , ~ <- \\\ ,.-."., r . 0 L . "' " '" r [11. < n r 20 iH " " " . z: , II' ti! r ~ .h i " ~ "- ;- ~ il " ~ " , .'t' " ... " - . . . () ~~ ~ I ~~l ~ I (l I ! ' " ~~~ iT I ~ ~I ' I 1 f; , .t-= ,-. k Jl UI '-~'11 -.l~t .a'I1-' ;.t '~~~~i4'-' . ,. iJ/f.t,,- I' I .~ '. .,. . i / ',,- II '. . r '" <. \11 r ;l~~~ /. /"1/ /'.'..11' Pi"' w. m I;)! ,z, ~ :!ii' [roT' ~lt{ / A*'~~' .- P: / in" V~/. I -to -- - "l"::~ ( Ii:. .~.____ . .: .' " 1-'. ~,,' ~ .....~,~ It/> ,-"" ," . ___ ~1~tl),,:lt.,~ ...., ~/I "1'"". ,-.< "'{ (' .,.~L.,<, ..'.'1' ..,.R I'"~ :/l p. -~ ~ ~I ,,-- . - '~-..~i.-1-1 t- - . I ~. ../ "- ,~ ~ 1 ~: -G:l- l ~ ~ -\ I l ~. '~ ~ .{tit. ~ _____.{_h.__.~--. I ,~ ~ f-} \ -. -i, ~t:.d' ~9',~ - -=-- ...,... .. ,'d tJ tLl 0 ~;.. ;.. -< tlJ ~~ 1-"': ell ~......t ~ >-l; .~~! t' '..i ~"'~',t u 0 '" I a ....1 >- :I: t'1 ~ M, t'1 i ! >-J ..,:, .~! ~~ ~~ ;:!'.Z~' ~~ I ~ i BRIEN .RRSIUDENCE 331 SILVERI.onv. nDH!'" . n..~" - -- ~