Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1340 Red Butte Dr.A030-99 DRAC Resolution No. -. Page 1 RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING VARIANCES FROM SECTION 26.58.040(F)(12), VOLUME, OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A PROPOSED ADDITIONA TO A SINGLE - FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1340 RED BUTTE DRIVE, ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution No. _ , Series of 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Dorothy Wildman, owner, as represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested approval of a proposed design for an addition to an existing single - family residence on the property located at 1340 Red Butte Drive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 26.58.020(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by staff 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 pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.58.020(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.58.040(F)(12) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held by the Design Review Appeal Board on April 8, 1999, at which the Board considered the applicant's proposal and associated variance requests; and WHEREAS, a Design Review Appeal Board motion to approve a variance from the Volume standard of Section 26.58.040(F)(12) of the Aspen Municipal Code was passed by a vote of three (3) to zero (0) based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the "Volume" standard responds to. DRAC Resolution No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the proposed design of an addition to the existing single - family residence at 1340 Red Butte Drive, Aspen, Colorado, is granted a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its meeting on the 8th day of April, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE Chairperson, Steve Buettow ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk, Jackie Lothian itelf AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE Special Meeting April 8, 1999 5:00 p.m. Thursday Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall I. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) III. Minutes IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. Continued Public Hearing (4/1/99): A. 1340 Red Butte Drive, Wildman Residence, Appeal of the "Volume" standard VI. Adjourn AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE April 1, 1999 5:00 p.m. Thursday City Council Chambers, City Hall I. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) III. Minutes IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. New Business . A. 1340 Red Butte Drive, Wildman Residence, Appeal of the "Volume" Standard B. Unit #15C, 631 South Galena Street, Kribs Residence, Appeal of the "Subgrade Areas" Standard. VI. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo i FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 1340 Red Butte Drive (Wildman Residence), Request for a Variance from the "Volume" (26.58.040(F)(12)) Provision of the Residential Design Standards DATE: April 1, 1999 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." Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for an addition to an existing residence at 1340 Red Butte Drive for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Volume" standard. The applicant is requesting variances from this standard (described below) in order to allow the proposed design. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." The staff and DRAC reviews are limited only to those portions of the structure that are proposed for alterations (the addition only). Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request, finding that the proposed design does not meet any of the three aforementioned standards. APPLICANT: Dorothy Wildman, represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 1340 Red Butte Drive (Lot 1, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision) is located on the north side of Red Butte Drive (between the street and the Roaring Fork River) across from the intersection of Sage Court. See attached vicinity map, Exhibit B. 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed addition contains violations of the "Volume" standard on its east, south, and north elevations. The portion of the "volume" standard relevant to this project reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi - circular or non - orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the finished floor. Thus, one might describe the area lying between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor as the "no window zone." Sheet A2.0 depicts the existing conditions at the area of the proposed addition, and the existing windows already violate the volume standard. Nevertheless, all new residential additions, irrespective of "nonconforming" status, are required to comply with the provisions of the Residential Design Standards unless varied by an entity with the authority to do so. Sheet A3.1 of the architectural drawings submitted as part of the application (Exhibit A) shows the elevations of the proposed addition. On the east, south, and north elevations, all windows labeled with a D, E, F, G, 11, or J violate the volume standard. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two -to -one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if a variance is not granted, the applicant would have to redesign to comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria. Staffs review of the application relative to said standards is provided below. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; RESPONSE: There is nothing about the subject proposal that would further the goals, standards, or objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, 2 RESPONSE: According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose /intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues /concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Staff believes the proposed design would have little to no impact on the street - facing architectural detailing, human scale, or pedestrian experience associated with the residence, and staff recognizes that the proposed addition will be set back more than ninety (90) feet from Red Butte Drive (see site plan, Exhibit A). However, based on a strict reading of the standard, staff finds that the proposed design does not satisfy the criterion of more effectively providing street - facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. Therefore, while staff feels the proposal is rather "benign," staff finds that this criterion is not satisfied with the proposed design. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. RESPONSE: In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. While existing vegetation and setbacks from the street as well as from the neighboring property would aid in mitigating the impacts of the proposed addition, these are not unusual site specific constraints where reasons of fairness would make the proposed design necessary. In summary, staff recognizes that the proposed addition is relatively modest in scale and benign in impact. Staff further recognizes that the subject location is not within one of the historic, traditional neighborhoods of Aspen or on a grid street system. Nevertheless, since the proposed design does not, in staff's opinion, meet the strict standards of any of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC deny the variance requests, and direct the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the "volume" standard. This recommendation is based on the finding that the project, as proposed, does not satisfy any of the three criteria by which a variance can be granted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the variance requests, directing the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the `volume' standard." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package Exhibit `B" - Vicinity Map 3 EXilier - a II \ \ C AI C f7 �j CITY ,co � � a � ",...T SITE ° ~� 'Qi o d er C./ ® C \ i ma „ i / -. ■ i �t? ate _ E � ' r-- T i ti j 1 1 / . 1 1 r sj fH _ 1 , -P l y� l V' � t /c MEMORANDUM CO %, ) �, "0 c,a6l X999 TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director c Fy uiy�i FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner (4 5- RE: 1340 Red Butte Drive (Wildman) Stream Margin Review Exemption. Parcel I.D. No. 2735- 013 - 03010. DATE: March 24, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Stream Margin Review exemption to make an addition to the westerly side of an existing residence. The addition would not be on the side of the structure adjacent to the river (the addition would be on the westerly side of the building and the river is on the northerly side). The building is a detached single - family residence. Community Development staff recommends approval of the requested stream margin review exemption for the Wildman Addition at 1340 Red Butte Drive (Lot 1, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision). APPLICANT: Dorothy Wildman, represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: 1340 Red Butte Drive (Lot 1, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision) is located on the north side of Red Butte Drive (between the street and the Roaring Fork River) across from the intersection of Sage Court.. ZONING: R -30, Low - Density Residential CURRENT LAND USE: Single - family residential, free market. STAFF COMMENTS: Because development is proposed on a lot abutting the Roaring Fork River, the proposal is subject to stream margin review. Ordinance 38 of 1996 amended the stream margin review provisions of the Municipal Code (codified as Section 26.68.040(C)) to include an exemption for "expansion, remodeling, or reconstruction of an existing development ... if the following standards are met." As 1340 Red Butte Drive is a privately - owned, existing development, and the proposed addition is of such minimal magnitude, Community Development staff finds that the proposal would be eligible for an exemption, provided the following five (5) standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent; and RESPONSE: The proposal would not add more than ten (10) percent to the existing floor area, nor would it increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations. The existing FAR on the site is 4,174 square feet, and the proposal would add another 252.7 square feet (an increase of 6 %). There would be no increase (0 %) in areas exempt from FAR calculations. 1 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450. RESPONSE: The proposed development would not require the removal of any trees for which a permit would be required. See attached letter from Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director. 3. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development; and RESPONSE: The proposed development would be located along the side of an existing single - family residence, and would be further from the high water line than is the majority of the existing building. 4. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has been designated through a prior review; and RESPONSE: There is no designated building envelope; therefore, this standard is not applicable. Nonetheless, the proposed development falls within and would comply with all setback requirements associated with the property. 5. The development is located outside of the special flood area and more than one hundred (100) feet measured horizontally from the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the special flood hazard area. RESPONSE: The development will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the special flood hazard area. Moreover, the proposed development would be located outside of the special flood area and is at least 139 feet from the closest point of the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested stream margin review exemption for the Wildman Addition at 1340 Red Butte Drive (Lot 1, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision). APPROVED BY: r 1 Juli/ 'Woods, C C unity Development Director ATTACHMENTS: • Submitted application packet 2 LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: [/U I L PstlA1s1 Apr7111 Location: (3419 }2? &vtwF. DR1Ve; MirI ) 43W01 2, tzw P,urrE 5oroivisIoN (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: Aple.Uf.{`r (V( LDMA!') Address: 1J4 RED au rrE D W v E, ,696T14 co 0/4011 Phone #: 920- .eit-2.-7 REPRESENTATIVE: l p) M/ taps COff rives Name: CHAtztaas caulk; // PE Agatt as Address: (fO . eirMAN f Appv CO. Alba Phone #: a2s- 9 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split . ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) T 1S (S A) a(S 4 o Sc r S /Nb&c PstM/ y RPs �Dt�6GE w /w a�rjg3 ©N TttE p.AsT gliC - EN eve vRfoN 8TW. q-n P PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Wi moPfsF 1a ADD A 252.7 5 641F-T. Dkjp/Rsr RM. 17 US€s The sgME WINOow CANt16V$Mlo'i PA CON TIIdnmN6 WF PXISTIN& ROOF LINE ours 71fe dbar Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ❑ Pre- Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application MEMORANDUM C■ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 610 E. HYMAN, ASPEN, CO 81611 CA 970/925 -5590 970/925 -5076 FAX ARCHITECTURE PUNNING INTERIORS TO: FROM: Jennifer Cohen DATE: March 18, 1999 PROJECT: Wildman Addition JOB NO.: 9861 REGARDING: FAR calculations NOTES: SLOPE REDUCTION Site square footage = 33,040.0 sq. ft. square footage below high water line 2,820.00 so. ft. 30,220.0 sq. ft. ALLOWABLE FAR PER ASPEN LAND USE CODE Fora lot size of 30,584.5 sq. ft. a base minimum = 4,500.00 sq. ft. PLUS 6 sq. ft. /ea. 100 sq. ft. of lot area over 15,000. = 30,220.0 - 15,000.00 15,220.0 / 100 = 152.2X6= 913.2 sa. ft. 5,413.2 sq.ff. total FAR FAR Garage Main Level Square footage = 594.00 sq. ft. 1st 250 not applied to FAR 2nd 250 X1 /2 = 125.00 sq. ft. over 500 = full = 94.00 sa. ft. Total: 219.00 so. ft. Lower Level 780.00 sq. ft.* Main & Upper Levels 3,175.00 sq. ft. Garage 219.00 sa. ft. Total Existing: 4,174.00 sq. ft.** Proposed Addition: 252.7 SCI. ft. Total: 4,426.7 sq. ft. * Not applied to FAR ** The maximum allowable FAR is 5,413.2 sq. ft.. 6 4 ATTACHMENT 5 Exemption Stream Margin Review 1 The existing square footage is 4,174.0 0 sq. ft.. The proposed addition is tt., which is less than 10 %. This also does not increase the areas that are exempt t from floor area calculations. are 2 Tree Permit — See Attached of the proposed addition will be built closer the the high water line 3. None original structure the orig ture already is. envelope. 4 The addition does not fall outside the approved building ecial flood ater area ae of at least 1 Fork 5. The addition is located ntof the mean hig feet from the closest point r ej THE CITY OF ASPEN March 18, 1999 RE: 1340 Red Butte Drive Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cunniffe Architects and I did a site visit today to 1340 Red Butte Drive to do a tree inspection. All Aspen trees to be impacted by the development are under code and no tree permit is needed. fi> / a , c Rebecca Schickli Assistant Parks Director e 'at „429 r L. firait... ,„L VA 151Park 11, 4 0 5. .-, 1 e7UTS 17f • I. e• 1 9 4 _---„ , .9, ..... s 7 _ 7. etvr, - -..:: 2 4 - - - -, z ..— VA, ae) , -44 , *-4 •---- 09 AA 0 .., % \ lia 'ale i a . s? kep-, % , .... ' j ae41: -, c> 1 >s 4 , a ... Mountain View Dr e tits. — _ f.,.. 4. , :: , 4 0 , ,, /4... .........., , re 0 >--ci 4, •••• tr% --, 0 4 / ''' Aid , e Rd Snow 0 %-r o• . s --71--- nj tile i va c i t ic , - ..', oe t 7 . SrloW Ct CW, sr 5...... ----„,,, Aspen .... r .4 0 0 co " — ''., Lla Institute - . co „,.<. to al lo >,.. /I 4 ; 4 •;;; i :. 0 rci Music r• - ia a c • 'x' c ., e Tent • .,- • Wood DUCk Ln - IR \ -I $ x Gfilespital % 1 4. ' i . . 5 i °Si CI". r$CL CI:Cilk! a.q11?:Afetbiirie1:11":$,C:rtlj.2ratint:::::;H:C""'StnThlSvz:a:::Pe::;7;1:t1::Ctfs:..t: 0 • :z:sr.N.t4e:ijvl:::77r1::1p_fmfi;::ttc;.clsttir: ;.: a.... 4 . P a' 4" -. , „ • ...... c e 44 .., tal co ,...." : i --. i -I 1 S i 4%. ''''",,,,,, < ; ---: 1 e ./...,...,,„. .., : iffe . --,4,,, , aS\ ',el 7 ri k -43 -•-.- __v.', , ;,...,, , , r., ....7. ...,- it Nr.. :,.- , :f•t, co Cl Z 82 0 -4 I e Ss ? c- '44„ IA*, , s /--.._ 13 -,....„ , p.., ? .... "In Na., -••• - ...s/^'S \N '" <4 <es .. ^4 if I 01 ° i C i lk \ ;t 13 SPI .... ‘I“ e / . ti e ,, b.. ? f.- ro• : 4 ThIP : , „„..,,, . s p. ; ...?-44, A - , . .so 4 --44,44„co , CO, _ "'"' :• , rose Path.; 4 , t: Cfr4 ' 61 : z , t k ,./ I Asnen ATTACHMENT 3 Minimum Submission Contents 1. See Attached 2. 1340 Red Butte Drive Lot 1, Block 2 Red Butte Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. 3. See Attached 4. See Attached 5. See Attached DOROTHY S. WILDMAN S "4h1 ors—At- `(..c2. Y k z �s ' vv�. cg_ANA a_1/2-casiN cc-Pe-4)27c \\-is civaga 4 - sr " e CpQtb\ .� . L �. S i tO \k C. G CO Ribti {X72;- 5ti1.77 s ' =EMIT OF SETTLEMENT Buyer' Property Address: 1340 RFD BUTTE DRIVE ASPEN, CD 81611 Seller: ALAN R. RYPINSXI, TRUSTEE Purchaser: DCRYTHY S. W UHAN, , b Settlement Date: 03/14/97 Date of Proration: 03/14/97 Legal Description: 101' 1, BLOCK 2, RED BUIZE SUBDTVISICN File 140: PCT11446Cl2 Description Debit Credit Attract Sales Prioe 2,900,000.00 SEWER 1/1 -3/31 $72.83 Deposit or earnest money 14.58 100,000.00 CURRENT 'MOM 01/01/97 to 03/14/97 990.10 Settlement Fee to PIT7W4 QTY TITLE, pc. 150.00 DELETE PREPRINTED EXCEFTICNS MX CERTIFICATE 20.00 EXPRESS CHARGE Recording Fees 11.00 State Tax /Stamps 290.00 ASPEN TRANSFER TAX - yETT 14,500.00 ASPEN TRANSFER TAX - BRETT 28,000.00 REPAIRS - ESCRCW RECORD TRUST AFFIAAVIT 6.00 S ub - mss 2,942,991.58 100,940.10 Balance due from Buyer 2,842,051.48 TO ILS 2,942,991.58 2,942,991.58 APPROVED and Afl wj .,D �.. u 9 ,` 3 A.,....., �.Q� Broker ' , PRO'," S. o, TT�+'!EE By; � %�? ._ Vii -_ -;.± Cf ..SDI il , t U1 � ; i ' P 0 ITKIN COUNTY TITLE, 4 • r OClu•w WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 14 day of MARCH 1997, between ALAN F. RYPINSKI, TRUSTEE FOR THE RYPINSKI FAMILY TRUST p OFF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE , STATE OF CA DECLARATION OP TRUST OF DOROTHY S. WILDMAN DATED AUGUST 5, 1991 whose legal address is : 701 9. MONARCH, ASPEN, CO, 41611 CITY OF ASPEN, COMITY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO wtTNEEeETN, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of Which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real p"rOlArty together with i4r` vedente, if any, situate and lying and being in the Town of ASPEN, County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described e� as follows: Q * t~I LOT 1, SLACK 9, RED BUTTS SUBDIVISION 1 14 i of ! R 11,40 0 II16.0S N 0.6$ f:TK:N COUNTY CLIO Cul tt q ®644 il D RRTION REEIVi013 /1411191 TOOETEER with all and singular the hereditament: and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditament: and appurtenances. To HAVE AND TO MOLD the said premises above bargained and deserl»sd,,_ with-t4ISst paewnanoes; unto She• 1ratit4e, tt1 It$1W ind ass forever. And the Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns. does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, its heirs and assigns, that at the time of the *nestling delivery of the presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good. sure, perfect, -_ - ._�__ in i.w, in *.s nimele. Warr A CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 610 E. HYMAN, ASPEN, CO 81611 CA 970/925 -5590 970/920 -4557 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS DRAC Committee City of Aspen March 18, 1999 Wildman Addition We are asking a for a variance to the Ordanance 30 code that relates to windows being between 9' - 12'. As you can see from the existing drawings, the windows we are proposing are an existing condition. The following items are reasons that we feel this design solution is appropriate. 1. We are keeping the original intent of the design by keeping the same roof line and window configuration. This house has many different roof lines which give it it's character, we are extending a portion of this roof to keep the uniqueness of the original design. 2. We are keeping the original layout of the windows by moving the same design forward and then finishing off the design. 3. The proposed elevation is not part of the front facade and will not be seen from the street. — "gm FROM IINiS IN SPACE-- 19709033852 03 -18 -99 11:14AM TO 920 P.2 e S' 3 -11 a 3 O' � rr 1 O O S.O y�e `` -- Lok M Stock z o- Scale:4 $-►o ° - .o c m o‘frpickam 9% 1-5 '/�/ ' � 4, r x � • r � t( y ■o LY0.NNP. NW ii m 0 : L E I t5.9 • n "' K'� - Le.! ; 2 '04 sr.cir 11( Q • \ 1,a N rl r t1 ` ;D D -11s - 3..a.G Zec�,�F3c.j4 bY[ve • _ i.,1.A.Lc_o.te 9 50uatJ re nsr- E CO f 3 O i+cdi s.-L P..o. L.,.. mar..lSecyl c .s -1 wil l Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2 Red Butte Subdivision, CiLy uf Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on April 15, 1988 a survey was conducted by me and under my direct supervision of the above described parcel of land. All easements, encroach- ments and rights - of - way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and cor to the b st of niy knowledge and belief. BY: 4 -- c_o-r.1/4--- Syd¥ -y 1 cicome P.L.S. 11111 Street Address: 1340 Red Butte Drive Aspen, Colorado 2 - 14111 ft" r : • ,� • .� ■• 'ev •, ae _ a 1 SYDNEY. axicovirefr . ono '' vise- 7 19 13q. 2.5