Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.155 Lone Pine Rd.0129.2016 (2).ARBK • • PARCELIDj7::, (I�;. ;'•DATEW Vc J'I .C5 #cop :1`---: :,cASENon�i)1->r'1 CASE•NAME:'R'rcr 3...i`To.. h:?::;t5 V+Z.-C„=:;r•N PLNR:(Mitch 1-n,:5 •PRO..'A'DDR:tic !_;a P.lo!Roza • CABE.TYP:IDR.�C R. STEPS' � • OV1Nf4iPp:�-Rivcr 131:r`f''cwn''� APR 1'35 Lr'^r:Poe Rose • ,CM/4:' Aspon.CC8'SI' - PFIN: REP:�Yo,-y Cho A-cri.:cc!S::.a'r? ADR: 1•110 r-nnt St. Srr: 6 CISIZ: Donver.CO 16C2C3 'PHNIr 031 839-F: 9- F ES'bt9E'a4-o+ ; FE SRCyD. 4L • w •' 'STAT:" . . . . •i MTG-DATE +" REV BODY_:pH' • ''''NOTxEtr . • • '. . , ' • . t l; DAT�e..OP FINAL;ACC IQN gg ;REMARKS •.col!ct'.I':: 3"s.sts•••`8.:�:v.^. a+o:.•-ers .CI'rY•COUNCIL: :. 1. .,BOA: CLOSED: 4 g pY Saran Oa;S_;; - • ,, • :, . ,. ., 4-7,'• +, 1.,'; DR/kC': a opr'ovc:: ,P.LA,7•SUBIVILT1'4: • 'PLAT'(BKJPG�' a, AbMCN:� AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE January 7, 1999 4:00 p.m. Thursday Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall I. Roll Call II. MINUTES III. Comments (Committee,Staff and Public) IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. New Business A. River Bluff Townhouse Condominium, 155 Lone Pine Road, Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 - Volume Standard - windows between 9 and 15 feet above the finished floor. VI. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner/Interim Deputy Director RE: River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums (155 Lone Pine Road, Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12) request for Variances from the "Volume" provision (Section 26.58.040(F)(12))of the Residential Design Standards DATE: January 7, 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 to remodel units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staff's review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicants are requesting a variance from this standard (which is described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. The proposed design is provided in the attached Exhibit A, where Sheet A-3.0 highlights the noncomplying windows. Pursuant to Section 26.22.0 10 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 approval of variances, from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it would apply to the proposed remodel of Units 2,3, 4, 5, 7,9, 10, 11,and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums. APPLICANT: The applying owners include Roger Carl Schultz (Unit 2), Roberta Allen (Unit 3), Frances Ginsburg (Unit 4), Jerome Ginsberg (Unit 5), Joseph Starn (Unit 7), John F. Guiltinan (Unit 9), Mark Richmond and Sam'Shamie (Unit 10), Glenn A. Daly (Unit 11), and Alexander G. Kaspar (Unit 12), all of whom are being represented by Yong Cho, architect, of Studio Completiva, Inc. Note that the above provided list of applicants includes the owners of nine (9) of the twelve (12) condominium units(75% of the owners), and Section 26.52.040, Initiation of a Development Application, of the Aspen Municipal Code states that "A development application may be initiated by over fifty (50)percent of the owners of real property of a proposed development." Therefore, under the rules governing the City, the applicant is authorized to initiate this development application irrespective of the private agreements entered into by the homeowners under their Condominium Declarations. LOCATION: The River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums (a/k/a Lone Pine Condominiums) are located at 155 Lone Pine Road (described as Lot 2, Lone Pine Subdivision), which is situated north of Gibson Avenue, east of Red Mountain Road, south of Lone Pine Road, and west of the Mocklin Subdivision. The property is zoned R/MFA, Residential Multi-Family. FAR(Floor : Area Ratio): It has been confirmed by the City Zoning Officer that, under the current codes, the River Bluff Townhouses have 2,725.8 square feet of available/unused floor area remaining. With twelve (12) units, this breaks down to approximately 227 square feet of available FAR per unit, assuming the remaining FAR is to be evenly distributed. The proposed remodel would add a total of 114 square feet of floor area to each included unit. With nine (9) units included in the application, the remodel would use 1,026 square feet (9 x 114) of the site's total remaining FAR, leaving 1,699.8 square feet of unused FAR for the site, or 227 square feet of unused FAR for each of the four (4) units not included in this application and 113 square feet of unused FAR for each of the nine (9) units that are included. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains a series of south elevation window groupings (one grouping per unit on Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12) where said windows would violate the "Volume" standard(please refer to Exhibit A, Sheet A-3.0). The "volume" standard 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, as it relates to the subject case, 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 finished floor height of the particular room, and no non-orthogonal windows in 2 • any areas that lie between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the finished floor. As Sheet 3.0 of Exhibit A indicates, the proposed design would result in each of the aforementioned units containing approximately 13.5 square feet ((9 x 3) _ 2) of triangular-shaped glazing in areas between 9' and 11'10" above the finished floor height of the second story. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicants are left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicants 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 remodels such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicants could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties (not enough remaining FAR per unit to make this a viable option) or redesign the proposed remodels, the applicants have chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memorandum). 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. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variances are to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. 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. The site is presently developed and has been occupied for a considerable amount of time. Given that the units have been occupied since at least the early 1980s and have proven to be adequately livable, it would be difficult to make the case that there are site specific constraints where the only fair way to develop the site would be with a variance from the Residential Design Standards. The noncomplying windows appear to be included for decorative reasons, and for purposes of maximizing views from and sunlight into the master bedroom suites. Also, the existing roofs above the master bedrooms suites shed snow directly onto the balconies of the suites, and the 3 proposed remodel would eliminate these balconies and redirect snow from the roofs to the sides of the units. Notwithstanding the reasoning behind the proposed design, staff maintains that there are no site specific constraints that make these windows necessary. With regard to effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions, staff feels the requested variance could be justified on these grounds. The south elevations (subject of the application) face Gibson Avenue, which has a sidewalk on its north side. This sidewalk sits roughly 10-15 feet lower in elevation than the base of the River Bluff Townhouses. Nevertheless, staff feels that the proposed remodel would add some architectural relief to the currently somewhat unbroken verticality by injecting new roof angles and glazing, thereby potentially enhancing the walking experience. Since the proposed windows of the townhouses would be set some 25-35 feet higher than the sidewalks, staff feels that whatever human-scale already exists on the facade would not be adversely affected. Cross gables with glazing in the south-facing gable ends are consistent with local building traditions. Moreover, the proposal could easily be made to comply with the volume standard if the glazing in the gable ends would stop at nine feet above the floor height; however,staff is of the opinion that this would result in a less successful overall design. Based on this consideration and those explained in the preceding paragraph, staff feels the design of the proposed remodel, with the noncomplying windows, should be approved since it more effectively addresses the issue the volume standard responds to. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve variances from Section 26.58,040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for the proposed noncomplying windows on the south elevations of Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These variances should be granted based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve variances from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it would apply to the proposed remodel of Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These approvals are based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit"A" - Submitted application package c:lhomelmitchhthpc&drac\rivbluff.doc 4 DESIGN REVIEW AY ,SEALS COMMISSION January 7, 1999 COMMISSIONER,STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 CONFLICT OF INTEREST • 1 RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS,155 LONE PINE ROAD,UNITS#2,3,4,S,7,9,10, 11 AND 12-VOLUME STANDARD-WINDOWS 1 MAR 5 4 1999 ,v�r�sv s rt s r�aaV COMMUNITY DZNELOPMEN i 4 DESIGN REVIEW s WEALS COMMISSION January 7, 1999 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. with members Bob Blaich, Gilbert Sanchez, Roger` Moyer and Tim Mooney present. Mary Hirsch was excused. Staff members present were Mitch Haas, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich stated there was a list of DRAC projects and City Council and Community Development were working on the revisions for Ordinance 30. Roger Moyer said the new Community Banks Building street facing wall was only concrete block, not very inspiring architecture, which received comments from the public. He asked for clarification on the approval including brick on street facing • walls. Blaich noted the P&Z approval seemed to include brick. Steve Buettow stated that Cap's was all concrete block. Mitch Haas said there were different proposals with different banks, he'll look into the proposal. Buettow asked for DRAC meetings to begin at 5:00 p.m. The members agreed. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, 155 LONE PINE ROADJUNITS #2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 —VOLUME STANDARD - WINDOWS Mitch Haas, staff, stated the request was to pop-out the roof, gable and enclose the balcony. The floor height was really about 6' to 7' instead of a 9' difference because of the roof stepping down. He said the staff felt the design as proposed would read as less than nine feet since it would be viewed from below, a very steep hill. Haas noted if the variance requests were not approved, then maybe something other than glazing would be used. The existing balconies filled with snow from the current roof design sloughing or shedding the snow; this design would shed snow to the side and was south facing providing more light. The balcony would no longer exist but become part of the master bedroom floor area. 1 DESIGN REVIEW A EALS COMMISSION January 7, 1999 Haas stated the original intent of the glazing standard was to preclude the grandiose areas of glazing. This glazing did not extend from the first to the second story of living space. Gilbert Sanchez questioned the geometry of the gable form because there were other ways to increase the height and windows. Yong, architect, replied that from the ideas a more traditional era was being brought out to break up the exterior of the facade. He said the overall height of the glazing, through the triangle, was less than 9 feet. Yong noted the intent of the ordinance was met. .. John Ginn, public, stated he was the developer of the project as well as a neighbor and resident. He said they were not notified in time to get in on this meeting and probably wanted to be on the next one. Some of the owners have proposed a different cover over the balcony. Ginn provided photos with drawings on them; he respectfully requested the meeting be tabled so other owners could study the plans and be part of this application. Haas noted the other homeowners were too late to be part of this application. Ginn said the west wall would block the view of one of the units. Jerry Ginsberg stated the issue that Mr. Ginn spoke about was an internal homeowners association issue and not an ordinance 30 issue. Haas stated there couldn't be glazing over 9' above the floor, Tim Mooney noted that if the other unit did not do the remodel then the view would be blocked, but that was an internal issue not a variance concern. Sanchez stated the real purpose of the ordinance 30 issue was the relationship to context. This building has it's own context,not in a neighborhood. He supported the notion of the windows but found the architecture problematic. He felt that the gables diminish from the integrity of the architecture and therefore he could not support the variance request. Buettow agreed the Victorian element did not fit the modem style of the building. Yong said there could be a more modem approach by using different expressions of details. Buettow noted a volumetric model or other line drawings would have helped the board members understand the architecture. Roger Moyer stated this was a window/glass issue and not a design issue. Sanchez stated these were design issues. Blaich noted from prior meetings, that these discussions had helped applicants re-design better projects. 2 DESIGN REVIEW . _'PEALS COMMISSION January 7, 1999 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the variance from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it applies to the proposed remodel of Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,`11 and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These approvals are based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem given standard or provision responds to. Roger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Mooney,yes; Sanchez, no; Moyer,yes; Blaich,yes; Buettow,yes. APPROVED 4-1. Haas noted that next month the other 3 units would be coming before this commission for the same request. Blaich asked why they had to go through the process again instead of a staff sign-off. Haas noted the city attorney would have to approve this process. MOTION: Tim Mooney recommended the Community Development director treat the future application of the next three units of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums as an incidental sign-off knowing the circumstances are exactly the same as to what was approved by DRAC on January 7, 1999. Roger Moyer second. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned. ekie Lothian, eputy City Clerk 3 John C. Ginn River Bluff Townhome #6 CIO Interwest Realty 710 East Durant Ave Aspen Colorado 81611 December 29, 1998 Mr. Mitchell Haas City Planning Aspen Co Dear Mitch, As you requested in our telephone call recently, I am enclosing documents and letters from Mr. Leonard Oates, Esq., regarding the issue of bedroom expansions at River Bluff Townhomes. As shown in the enclosed information, several of us take the position that the use of General Common Elements by one or more, but less than all of the homeowners for their own personal use requires the unanimous approval of all the homeowners. In the 1988 expansions approved by the City, all the homeowners agreed to the use of Limited Common Elements appurtenant to each owner's unit for the purpose of expanding the living rooms and master bedrooms. As the drafter of the Condominium Declaration and the project developer, I can emphatically state that it was not our purpose or intention to allow a majority of homeowners to take any General Common Elements for the personal benefit of less than all the owners. The group now claiming they can take General Common Elements to expand their bedrooms without the unanimous approval of all the owners is incorrect in their interpretation of the paragraph they are using to make that claim. Several letters from Mr. Oates address that issue and a settlement with Mr. Ginsberg in 1989 reflect his acknowledgement of that fact. The Declaration describes the method of ownership as being that of tenants in common of the Common Elements. Specifically included in the General Common Elements are the roofs of all the buildings. Any expansion plan that would allow an incursion into the roof or roof structure to make a General Common Element part of that owners unit will need 100% approval from all the tenants in common. As presented in previous requests by this group, their plan will significantly affect the view plane from, and snow slides onto the patios of the neighboring units. In 1988 we were particularly careful to minimize that possibility with the plan approved under ordinance 31, and we would like to suggest that the integrity of that process be considered. We believe the applicants can expand their bedrooms as we did. The Association has accomplished other improvements over the years based on majority votes. Installation of garage doors, a new jacuzzi area, removal of a pond, and extensive landscaping come to mind. All owners benefited from those improvements. There is a clear distinction here because some neighbors will be negatively affected if the bedroom expansions are allowed to take General Common Elements for their own use. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John C. Ginn RECEIVED DEC 241998 River Bluff Townhome Association C/O Arleen Ginn f CM!i xiPTYDEVELO'MENT Interwest Realty 710 E. Durant Ave. Aspen CO 81611 12/19/98 Mr. Mitchell Haas Community Development City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Mitch, In response to your telephone call to me last week, The River Bluff Townhome Association has not approved the suggested bedroom addition recently submitted to the City by Jerome Ginsberg, one of our owners. Mr. Ginsberg represents that owners of seven units consisting of eight people are soliciting approval for a plan to expand their bedrooms in a form different from that approved for our association under City Ordinance 30 of 1991. The association will follow previous procedure for issues of this type. In order to make an informed decision we will require fully dimensioned drawings, a list of suggested materials and sprcifications, and accurate representations currently not available to our members. The association is planning to address this proposed idea in a special meeting of the owners to be called for January 16,1999. Similar proposals have been advanced to the members in the past and for various reasons have been rejected. This new plan will receive our prompt attention at that meeting and we will communicate the results of that meeting to you shortly afterward. Sincerely, )14 .1‘D A een K Ginn President RECEIVED r NOV ? 3 1998 rEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MASTER BEDROOM EXPANSIONS OF SELECTED UNITS AT RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS November 19, 1998 Submitted by Studio Completiva.Inc. 1410 Grant Street Suite B 303 Denver, CO 80203 SCOPE OF WORK Selected unit owners at River Bluff Townhouse Condo wish to expand there second floor master bedroom which faces south towards Aspen Mountain. Plan: Essentially,the existing master bedroom balcony becomes part of the bedroom. The bedroom expansion to the south is defined by the south edge of the existing balcony and the west wall(see attached drawings). There are minor modifications to the interior layout that include relocation of the master closet and addition of a fireplace(gas appliance). Total square footage added is 114 sf. Elevation: All existing elevations remain as is except for the second floor, south elevation. A dormer will be added to the existing sloping roof as shown in drawing A3.0 and All. 00.1IN PIN RESPONSES TO ATTACHMENT 2 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. 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 PROOF OF OWNERSHIP SECTION 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. Expansions to bedrooms at selected units are to occur at Lone Pine Condominiums. The address for the River Bluff Townhome Association is: 305 South Galena Street, Suite A, Aspen, Colorado 81611. For individual unit owner `s address and legal description see attached improvement survey and disclosure of ownership. 3. Disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to oceur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgements,liens, easements,contracts and agreements affecting the parcel,and demonstrating the owners'right to apply for the development review. SEE ATTACHED 4. An 8 Y2'x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. SEE ATTACHED ram', RESPONSES TO ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' TO BE SUBMITTED 2. Site Plan SEE ATTACHED SURVEY 3. All building elevations,roof and floor plans at 1/8"=1'-0" SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS UNDER SCOPE OF WORK: Typical unit's 2"a floor plans, elevations (south and east) and roof plan. 4. A graphic verification that the project meets or does not meet the"Primary Mass"standard. Information not submitted per direction of officer at Community Development. 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. TO BE 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 FOLLOWING PAGE The applicant seeks a variance from an ordinance that pertains to window placements. The current design for the glazing at the dormer does not meet the following: 4. 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 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. The current glazing design at second floor bedroom includes facade penetration between 9 and 12 feet. (shaded area on the south elevation drawing) We believe a variance should be granted based on following considerations 1. The window design meets the general intention of the ordinance: The said ordinance regarding glazing placement was adopted to deter overuse of glazing that resulted in aluminum curtains walls/glass structural walls spanning several floors with uninterrupted glazing. Such design detracted from the overall sense of community, place and identifying, aesthetical characteristics of Aspen. Though the design may not meet the ordinance to the letter,we believe it establishes and maintains a building facade that has a sense of scale,materiality and characteristics that are consistent with the intention of the ordinance and the aesthetics concerns of Aspen. 2. Facade below the glazing: The glazing does not immediately start from the floor plate of the second level. A low wall approximately 2'-11"tall serves as a base for the window areas,thus,minimizing overall glazing sf. If the low wall above the floor plate is subtracted from the height of the glazing, the height of glazing is under 9'-0". 3. Building Location: The condominium complex is not close to other buildings. The complex is hidden,private and well screened from the public and neighbors. The complex is nearly surrounded by roads and landscaping making the units difficult to see from the street or adjacent buildings. Change in glazing will not have a large impact on the immediate area or to the public. Lycos Road Maps .http://roadmaps.lycos.com:90/cgi-bin/mgcustomconnec LYC ,', .7 .. , � - �..�._.. _ Help Your Personal Internet Guide back oft a i \Lo na Distance bn.ly C a minute. _ Click-here and sign up now or A &1 One Rater)D me. NAAPS PRINT ' pc% ` S "` olasimp 1 oom 300ft • No ., .a� f*.` St ft04 . LI, pia ms=t , kalfa �� • r,t a 4;r�� �0 . yy,l ',, v, Sleeker g "P ,r " llr ‘9,' H //it,... �leeke Fit p 198a GeoSysterns GbtralCorp;41895 NavTecr .„ Return To Map Custom Search . TopNews.TOP 5%. City Guide. StockFind PeopleFind.Companies Online .Road Maps. Software .About Lycos. Neil Add Your Site to Lycos .Advertise with Lycos. Jobs4You .GTE Yellow Pages. New2Net Lycos Germany. Lycos Sweden. Lycos UK Co ri ht©1997 Lycos,lnc. ights Reserved. Lycos®is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University Questions&Comments Terms and conditions 1 of 1 11/18/98 1:54 PM SEP-10-199S 13=57 FROM ASPEN/PITK It' COM DES TO 9-13038399998—o90 'P.04 7/46*N- utf.)1Tit • ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM •1. Project name oo 4 &KPAN5toN Q BtuFF le2WNKONSE C.oNDo 2. Project location 155 fir==PINIE„_R.Q9_Q Li-t it 2. C z2 • R : SurzVg( fog. +-!GM- 4' 54R.tPTIC14 (indictee street address. :ot and biocx number or metes and bounds description) 1� RV e't r 3. Present zoning XM F A 4. Lot size pttcoF Of oyv r4 Ec N l P 3_ Applicant's name. address and phone number RD GEC,. (-RILL So{t4L T1. fSS Lao- prrla (taA.DNrT Z ASN, co at(olt Tai. % 3ro 37g•Sb4Z 8. Representative's Warne,.address, and phone number /oni(a Gi-+O, (1Rr r-t r-r T �TuD10 GoMAL,.rl/A�..m t � (CANT,,ST, u rE g.�Q,, DEl•IVE�T Q_ $_Q zo 3 TEL.: 303 • 831 . 919 • 7. Type of application (check all ttlat appiy): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greerrtine Canwptuai PUD Minor HPC • Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. � -Hstoric Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condomintum¢ation Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee • Adjustment • 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing sductwes, approximate sq. ft_ number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the prop y7 ►c_ u u��T 5 p xtMA-rEL.`' ►, Sao SF THEQ..E /.P.,E i' urrlT5 AT RlVa9-- ©LJFF To IA)rd}.rouSE CompoMW%t(v1S THE vtiF- FaP- TILE v•NITS LS RESlDEWri_A1- • ER GA aNr 3,01 „L4,1 &ACK I"NkT kiNS 3 BD AND 3 akTHRoovU Qp�Eviet.+b APp?-OvA1, FoR• i.I\AMC. (iceni WAS C(F•ANTE9 IN lc)11 9. Description of development application _ EXPAuSiots of TttE �Ev¢ooM a SEGc o De 12 Ml AD ITI oN A L SF : APjroxrr4AT6L t I 1 O SF _ ..�.�.� 10. Have you completed and attached the following? v Attachment 1- Land use application form v Response to Attachment 2 • V. Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15: 16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 SEP-10-1998 13:57 FROM ASPENip I Tk I N COM DELI TO 9-1 303839 9 998-090 'P.04 lANtT tk 5 ATTACHMENT I LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name BEP_R.00M �XPnri51OM fa R,�vER 6i UFP TowNHo+�sE Gons_vn 2. Project location _ 155 F P1NF ftoAb tout-r # s (uNyr 9_3)• - st>?: sulzvey Fog. -�GAs" v s>r Rc .tF rI (indictee street address. :ot and blacx.number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning _AM P A 4. Lot size o Q W H I P 5_ Applicant's name. address and phone number .. p..0mE Gi►�sE & 'SS 1..crte. PINE. R.aos.D NNIT 44= 5 5 N co It TEL.: 2t2. • b44 •Z22- 6. Representative's name. address. and phone number *tic, GNO, 4R 411TELT 5Tt.IDIC COMP( ,•rrVA, %czo3 TEL.: 1>o$ $2,1 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greer ttirte Conceptual PUD _,•__ Minor HPC Stream Margin , Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision — Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane - Condorniniumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft.. number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the ProPertY) Peck utitT S �p o tMATEI— ' to Soo 5F THEf j uNtT5 AT att. ©Lt4FF To vo t..1 4.1ou•SE CoNyoMwtuµS . T4ti u5E• fc S 1 RESt i;N F CN up1t Arttr C N i.oKJIPtIt4.5 3 HD�-M5 AND 3 2105114RQo APPtz.ovA1. Fo¢ L.1V ike. p..00M WAS G,RANrGfl i N 1911 9. Description of development application_ ExPAN to of THE 5EO vM o 5E.c.o o Data- AND MiRoil, A09tTtoN Ptt. SP APffoXCMAT;i.'i 110 sF 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form ✓ Response to Attachment 2 _Z, Response to Attachment 3 • 09/10/98 15: 16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 per-lea-i ce 13:�7 O!1 ASPEN.'P I TK I N COP/ DEL) TO 9-13038399998-090 :P.04 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name BEQR0W C2( hN5to14 RIVER gt.uPF 'fow^?Noase C.o*JDv 2. Project location _ '55 i.Dk _PINE R.QAb , ? # Z ( Lev D- 5 ? Rt?: SuirVTY sscR•IPTjON (indicate sneer aaar ess. :cam and diocx number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning _ AM FA 4. Lot size Ps ooF o,r owrLa¢ Ns P 5_ Applicant's name. acsdress and phone number .7o 5eP41 51419-1'1 155 1...op4 ptr4 (z,ob� iN1T-4' 7 f„. Asp'aN. co (67 ,r TEL: Q"[o • 25 • /n52 6. Representative's name. address, and phone number /o p4 cHO, ARtAirracr STuPto CO MPL.TR/4,.,.,011C t4.r i RANT, 57t $4iJ� �ao_x . D �azo3 TE.t.: '303�$'MI 7. Type of appiicancn (check ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greeniirte Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Fnal PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Arisen, Historic Landmark GMQS adorn-lent GMQS exemption Cerro/Partial Demo View Plane Condominfumizationy Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Cornrnittee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. it. number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the ProP Y)_ 0.04 ,uto- t 5 ,b,r1244MMATA1.4 �i So0 sF TKO-E. 1 )- LT ' &r Towt4iouSE Co$ oMwlu►-1S Fc - THE u?J tT 5 L3 RES IPENITI-41r • FRGII wi• t-t J HNLT cau'1RtN.5 3 BDt-Ms Amp 3 BhTHRo9v45 vf-eg101.45 App(iCVAL fR L.Iviklp (.poM WAS laii•FirsrTEp tN lopiri 9. Description of development application EX?AK51vN of tHE 8ES77.001-4 . isN SSc-0 0 7�51 DoRMrc12- AND Mi hip R o AM)vri o M plc.- 5F . AP K t i"A_T vl 110 SF 10. Have you completed and attached the following? v Attachment 1- Land use application form ✓ Response to Attachment 2 ✓ Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 2.1:57 FROM ASPENiPI7"KIN COM DEU TO 9-13038399998-090 -P.04 IANtr i ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project game E3E4 &xF'n,�_ yloµ e•P.tV>✓R �4uPF 'TowNNousc01.100 2. Project location _ 155 is Pr NP' 12.c e D j4,a.t-T ( u s lT p �• 1 : 5L Vj• Fop_ &M- D 5c T (indicate street aaci;Tess: :at and block-number or metes and bounds description) R SUUR.Y EY 4 3. Present zoning it4 F A 4. Lot size pg.os Q F. owrig2HI P 5. Applicant's name. address and phone number Jo H N 156 L.00. pink; p.cAD, arN11-rt 9 5 ENS GO llvt TEL. : 1 •b40.9814 8. Representative's name, address. and phone number •t'opl(7 Gt-tQ, AR4Hf TEGT 203 TEL: 36 • $31•WI"- 7. Type of application (check ad that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA __�... Cortcptua1 HPC Spec al Review - Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greentine Conceptual PUD _.�._ Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend, Historic Landmark GIMPS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane • Condominiumization Design Review Lot Spiit/Lot line Appeal Committee - Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals grcuded to the property)_ Rib.cA � 9 f�PWZD X{MAT L`� 1 t Sop 5 F ri�EP E A(�E I y. uNI IT RW 4 ©c.up Towtil ouSE coNgo MiNIuMS . T%t+E uts tT S 14 R>~S IDENTS pt,.. . Ei:3Gfi v+N t'f 't{plat _Fikcii_wwIT i-asiliNst4,5 3 8DT-M_S_ Amp 3 lah-rHR09r15 ? !,EVious APPF-OVAL FOR- I.tVl?i(, (saeM IAS &PANTECP IN I,131 9. Description of development application lrXPAµScoN of me ii5E Goat ot4 SE.co&p P.lr409—f A t .fl___ Apt, MIFiQA t3eDgigptM WXyi?►i'r A991TIQN hPftzoXl_MAT>r1..`i 110 Sf 10. Have you completed and attached ttte following? Attachment 1- Land use application form Response to Attachment 2 • I/ Response to Attachment 3 • 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RA NO.2638 P. 004 � • �r FRGM ASPEN/PITIIIN COM DEU TO 9-13038399998-09@ 'P.04 n • t414'1- '0- 1 0 ATTACHMENT LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name_ BE p et " N 'l N I•NE04,2,, PF 70w14 f n t,csE so,upo 2. Project location J6 �oL t j-r -t ) I _SuEtvgy FoR. &&At. n scP.IPT,�QN _ (indictee street aaaress. :at and block.number or metes aria bounds description) 3. Present zoningAt:IPA 4. Lot size sr . ow_E , 5- Applicant's name. address and phone number eiroc. Rrc.Hwt o NQ (SS p±NE �t,o�.D yN t7 t D AsPN, co E.11D t{ TEt.: 305•6,52•100% 6. Representative's name.-address, and phone number (od(p NO, i RriiTef,T ST1412r0 1pMP(.Erit!/� �t,[G_ L�}-t[� (..RANT S7t�5r{t.� F�?wz bF�IVE (.2 QZo3 TEL: 3a3 • $3 199-4. 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greerrtine Conceptual PUD — Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD _._._ Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS adotinertt GMCS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane • CondominiumizationL/ Design.Review Lot SpiitfLot Line Appeal Committee • Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft.. number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) PcK M E t Sop 5F+ THEP-E.N J uN1T' RIVE- e•Lt.tPf TowN4•IoµSE ColsiVoMlt4laP'tS -T WE 10 Fa 4;- w.1 15 ikEe.APSNS'Z lA • 1G R C4 va-41 agiakw( EhcK,NNtt c. rtA M$ 3 Big-M s Ayp . BPyTHRao{�� '?REvtaus Ai'p(-avAl. Fop• WV yoM WAS (.P.PINYED tN t°Si 9. Description of development application e)LPANStvri aF T-t ta99tovM ON SEc0Mc, LoOltiH w Dot=-ME►Z ANQ AUvt•t•EoN At- SP• • APPRoxtm_Mi.`1 tI. SF 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment I- Land use application form ✓ Response to Attachment 2 ✓ Response to Attachment 3 • 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 ■ SEP-10--1998 13=57 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEL, TO 9-1303$3999es-090 P.04 UNIT Al ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name BEpRoorej &XPAN 'I II Q. ¢1•1E4- $uuFE TowNktouLSE. cc o 2. Project location Supvef fog.. I-6c AL bg 5cft0 'tso (indictee street aadress. :ot and btacicnumber or metes and bounds description) Wag- 5u - E Y. 4- 3. Present zoning tvl F A 4. Lot size pra.aoF a r- o w nt S¢ i I p 3. Applicant's name, address and phone number S A M S HAM(e— iS5 LoMS• PINE P.o1.P1 141%111-141 10 ' ASPEN, co .lCc if TEL: _48-b2(o•6003 6. Representative's Warne.'.address, and phone number Yod ? c140, I- ecT zo 3 TEL: 303. 831. 9411- 7. Type of application (check all that appiy): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Specal Review Final SPA Firrai HPC 8040 Greenfine Conceptual PUD ..,.` Minor HPC Stream Margin Final P110 Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Dema/Partial Demo View Plane Condorniniurnization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee • Adjustment • 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing srzuctures, approximate sq. ft. �number o bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the proP�y) EM. 67Nikoximh-re_ 1� Soo sF THEfrE jap-.E UN ITS lA T R►vela- ou. F 'towNflou.S E comp()MiNlu S lT S 5 RE S 1p E '�l� E A 4 y►t•1 t ZY?lat."( KNIT Lb+1P4INS 3 BD .-MS AND 3 IliNTRitootAl Q4.Edte 4c APPF-OVAL FOP., I.ivtMC. p.DOM wAS ap.Rwist, iN S°18� 9. Description of development application E X?A*151 o is o f THE Si,EQ S. V M O N S S C-0 LL p OiLi P NSW ANp MIK0fL Mo,pIPuA•tlQ To T. TERtc TOEDB.aoIM 1-AYau."j AVv rt oN per SP APP_S-0xI0,9AM-1 110 SF 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1- Land use application form ✓ Response to Attachment 2 . V Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15: 16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 NOV:13-98 19:29 FROM-LANSCC 212-644-, 7-311 P.02/13 F-381 j ammormmo • CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR THE LONE PINE TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS • 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.002 ■ NOV-13-98 19:29 PROM-LANSCO 21.2-844-64 ' T-311 P.03/13 F-36i • t, . 301 .=:_613 • Recorded at 17:ao o'clock A ,M. Ju?y 24, 2980 Reception No. 225323 Loretta 3arxter Recorder • INDEX TO . CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECEIVED FOR THE LONE PINE TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS •�•, Paragraph Beading Pane 1. Definitions 2. Condominium Map _t 3. Division of Property into Condominium Units 4. Rights Reserved to Declarant 5 5. Limited Common Elements 5 6. Jse of Certain Common Elements 7. Inseparability of a Condominium Unit 8. Method of Description 6 9. Separate Assessment and Taxation - Notice to Assessor 6 10 . Ownership - Title n 11. Non--Partitionability of General Common Elements '7 12. The Else of General and Limited Common Elements 7 13. Use and Occupancy a 14 . Easements for Encroachments a 15, Termination of Mechanics' Lien Rights and Indemnification 8 16 . Administration and Management , 8 17. Certificate of Identity 9 18. Reservation for Access 9 19. Reservation of Access for Benefit of Board of governors g 20. Owner's Maintenance Responsibility of Unit, Balconies and Storage Areas 9 21. Compliance with Provisions of Declaration, Sy-Laws of the Association 10 22. Revocatiox . or Amendment to Declaration 10 23. Additions Alt rations and Irnorovements of General an ,im 'te -Common Elements - • 11 Ae 24 . ssesamen or Common Expenses 11 25. Insurance 12 26. Owner's Personal Obligation for Payment of Assessments 13 27. Assessment Lien and Foreclosure 14 2e. Liability for Common Expense Upon Transfer of Condominium Unit is Joint L4 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.003 NOV-13-88 18:30 FROM-1ANSCOA,.,4 Z12-6441 T-311•�y P.05/13 F-381 391 T fl25 consent and agree to such revocation by instrument(s) duly .recorded. This Declaration shall not be amended unless the oweers' representing an aggregate ownership interest of eighty percent (80%) or more of the General Common Elements, and in the event such amendment affects the rights of the holders of security interests in the condominiums, then the holders of all recorded first or second mortgages or deeds of trust covering or affecting any or all Condominium Units, must consent and agree to such amendment by instrument(s) duly recorded; provided, however, that the percentage of the undivided interest in the Common Elements shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the written consent of all of the Unit owners expressed in any amended Declaration duly recorded. 407 e- 53, Additions„ Alterations and Improvements of General and Limited Common__E.ements. There shall be no additions, altera- tions or improvements by the Board of Governors or the Managing Agent of or to the General pr Limited Common Elements requiring an expenditure in excess of One Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,000. 00) in any one calendar year without prior written appro- val of a majority of the owners holding a majority of the interest in the General Common Elements, in writing, or as re- flected in the minutes of a regular or special meeting of the owners] Such limitation shall not be applicable to the re- placement, repair, maintenance or obsolescence of any General or Limited Common Element. An individual Unit owner shall do no alterations, additions, or improvements to the General Common Elements or the Limited Common Elements without the approval in writing of a majority of the owners holding a majority of the interests in the General Common Elements or as reflected in the minutes of a regular or special meeting of the owners. 24. Assessment for Common Expenses. All owners shall be obligated to pay the assessments, either estimated or actual,, imposed by the Board of Governors of the Association to meet the common expenses. The assessments shall be made according to each owner's percentage interest in the General Common Elements as is set forth IA Paragraph 3 above. Except as provided in Para- graph 20 , the Limited Common Elements shall be maintained as General Common Elements, and owners having exclusive use thereof shall not be subject to any special charges or assessments for the repair or maintenance thereof. Assessments for the estimated common expenses shall be made at least semi-annually and shall be due immediately upon receipt. The Managing Agent or Board of Governors shall prepare and deliver or mail to each owner a statement for the estimated or actual common expenses. 24. 1 In the event the ownership of a. Condominium Unit by grant from Declarant commences on a" day other than the first of the month, the assessment for that month shall be pro- rated. 24. 2 The assessments made for common expenses shall be the sum which the Managing Agent, or if there is no Managing Agent, then the Board of Governors of the Association 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.005 ■ NOV-13-98 19r39 FROM-LANSCO 212-644-6 T-311 P.06/13 F-381 1v-1a-96 Oat 31A P _S. INTERIORS 310 378 1262 PLO2 IiOv-10-88 10:82 F10.4-1,AN5CC 212444.8444 T-178 P.07/49 F-248 November 7, 199$ -2- Mr- Jerome a Ginsberg I agree that Ibis requesr far thaw liaaeeawaars wise witib ra impal d their Matter agfirgiiips es iadicatle4 shave MALL - .._._SHALL NOT _ be aeed- Smerely, Rag Se Homes r/ Ltair$2 Jews»D.Ginsberg The .its*Corporation 575 Lasingtaa Avenue Suirx 8.1600 New York,NY non (212)644-2222 a 279(Ted) (212)644-6444 Max) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.006 NOV-13-98 19:31 FROM-LANSCO('N 212-844-8,"4 . T-311 P.OT/13 F-381 November 7, 1998 _2_ r. Mr. Jerome D. Ginsberg I agree that this request for those H eowners who wish to expand their Master Bedrooms as indicated above SHALL SHALL NOT be granted. Sincerely, ArC idlitt ,r , ,. Ar it \ •erome D. Ginsberg . Homeowner I Unit#5 Jerome D. Ginsberg The Lansco Corporation 575 Lexington Avenue Suite#1600 New York,NY 10022 (212) 644-2222 x 279 (Tel) (212)644-6444 (Fax) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.007 • NOV-,13-98 19:31 FROM-LANSCO 212-644-&f T-311 P.08/13 F-381 1 1-07-1998 3:48PM FROM ,.11.-FNI DALY PROD. INC. 970-F925 '144Ewa P. 2 1M00.9?--98 16;09 FROAFLAIISCC 2121444444 ton P O41116 i-!US November 7, 199$ -2- I agree slug slits moms for sbogs towaers who why To mind*air Masser*drowns ss iodieised above SHALL SAA3-L NOT be grease& Sincerely. SUMICY Hciaio nit e7 Jerome D.Ginsberg The Lame CerpliraliAll 575 Llsiogson Avenue Smite*1600 lfew York NY 111022 C2123 644-222 a 276(WI au)6444444 Ins) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.008 NOV-19-9B 14:45 FROM-LANSCO,,01. 212-644-6 T-459 P.01/01 F-532 JEROME D. GINSBERG River Bluff Townhome#5 0155 Lone Pine Road Aspen, CO 81611 November 19, 1998 City Of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen,CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: This letter shall serve as nonce that Mr.Yong Cho, architect for StudioCompletiva, 1410 Grant Street,Denver,Colorado, is hereby authorized to serve as agent and/or representative to work in our behalf with reference to Requirement#1 of Attachment#2, General Submission Requirements. Sincerely, ide . iP/4:1;t0 - ••me D. Ginsberg "' 'ver Bluff Townhomes 11/19/98 12:50 TX/RX NO.2930 P.001 ■ 04-08--1998 02:20PM FROM TO 9252778 P.01 LAW oPFrcE6 OATE , KNEZEVICH & Cr RDENSWART7., PROFE661ONAL GOR RATION TM(RO FLOOR,ASPEN PLA A BUILDING DM EAST HOAKIN$^ C4V[ ASPEN.COLORADO 161f • (;(ONARO M.OATE9 }CLEM,tO'Vr tors 920-1700 RICHARD A.%NAYY•VItte rAD%III/ILE f97O7 SZQ•11Z, 7E0 D,CARUS"N•+..AARTZ Roma:'orhADA)ro{,Issas __.. ,. Vlarch23, 1 8 DAVIO 0.K6L1.7 he COON JOIIN THOVA9 KGr_L7 • • • • Glen Daly • President River Bluff Town Association 300 Piippysmith Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Solicitation of March 6, 1998 regarding Ad loreal FAR Square Footage Available to Homeowners Dear Mr. Daly: John.Ginn has delivered to me the above correspo ce and your solicitation of what puirports to be a vote to somehow authorize the obtaining of approval for master bedroom expansions at River Bluff Townbomcs. As you are aware,t have written the Associ ion on two prior occasions in connection with the position of John and Arleen Ginn,and others as to such expansion. As proposed,the expansion would protrude outside of t e air space of the existing co minium units and therefore take and convert to the use of individual units,land and air space which 'tote general and limited common elements. Pursuant to the Condominium Declaration for River Bluff ownhomes,all ofthe owners of contdoominiurn units within that project are tenants in common as to all o the common elements. As a consequence,one or more,but less than all of the owners may not convert su h property held in tenancy in common to such owner's exclusive use without the consent of all of the owners of units within the project. The Clines and others are unwilling to permit the use of that portion of the common elements which is proposed to be expanded into by the master bedroom extensions and will take whatever legal steps are available to them to block any such encroachment by any individual unit oivner in property which they own an undivided interest to. Vert truly yours, GAITS,KNEsViC H Gc,GARDENSWARTz,P.C. woad M.C aces LMOlame cc: Julie Ann Woods Post-ir Fax Notete 7671 oatee/ilyl iirat ► ito�ld/a 4�/Yv� Fro74624r �1�e.iii, 4 eldwatCrieva!GAQYVo Daly 3-l7-,M wpd Co.JDept/J e. 4 Co. Phone s (/� Phone# Fax# '�� -Fax a 7 � J TOTAL P.01 February 24, 1998 Dear Glen, In cm effort to fully understand the infonnation believe the board and the homeowners will wont to consider regardingArty and Roger's bedroom, I have been carefully sag the files on River Blufffrom the association attorney,from the city and its officials,from the history of 2 previous expansions,from case law in.Colorado, and condominium law in the country. No, I am not an attorney, however it is necessary to be afully injOr ed board member when it comes to matters of monumental consequence, and we all must make properly informed decisions. I do not take my job as board member lightly fully understand the dfculty ofpleasing 12 very successful homeowners, all of whom are used to running their own business. Most wish to simply pay their association aces and trust all is being taken care of on their behalf For those of us who have chosen to be in a decision xmaktg capacity we have a great responsibility. I am enclosing documents Ifeel should be considered in your deliberations because the position clearly discusses the use of the common elements. All of these documents represent hours and hours of work`work and negotiation. There certainly is no need to spend any further association dollars on more attorneys,fees. The documents speak for themselves. I send these to you with the intent of enabling us all to find some peaceable way to proceed with the use of available squarefootage as provided for in the statutes and documents. Over 400 Realtors in the Pitkin County have entrusted me to represent them f for the next 3 years here and with the state of Colorado. I trust you, too, will take me seriously Very truly yours, Arleen K. Ginn February 13, 1998 Dear Neighbor, I do not wish to participate in a meeting called for February 16 without the full knowledge of all homeowners as was agreed upon at a special board meeting on February 9. Item 1. The first meeting was improperly noticed. There were referred to items in the notice of meeting given to the president, but not made available to all board members for consideration. I agreed to proceed with February 9 meeting since we were all gathered and had reserved the time for discussion. Item 2. Reference was made in the notice of meeting of previously consented to Master Bedroom Expansions passed by a majority. I was secretary during the past three years and my meeting minutes of all board meetings as well as the annual meeting do not indicate that this was the case. Item 3. After 21/2 hours of discussion at the February 9 special board meeting, I feel that this is an effort by 2 of the board members to ramrod an unapproved plan through the board. ANY PLAN HISTORICALLY HAS GONE TO THE FULL MEMBERSHIP FOR CONSIDERATION. Item 4. Traditionally the board members are polled to see what is convenient for everyone 's schedule in order to have a board meeting. Neither Frances nor myself were asked to see what times would work for us. I am a full time real estate professional with an extemely busy schedule who is committed to service for the homeowners as well as my community. Item 5. I am aware of at least 5 homeowners who believe as I do. I believe that an informational package of what has taken place in the past, and what may happen in the future should be brought to the full attention of every River Bluff homeowner so they have complete knowledge of what gives their home the highest and best value. Respectfully submitted, Arleen K. Ginn L0/1998 13:41 9709204432 ASBW PAGE 01 Poat4t e"Asici fedfaesseittstmemo 1;0, #0/pm* • Dear Neighbor, • - For the past few years there has been much campaigning and hours of discussion about changing the approved bedroom extension plan (which has already been clone by , • three homeowners during the specified time frame). The plan that we all agreed upon in 1991 was designed to create little or no impact on those not choosing to participate ‘1:.' • , • in the expansion. It is in keeping with the existing architecture of the buildings, can be completed in only two weeks time, and does not interfere with the views or privacy of the adjacent neighbors'. Unfortunately, this is not true of the plan that Jerry Ginsberg and Roger Schultz wish to use for their own units. Although no final design has even been presented to the' homeowners, it seems that several people have signed off on their approval of this fit seetcn plan". It troubles me greatly that this has happened without sufficient understanding of the implications to all the homeowners at River Bluff. It is not a coincidence that the owners of unite 1, 3, 4 and 6 are most upset by the high pressure techniques that have been used on die other owners in River Bluff to O.K. something that wotild not affect them nearly as adversely as it would us, the immediate neighbors. We all chose River illuff for the level of privacy afforded by the design of the buildings, the 'wonderful viewi and 'sun that we get and the quiet nature'of this very special. complex. Please consider how disruptive 'to those of us who live here, many months of construction would be. Tearing off existing roofs, trucks clogging our very limited parking areas, noise, conotruction•debris, etc,, is not what living here is supposed to be. To the absentee owners who wish to impose that on us it would be of no consequence, but please let's-not forget those of us who call River Bluff home. Then further consider the permanent damage that would have been done to our views, sun, privacy and the architectural integrity of the entire complex. '02%10/1998 13:41 9709204 ASBW PAGE 02tl I hope that before we allow two homeowners to railroad through their personal agens a9 we have an open meeting at which we can examine all the facts, proposals and consider the real impact on all of ua. Thank you for hearing me out to tilts rather long winclecl letter. if you would like to cli8cues this with me further, please feel free to call me at home (925-7668) or at my: office (920-1234). ky . ::Sincerely, Roberta Alien iar , v . LAW OFFICES OF BROOKEA PETERSON KAUFMAN&PETERSON,P.C. TeaE&NCNE GIDEON I.KAUFM iJ 7a;925.6166 FACSPAILE S15 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (S7a)ez5.-asa HAL S"D[SHLER" ASPEN,:OLGRADO 11611 of COUNSEL: ERIN L.FERNANDE"c"' AlzoA[arrrep NVAmtA4 wL30 AMMO Pof TE M•,u;K1MMffTEDiNFLORIDA January 5. 1398_ Ms. Sara Thomas via FIAND DELIVERY ASPEN/PIT KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT N T 130 South Galena Street Aspen,CO 81611 Re: RiverBiuff Townhome Association Located on 0155 Lone Pine Road,Aspen,CO Dear Sam: Pursuant to our recent conversation and information you have received from Richard Failin of Baker Fallin Architects,you have confirmed that there is available unused F.A.R.of 2,725,8 square feet for the referenced properties subject to subsequent law changes. Please execute this letter to confirm this calculated total (unused E.A.R.) and thereafter, the homeowners of the Riverbluff Tawnhome Association will be informed that they can use said available unused F.A.R. for construction of their respective master bedroom expansions, provided such are in compliance with Aspen I Pitkin Community Development Department Residential Design Standards. We understand that F.A.R.will be recalculated upon application for Building Permits. Thank you again fa all your assistance in this matter. Do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or comments, Sincerely, KAUFMAN&PETERSON,P.C. A Professional Corporation By: Hal S.Dishier The P.A.R.calculation of 2.,725.8 square feet of unused F.A.R.can be relied upon subject to compliance with applicable Residential Design.Standards,and other qualification stated in this letter, ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIhIENT By: Sara Thomas 1Ibfr code. is o gala') is actV '? 'i l5O cdwe. p� ci is e ye 0/7 1j i)���� C� S S(,>V` L Cr Ca-ztoCtG4ns 7 som Ita liSvpra aser-ri.erbIu$ � 4e S " 0 r�eO a Ve-S`t of r t , • =7:5 08 '96 11:01. CATErNrol-IES <NEZEVIC4 .2/13 L4W OFPtCE% OP OATES, HUGHES & K..NE'tiEVIof PNOVISStOHAL 6OKPOSAT.ON' "rNISD PLO011t.ASPEN PLAZA&9JLD.N N31 spry M4PYEW8 AVENUE' ASPEN. C.OiORADO $3611 L ed/IA*0 M.0A7Z9 AREA CODE 97d R,C.sARO A.KNEZEVCON February 7, 1996 TeLccopilte 4ao tri TLC 6.GAR0£NGJvAW?2 DAVID a.XELLY AK G0e0494L: 10MN TNOMAY.K£04.y VIA FACSIMILE (970) 925-5445 Glenn Daly President River Bluffs Condominium Association, Incorporated 300 Puppy Smith Street Aspen, Colorado 816II RE: USE OF COMMON ELEMENTS -RIVER BLUFFS TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM Dear Mr. Daly: Please be advised that we represent John Ginn in his capacity as an owner of a condominium at River Bluffs Townhouse Condominiums (formerly Lone Pint Condominiums). Mr. Ohm has engaged us specifically to review and analyze what the Association, or a unit owner may and may not do in terms of alteration and use of the common elements for the use and benefit of the less than all of the condominium units within the entire project. Specifically of cornett, to Mr. Ginn is the creation of walkways on the general or common elements benefiting less than all of the condominium units within the project, the relocation of the driveways within the project and the proposal to authorize the enclosure of a portion of the general common elements for the limited use and benefit of condominium unit number 5 owned by Mr. Jerome Ginsberg. In 1988 we were requested by Mr. Ginn to analyze the issue of the enclosure of general common elements for the limited benefit of a unit owner or owners, hat less than all of the owners. Based upon our review we researched the issue, and prepared and sent to Mr. Ronald Geld,. Esq., attorney for the Association, a letter, a draft copy which is enclosed herewith, together with a copy of the reported Ohio case Grimes._et. al. v. Moreland etak., 322 N.B. 2nd 699. We believe that the conclusion and,position taken in our I•:s. letter to Mr. Garfield and the case upon which we relied, are still good law and are equally applicable in connection with certain of the improvements which are now proposed for River Bluffs. We believe that the attempted 1989 amendment which apparently failed, has no beating on our position which 4 C rg 08 '96 11=02 0RTrk*GHES & INEZ VICH P.3/13 OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVrCH. j C. Gleam Daily River Bluffs Condominium Association, Incorporated Page Two rests on basic principles of the law of real property as modified by contract provisions of the condominium declaration. While lvIr. Ginn_is genera) y in favor of many of the items of improvement which have been proposed by the Association,he does object to those items which will benefit less than the entire ownership of the project and in some cases, would be a detriment to some of the units (including his) hi the project, i.e. the proposed enclosure by Mr. Ginsberg which would block Mr. G 's views from his unit. While Mr. Ginn clearly recognizes that it is some times a fine line as to what improvements are for the benefit of all and what improvemeras would be for the benefit of only some of the suits, the specific items to which he objects he feels are clearly inappropriate pursuant to the law as interpreted through the govereungd^. .. ; the cowlominium declaration for River Bps Townhouse Condominiums. As to the remainder cf the itetrs, alit+gh he may feel are excessive in terms of cost relative to befit, he understands are subject to the decision of the majority of the unit owners. It is my understanding that the Association intends to have a meeting this coming Saturday, February Itlth at which Mr. Ginn inns to again state his position and his intentions in connection with enforcement of his legal rights. Thank you for consideration of this letter. Very truly yours, OA'thS, HIES &KNEZEVICH, F.C. GARFELD & HEGHT, P.G. RONALD GARFIELD* ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT** VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.*** TELECOPIER ROBERT E. KENDIG 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" 1ANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** "also admitted to Nov York Bar "also admits d to District of Columbia Bar • March 1 6, 19 8 9 ;� ,- rm. •••also admitted to _ i Nebraska and Texas Bar r a 3 �! - , a •"•"also'admitted to - t :5 ! .71 • Illinois Bar Buck Olmsted 777 29th Street Suite 301 • Boulder, CO 80303 Dear Mr. Olmsted: We represent the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association" ) . Roberta Allen has provided me with a copy of your letter of March 3, 1989 . As to your concerns about attorney fees incurred relative to Ginsberg' s Unit 5 , I want to provide you with some background information. Sometime in July, 1988 , it was brought to our attention by Roberta that Mr . Ginsberg may have constructed unauthorized additional modifications to his Lone Pine unit. I wrote to Mr. Ginsberg in this regard. Subsequently, it was brought to my attention that Mr. Ginsberg had obtained written consents from ten of the twelve unit owners including yourself to construct the additional modifications. The only unit owners not consenting were Roberta and John Ginn, owner of the adjacent Unit 6 . With the consent. of ten of the twelve unit owners, Mr. Ginsberg was in a position to contend that he had approval for his add: tional modifications pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Condo::,iniwn Declaration. About this time Mr. Ginn engaged the services of a local Aspen attorney, contending that despite the approvals from other unit owners, Mr. Ginsberg still did not have authorization to construct the additional modifications and that lawsuit would be brought against the Association to compel Mr. Ginsberg to remove those modifications that were not in accordance with the approved Plans prepared by Michael Ernemann, Architect. Essentially, the Association was caught in the middle of a dispute between Mr. Ginn and Mr . Ginsberg. Had the other unit owners not approved Mr. Ginsberg ' s additional modifications, I believe the Association would have been more inclined to proceed against Mr. Ginsberg. After considerable discussion .and negotiation with Mr. Ginn and Mr. Ginsberg and their attorneys, we were able to reach a settlement that avoided the necessity of 4 . GARFIELD & IIEC HT, P.G. Buck Olmsted March 13 , 1989 Page - 2 - litigation. The settlement agreement is presently being circulated for signature. While I am aware of the various provisions of the Declaration that you have cited, I could not guarantee the outcome of any litigation or that the Association would definitely recover its attorney fees . The attorney fees incurred by the Association in obtaining the settlement were only a fraction of what the attorney fees would be in the event of litigation. The settlement will also prevent this kind of situation from occurring again. In the future I would urge all unit owners not to sign letters of the kind circulated by Mr. Ginsberg without first conferring with the Board of Governors or the Association ' s attorney. Copies of my correspondence with Ginn, Ginsberg, their respective attorneys and the settlement agreement are available for your review. I hope this letter adequately addresses your concerns about the attorney fees. Please feel free to telephone me if you have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours , Orir;nal c1P,nod by ,AIMELO Ronald Garfield PG r 1 : ltz4 cc : Roberta Allen , Buck Olmsted 777 29th Street , Suite 301 Boulder, Colorado 80303 December 13 , 1988 Mr. Jerome D. Ginsberg . c/o LANSCO 122 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10168 Dear Jerry: I have just received a letter from John Ginn, dated December 2 , 1988, in which he brings to my attention that he does not approve of the patio extension that you did and is therefore planning legal action , since he and you are unable to resolve the dispute. He also goes on to say that if this is the only way the dispute can be resolved , that he will be asking the court for compensatory damages from the Homeowners Association . At the time I received your note. of July 15 , 1988 , and responded back to it with the pre-typed letter that you had sent me , dated July 1 , 1988, in which I signed on behalf of Zuhair Fayez , there was no mention in any of your correspondence that the extension to the patio was being challenged , that it extended into common area , or that you considered my letter gave you approval to go ahead with the patio without going through the proceedings as outlined in the Condo Declarations . It has never been my intent to allow a homeowner to encroach upon what is considered common area within the complex. It also has never been my intent to by- pass any of the 'Condo Declarations that were written up and presented to us at the time we purchased the unit for Zuhair , 'ayez. I don ' t feel that the letter that I signed my name to , dated July 1 , 1988 , in any way indicates anything other than the fact that with the information provided to me at the time, I had no problem with the design of the patio . Had you told me at the time that it was encroaching upon common area , I never would have approved it . Had you told me that you were using the letter as a means to by-pass the Condo Declarations, I never would have approved it . I feel that Mr . Ginn has a legitimate complaint if his privacy is being effected by the extension of the patio . This letter is not an attempt to resolve the problem between yourself and Mr . Ginn . It is , however , a statement that Zuhair Fayez is in full agreement with LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES 8c KNEZEVICH UW?l PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR.ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M.OATES ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W.HUGHES TELEPHONE 920-1700 RICHARD A.KNEZEVICH TELECOPIER 920•I121 JOHNM..ELY September 9, 1988 • Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 816 11 RE: Ginsberg, Unit 5, Lone Pine Townhouses Dear Ron: I am in receipt of your letter of September 7, 1988, and am sending you this letter in response thereto on behalf of John Ginn. Mr. Ginn takes exception to the position taken in your letter relative to Mr. Ginsberg' s wrongful appropriation of portions of the General Common Elements of the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium rP oject and offers the following in support of his objection: 1 . The reliance which you have made on Paragraph 23 of the Condominium Declaration is based on an inaccurate and misplaced interpretation of the intention of that paragraph. The provision which you have quoted is set forth in the Condominium Declaration solely to provide a mechanism wherein General Common Elements may be improved for the use and benefit of all of the condominium unit owners by ' an individual unit owner and is not intended to create a situation whereby an individual unit owner may appropriate and take for his own use any portion of the General Common Elements which are owned in tenancy in common by all of the condominium unit owners. This intention is clearly confirmed by other provisions of the condominium documentation which, for reasons we cannot understand, were not taken into consideration at the time that you wrote your letter to me , and apparently not considered at the time you earlier dealt with Mr. Ginsberg. OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ronald Garfield, Esq. September 9, 1988 Page 2 2 . We have enclosed herewith for your review a 1974 . ...e of Grimes v. Morelc.l..i, 69 , JCL N.E. 2d 699, which stands for the proposition that under circumstances wherein each of the unit owners in a condominium project is the owner of an undivided percentage interest in and to the common elements in tenancy in common, that unanimous consent is required for the type of activity similar to Mr. Ginsberg' s to be properly authorized. The references to and reliances on the specifics of the Ohio condominium statute aside , the scheme of condominium ownership in Colorado, both under statute and from an "_storical .,ense in the developing area of condominium law, is similar to Ohio. 3 . Referring to the documentation: a. Paragraph 1 .3 of the Condominium Declaration for Lone Pine Townhouse Condominiums provides as follows : " ' General Common Elements ' means . . . , patios, . . . , all of which shall be owned as tenants in common, by the owners of f' the separate units, and each owner of a unit having an undivided percentage interest in such small general common elements as hereinafter provided. " b. Paragraph 3 of the Condominium Declaration provides : "The real property is hereby divided into the following fee-simple estates . . . consisting of . . . units and the undivided interest in and to the General Common Elements . " c. Paragraph 7 of the Condominium Declaration provides : "Each unit, the appurtenant undivided interest in the General Common Elements . . . , shall together comprise one • OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVYCH, P. C. Ronald Garfield, Esq. September 9 , 1988 Page 3 condominium unit, shall be inseparable and may oe conveyed, .Leased, devised or encumbered only as a Condominium Unit. " d. Paragraph 12 of the Condominium Declaration provides "each owner may use the general . . . common elements in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended, without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other owners , subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as may, from time to time, be established pursuant to the by-laws of the Association. " e. Paragraph 22 of the Condominium Declaration provides " . . . that the percentage of the undivided interest in the common elements shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the written consent of all of the Unit owners expressed in any amendment Declaration duly recorded. " 3 . Specific provisions of the condominium documenation supporting the proposition that Paragraph 23 of the Condominium Declaration is not dispositive of the issue are: a. Paragraph 12 . 5 of the Condominium Declaration provides : "Nothing shall be altered or constructed or removed from the general . . . common elements , except upon the written consent of the Board of Governors (sic Managers) . " b. Paragraph 8 of the By-laws of the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium Association, Inc. provides: "Each owner may use the general common elements . . . located within the entire condominium project in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended y ~ . OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ronald Garfield, Esq. September 9 , 1988 Page 4 without hindering or encroaching upon rights ui the other owners. " c': Rule 5 of the rules and regulations appended as Schedule "A" to the By-Laws provides: "No work of any kind shall be done upon the exterior building walls or upon the general or limited common elements by any unit owner. Such work is the responsibility of the Association. " The foregoing, we believe, makes it abundantly clear that the manner in which this matte._ was deal:, with by the Association and by Mr. Ginsberg was by an improper application of a provision (Paragraph 23) of the Declaration intended for another purpose. That is clearly illustrated by virtue of the other provisions of the documentation which I have cited above which stand for the proposition that the General Common Elements for the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium project, properties held in co-tenancy were and are intended for the common use of all of the property owners within the project and may not be converted, appropriated, usurped or otherwise taken for the exclusive use and benefit of one of the unit owners without unanimous consent of all unit owners . We respectfully request that the Board of Managers of the Association and you as counsel review and reanalyze the position that you have taken in light of the materials which we have presented and conclude that Mr. Ginsberg' s action was improper and could not have been done without the unanimous consent of the, unit owner's; and, therefore must be removed with the General Common Elements returned to their original condition. Very truly yours, OATES , HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. By: Leonard M. Oates LMO: klm Enclosure �.,rit` 609 P.2d 1084 �J� 1�F� Page 1 13 A.L.R.4th 591 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, 609 P.2d 1084) Harrison A. MAKEEVER and Ruby K. Makeever;Richard S. Schuman and Jean C. second floor additionswart of the eng Schuman, Appellants, common elements owned in common by all the v. apartment owners, and contemplated use was not a Dr. William H.LYLE and Mrs. William H. use in common wr o bei owners. A.R.S. § 33- - Lyle, Appellees. 553. No. 1 CA-CIV 4111. [3] CONDOMINIUM c 7 89Ak7 Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, General provision in condominium bylaws which Department C. delineated responsibilities of council of co-owners and stated that "decisions and resolutions of the March 4, 1980. Council shall require the approval of a majority of a quorum of owners" did not constitute an unlimited Rehearing Denied April 7, 1980. grant of power to the council of co-owners to Review Denied April 22, 1980. consider any question which might conceivably be presented to the council, but merely allowed the Condominium owners brought an action seeking approval by a majority vote of questions which to enjoin another owner from proceeding with the council had been given authority to decide. A.R.S. construction of basement and second floor additions. § 33-561, subd. A. The Superior Court of Yuma County, No. C-38766, Douglas W. Keddie, J., refused the injunction, and [4] CONDOMINIUM« 10 plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Haire, 89Ak10 J., held that: (1) nothing contained in the statute Council of condominium co-owners must have setting forth powers conferred on the council of broad powers in determining and managing common condominium co-owners conferred upon a majority uses of general common elements, and such of the council the right to convert a portion of the determinations will be upheld if they are not general common elements to the exclusive use and arbitrary and capricious, bearing no reasonable control of an individual apartment owner; (2) the relationship to the fundamental condominium land and space which were to be occupied by the concept. proposed additions were part of the general common elements; and (3) nothing in the condominium [5] CONDOMINIUM a 10 bylaws gave authority to the council of co-owners to 89Ak10 authorize the construction and taking involved. Power of council of condominium co-owners to convert common elusive Reversed and remanded. an.n rivate use.And rnntrnl of nne of_the, dividual owners constitutes a takine of the other remaining [1]CONDOMINIUM C=, 10 individual owners' properly whirl. rnn* l,P zrly 89Ak10 given by statutes. declaration of lbnission or Nothing contained in statute setting forth powers bj+laws before ;rs existent P wiii he recosized. conferred on council of condominium co-owners A.R.S. § 33-551 et seq. confers upon majority of the council of co-owners the right to convert a portion of the general common [6] CONDOMINIUM G 10 elements to the exclusive use and control, and 89Ak10 thereby to the private ownership, of an individual dominium b laws to apartment owner. A.R.S. §33-561, subd. A. c until of co-owners to or otherwise. Au n ys akin of part of th eneral [2] CONDOMINIUM€ 10 co ent 89Ak10 an oor • individual meat Land -and—space--whielt ed,by owner. condominium basement and *385 **1085 Bryne, Bradshaw, Ellsworth, Copr. e West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 609 P.2d 1084 Page 2 (Cite as: 125 Ariz.384, *385, 609 P.2d 1084, **1085) Benesch & Thode by Thomas A. Thode, Yuma, for Appellants then commenced an action in Yuma appellants. County Superior Court seeking declaratory relief and also seeking to enjoin Dr. Lyle from proceeding Thaddeus G. Baker, P.C. by Thaddeus G. Baker, with the construction. Essentially, appellants Yuma, for appellees. contended that Dr. Lyle's contemplated construction of the second floor and basement workshop would OPINION constitute a wrongful appropriation or taking for his sole and exclusive use and control of cubic space HAIRE,Judge. belonging in common to all the apartment owners, and that such a taking could not be accomplished The issues raised on this appeal require a without the unanimous consent of all the unit consideration of the rights acquired by a owners. On the other hand, it was Dr. Lyle's condominium apartment owner in the "general contention that since there was no specific provision common elements" when a parcel of real property in the Laguna West bylaws governing the has been submitted to a horizontal property regime contemplated construction, the only approval pursuant to A.R.S. ss 33-551 et seq. necessary was by a majority of the owners. Each of the appellants own an apartment unit in The trial judge adopted Dr. Lyle's position, the Laguna West Horizontal Property Regime, a refused to enjoin the contemplated construction, and condominium development consisting of 16 separate awarded Dr. Lyle judgment for attorney's fees units located in Yuma, Arizona. Laguna West is not against appellants. For the reasons set forth herein, a vertical development, rather all the apartments we reverse. *386 **1086 are built at ground level in blocks of four adjacent to the Yuma Golf and Country Club. The Arizona statutes governing and authorizing Within each block each apartment shares at least one horizontal property regimes (condominiums) were common wall with a neighboring apartment. Only first enacted in 1962. See A.R.S. ss 33-551 through four of the apartments have two stories and each of 561. In general these statutes authorize an owner to the apartments has its own two-car carport submit a parcel of real property to a horizontal immediately adjacent to its entrance. Surrounding property regime by filing a declaration of the apartments is an unfenced area, and the units submission, which must contain certain declarations. share a common bathhouse and swimming pool. See A.R.S. ss 33-552 and 33-553. The general concept involves a scheme of real property The circumstances giving rise to this litigation ownership whereby an owner individually owns a commenced in December 1976 when the appellees, horizontal layer of "cubic content space" [FN2] Dr. and Mrs. William H. Lyle, decided to purchase which is subject to his exclusive control, A.R.S. s apartment unit 12. This was a single-story 33-553(3), together with an undivided fractional or apartment, and Dr. Lyle wanted to construct a percentage interest held in common with other unit second story consisting of two bedrooms, a bath and owners in the "general common elements". Among a den, and also add a basement workshop other things, the general common elements include immediately underneath his carport. He the land, the foundations, floors, the exterior walls subsequently consummated the purchase of unit 12, of each apartment, ceilings and roofs, and in general and after receiving the approval of ten of the 16 unit all that portion of the property other than that which owners, started construction.[FN1] is subject to the exclusive ownership and control of an individual apartment owner. A.R.S. s 33-551(6). FN1. Initially, and apparently before he The fractional interest of the apartment owner in the consummated the purchase, Dr. Lyle obtained the general common elements is appurtenant to each approval of 14 of the owners, subject to final apartment, A.R.S. s 33-558, and the ownership of approval of plans and specifications by the board of each individual apartment and the appurtenant directors. Thereafter, due to conflicting opinions interest in the general common elements is "vested concerning the legality of the proposed as . . . any separate parcel of real property is or construction, the board of directors failed to give may be under the laws of this state . . .." subject to their approval. certain limitations on alienation and partition set Copr. c West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 1 • 609 P.2d 1084 Page 4 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, •388, 609 P.2d 1084, **1088) to be occupied by Dr. Lyle's proposed basement and provided, decisions and resolutions of the Council second floor addition were part of the general shall require the approval of a majority of a common elements owned in common by all the quorum of owners." (Emphasis added). apartment owners. Appellees interpret the emphasized portion of FN7. The provisions of the declaration of Article III, Section 1 as constituting an unlimited submission were ambiguous as to whether the cubic grant of power to the council of co-owners to content space of the carport was part of the space consider any question which might conceivably be owned individually by each apartment owner, as presented to the council, and then to decide that opposed to being a part of the general common question by majority vote, except as otherwise elements owned in common. The trial court specifically required in the bylaws. We disagree. properly resolved this ambiguity, finding that the In our opinion the correct interpretation of the carport cubic content space was not part of the emphasized portion of Article HI, Section 1, is that general common elements. it does not constitute a grant of power expanding the area of questions which might be decided, but rather Before considering the provisions of the bylaws, merely allows the approval by a majority vote of which constitute the third possible source of powers questions which are properly before the council, i. to be exercised by the council of co-owners, it is e., questions which the council has been given the important to note that the use by Dr. Lyle of the authority to decide.(FN8] contemplated second floor and basement was not a use in common with the other owners of Laguna FNB. Article II, Section 1, deals with the voting West. Rather, by the very nature of the rights of owners,and provides in part: "The vote of contemplated construction, the use necessarily a 'majority of owners' of a duly constituted quorum would be in the nature of a taking of that portion of as required by Section 3 of this Article shall decide the general common elements and converting it to any question brought before such meeting." When the exclusive use and control of Dr. Lyle as an considered in context it is clear that this provision, individual owner. The trial court, apparently likewise, was not intended as an all-inclusive grant recognizing that by reason of the proposed of authority to the council of co-owners. construction, a portion of the general common elements would be converted to Dr. Lyle's (4, 5) This brings us to the heart of the issue individual ownership, directed in its judgment that presented here. In the absence of specific the declaration of submission be amended to reflect authorization in the statutes, declaration of an additional amount of cubic content space for unit submission or bylaws, may a condominium owner 12, belonging to Dr. Lyle. be deprived of his interest in a substantial portion of the general common elements without his consent? (3)As previously indicated, appellees and the trial We hold that he may not. This is not the type of judge have recognized that there is no specific bylaw power which may be inferred. It is recognized that provision which would authorize appellees to do the council of co-owners must have broad powers in this. Rather, they rely upon a general provision in determining and managing the common uses of the the bylaws, Article III, Section 1, as follows: general common elements, and such determinations "Section 1. Council Responsibilities. The owners will be upheld if they are not arbitrary and of units will constitute the Council of owners capricious, bearing no reasonable relationship to the (hereinafter referred to as 'Council') and shall fundamental condominium concept. Ritchey v. have the responsibility of administering the Villa Nueva Condominium Assoc., 81 Ca1.App.3d property, approving the annual budget, delegating 688, 146 Cal.Rptr. 695 (1978); Hidden Harbour such duties as it elects to agents designated for Estates v. Norman, supra; Ryan v. Baptiste, 565 such purpose, establishing and collecting monthly S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1978). However, in our assessments, maintaining fire and other hazard and opinion*389**1089 thepower of the council of co- liability insurance on the entire property, owners ac y convert the common general disbursement of fire and other hazard insurance elements to the exclusive and private use and control__ and other proceeds for repair or reconstruction of done of the indtvid ers constitutes a takin any portion of the property. Except as otherwise of the other remaining individual owners' property Copr. e West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works A /r 609 P.2d 1084 Page 5 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, *389, 609 P.2d 1084, **1089) which must be clearly given by the statutes, declaration oT submission or bylaws before—1ts existence will be recognized. See, e. g., Grimes v. Moreland, 41 Ohio Misc, 69, 322 N.E.2d 699 (1974). In our onion it is a great step from a delegation of the right to manage one's interest in The general conunon elements for common u ses " a grant of the right to dispose of that property it completely for the sole, exclusive and'" private use of another. "�'---- (6) Referring again to the bylaws in question, we note several instances in which minor intrusions into the general common elements have been authorized without the necessity of acquiring unanimous consent. Thus, in Article VII, Section 3 of the bylaws, the owner is given the right to attach fixtures to the interior service of bearing walls (part of the general common elements) so long as he does not interfere with or damage the structural integrity of the building. Article VII, Section 4, subsection (j) prohibits exterior antennae without prior written approval of a majority of the owners. Likewise, Article VII, Section 4, subsection(k)allows exterior clotheslines only if erected or maintained in such a manner as to be "non-visible" to the other owners. However, we find nothing in these provisions which would either directly, or by negative implication, give authority to the council of co-owners to, by majority vote or otherwise, authorize the construction and taking involved here. In summary, we hold that the trial court erred when it denied the injunctive relief sought by appellants. Accordingly, the judgments entered by the trial court en lve re re attorney's fees against appellant are reversed. The matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. CONTRERAS, P. J., and EUBANK,J., concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. e West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 1 . Definitions. Unless the context shall expressly provide otherwise the following definitions shall apply to the following phrases, or terms appearing in this Declaration. 1. 1 "Unit" means an individual air space unit which is bounded by the unfinished interior surfaces of its perimeter walls, including the interior surfaces of windows and window frames, doors and door frames, trim, and the interior surfaces of the lowermost floors, uppermost ceilings and bearing walls of such unit in the building as shown on the Condominium Map to be filed for record, together with all fixtures and improvements therein contained but not including any of the structural compo- nents of the building, or common elements, if any, in such unit. 1. 2 "Condominium Unit" means the fee simple interest and title in and to a unit, together with the undivided per- centage interest in the general and limited common elements appurtenant to such unit. 1.3 "General Common Elements" means and includes the real property described above, including the Common Areas as shown on the Lone Pine Subdivision Exemption Plat of record together with the structural components of the buildings, in- cluding but not limited to roofs, floors other than the interior surfaces thereof (and crawl spaces beneath the floors) , foun- dation, pipes, ducts, flues, chutes, conduits , wires, and other utility installations to the outlets, bearing walls, perimeter walls, columns and girders, to the interior surfaces thereof, regardless of location; the balconies, patios, entryways lying outside perimeter walls, walkways and parking areas, which are now or hereafter contained within the project; all installations of power, lights, gas, hot, and cold water existing for common uses, and all other parts of such land and the improvements thereon necessary or convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety which are normally and reasonably in common use, including the air above such land, all of which shall be owned, as tenants in common, by the owners of the separate units, each owner of a unit having an undivided percentage interest in such general common elements as hereinafter provided. 1. 4 "Limited Common Elements" means those parts of the General Common Elements which are either limited to or reserved for the exclusive use of the owners of one or more, but less than all, of the Condominium Units all as more fully described in paragraph 5 below. "Common Elements" includes General Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. 1. 5 "Condominium Project" means all of the land and improvements initially and subsequently within the purview of this Declaration. 2 . without the consent of all unit owners in the Project including Ginn . I . Ginn, Ginsberg and the Association now desire to amicably resolve their differences as to all construction relative to the Plans . WITNESSETH FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed the parties agree as follows : 1 . Agreements of Ginsberg. Ginsberg ag`4 es as fo��ws : 1 . 1 To pay to Oates, Hughes & Knezevich,7.C. upon the exec ion hereof by all parties the sum of $-T9-6-- 9- which reprsents one-half (1/2) the attorney fees incurred by Ginn to said law firm prior to January 1 , 1989 in connection with this matter. • 1 . 2 On or before June 15 , 1989 at the expense of Ginsberg to cause to be removed in front of his Unit 5 so much of the poured concrete patio so that after such removal the concrete patio in front of said Unit 5 shall not extend, following an east to west perpendicular line, more than forty (40) inches beyond the south end of the existing shed appurtenant to aaid Unit 5 . Ginsberg shall restore the area from where the poured concrete patio is removed to a natural condition existing prior to the construction of said patio said restoration to be accomplished through the installation of earthen berming, eoc.k3 QA--- 3c�h=tartr7ki acid planting of sod���a i Iry ;r4� i v vim- 47 rHc ow�S/�Ru 3Y' IN -r &.G-jND crtp ., �� . -s p C7 bu oN�F ri i l i"7 t��n1 r F�was .��vb QIvt) 1 . 3 On or before June 15r 1989 Ginsberg shall at his expense (J remove a tree which is the most easterly Aspen tree planted by �g Ginsberg in the summer of 1988 as part of the addition to his patio. Ginsberg may, relocate the tree more westerly of its present location .so as to not obstruct any views of Ginn. 1 . 4 With respect to -the relocated chimney on Unit 5 Ginsberg shall be responsible at his expense for mitigating any discharges from that chimney that unreasonably interfere with Ginn ' s use and enjoyment of Unit 6 . Interference with Ginn ' s use and enjoyment of Unit 6 by discharges of the kind similar to other units in the Project where chimneys have not been relocated shall not give rise to any obligation on the part of Ginsberg to mitigate the effects of discharges from his chimney. ,, / 2 . Agreements of Ginn. Ginn agrees as follows : O13 j1r-j 1 t k)S . 2 . 1 Subject to Ginsberg ' s performance under Par graph 1 above, '. 441 Ginn hereby withdraws and waives any &2ligation5J to and approves �, - all construction prior to the date hereof by Ginsberg to his Unit p- 5 or which affects the General or Limited Common Elements of the Project including but not limited to any construction or 2 - landscaping by Ginsberg pursuant to the Plan or as described in that certain letter of July 1 , 1988 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" or otherwise . 2 . 2 The size and location of the existing patio in front of Ginn ' s Unit 6 shall not be enlarged or changed without the written consent of Ginsberg. 3 . Mutual Agreements of Ginsberg and Ginn. Ginsberg and Ginn hereby mutually agree as follows: 3 .1 On or before June 15, 1989 to agree upon landscaping and share equally (i .e . $750 .00 each) for a total of $1500 .00 the cost of installing such landscaping to create privacy between the patio of Unit 5 and the patio of Unit 6 through plantings of trees and/or other vegetation. Landscaping described in the preceding sentence does not extend to any vegetation that Ginn may desire to plant at his sole expense in front of Unit 6 for privacy or any other purposes but only relates to a buffer between the Unit 6 and Unit 5 patios . All landscaping whether to be installed mutually by Ginsberg and Ginn or solely by Ginn hereunder shall first be approved by the Association which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 3 .2 Ginn and Ginsberg hereby agree that in the event of any controversy between them, Don Ensign of Design Workshop Inc . , in Aspen will act as arbitrator hereunder for certain limited matters and that with respect to such limited matters the arbitrator' s decisions will be final and binding on the parties. The limited matters to be submitted to binding arbitration, are as follows : (a) Subject to the agreed price of $1 ,500 . 00 the type of trees and other vegetation and the location thereof to create a privacy buffer between the patio of Unit 5 and the patio of Unit 6 . (b) Whether or not Ginsberg has complied with his obligations under Paragraphs 1 . 2 and 1 . 3 and what further actions, if any, on the part of Ginsberg shall be necessary to be in compliance . Any party hereto may upon telephone notice to the other party and the arbitrator demand that any of the matters described above be submitted for arbitration. Within two (2) business days after demand for arbitration has been made, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, the arbitrator shall meet with the parties in a convenient location in Aspen selected by the arbitrator for purposes of rendering a decision. At such hearing only statements of the parties or their representatives shall be given. The parties shall not have any right to call witnesses; however, the arbitrator shall make a physical inspection of the property or conduct any investigations as shall be necessary. After concluding the hearing, the arbitrator may immediately - 3 - /411 render a decision, but in no event shall such decision be rendered later than two (2) business days after the date of the hearing. The arbitrator' s decision shall be communicated to the parties by telephone . It is the intent of the parties that this arbitration procedure be both simplified and expeditious. If the party demanding arbitration prevails, then the losing party shall be obligated to pay all reasonable fees charged by the arbitrator. If the party demanding litigation does not prevail, then the party demanding litigation shall pay all reasonable fees charged by the arbitrator. If the agreed upon abitrator shall fail or refuse to perform its duties hereunder, then either party may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor arbitrator. Except as to matters set forth herein, no, other dispute, controversy or claim arising out of this Agreement shall be the subject of arbitration. 4 . Agreements of the Association. The Association agrees as follows: 4 . 1 To cause to be prepared at the expense of the Association an amended Plat to evidence the enlargement of all living rooms and patio areas (subject to Paragraph 1 . 2 above) ; relocation of the chimney appurtenant to Unit 5 and any other physical changes to the Project in accordance with the Plans or as otherwise approved by the Association. Once prepared, the Association shall at its expense diligently process any governmental approvals required to amend the Plat and once said approvals are obtained cause the amended Plat to be recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado. 4 . 2 Cause to be prepared at the expense of the Association and submitted for approval at the next annual meeting of the Association an amendment to the Declaration providing (or clarifying) that General Common Elements may be improved only for the use and benefit of all the condominium unit owners in the Project and that no individual unit owner may, except upon the written consent .of all the other unit owners, appropriate or take for his or her own use any portion of the General Common Elements . 4 . 3 In the event any governmental approval shall be required to the amended Plat described in Paragraph 4 . 1 above and cannot, despite best efforts of the Association, be obtained, then the remainder of this Agreement, and especially paragraphs 1 , 2 and 3 shall remain in full force and effect. In the event the amendment to the Declaration described in 4 . 2 above is not approved at the next annual meeting, the remainder of this Agreement and especially paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above shall remain in full force and effect. 5 . Disclosure. In this Agreement the Association is represented by Ronald Garfield of Garfield & Hecht, P.C. ; Ginn is represented by Leonard M. Oates of Oates , Hughes & Knezevich, - 4 - P.C. and Ginsberg is represented by Michael J. Herron of Cummins & Herron. 6 . Costs . Except as provided in paragraph 1 . 1 above, each party hereto shall pay their own attorney fees in connection with the negotiation, preparation, review and execution of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding, Ginn and Ginsberg acknowledge and agree that all attorney fees in connection with the negotiation, preparation, review and execution of this Agreement and any attorney fees and other costs (e.g. survey, fees for any land use application, recording fees) incurred in the preparation or approval of an amended Plat and amendment to the Declaration as more fully described in paragraphs 4 . 1 and 4 . 2 above shall be assessed to all members of the Association including Ginn and Ginsberg and Ginn and Ginsberg hereby agree to pay their prorata share of such attorney fees and other costs . 7 . Release. Excepting only the obligations of the parties set forth in this Agreement, each of the parties hereto does mutually for itself, its successors and assigns (and in the case of the Association, its past and present shareholders, officers , directors, agents and employees) remise, release, forever discharge and hold harmless the other from and against any and all liability for any claims , demands , damages, costs , actions, rights and causes of action whatsoever of any kind and nature, resulting from or arising out of or with respect to any actions taken or omitted to be taken by any party hereto regarding any construction relative to the Plan, including but not limited to, the expansion of living rooms and appurtenant patio areas . Without limit to the foregoing, Ginn waives any right, claim or cause of action for damages or otherwise he may have against Ginsberg or the Association with respect to any construction or improvements described in Paragraph 2 . 1 above; any actions taken or omitted to be taken in connection with the approval of the Plans , use of any General or Limited Common Elements or any other matters relative to the expansion of living rooms, appurtenant patio areas , landscaping, ohimneys or any other matters related thereto. The making of this release shall not be construed as any admission by or, against the parties hereto. By making this Agreement and in particular this release none of the parties hereto admits or denies anything with respect to any claims or demands heretofore made by Ginn or any other parties . 8 . Miscellaneous. 8 . 1 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns and shall be a burden and benefit to the lands herein described, any present or future owner thereof, and shall run with the title to such lands. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither this Agreement nor any memorandum hereof shall be recorded in the real estate records. - 5 -- f ,p-+-� 8 . 2 Colorado Law Prevailing Party Attorney Fees. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning any provision hereof , or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto, the party prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum for its attorney fees in such litigation which shall be determined by the court in such litigation or in a separate action brought for that purpose . 8 . 3 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegla , invalid or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the term of this agreement, such provision shall be fully severable; this agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision had never comprised a part of this agreement; and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions or by its severance from this Agreement. Furthermore , in lieu of such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision, there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement, a provision as similar in terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and still be legal, valid and enforceable. 8 . 4 Telecopy Execution. A facsimile , telecopy or other reproduction of this Agreement may be executed by the parties and shall be considered valid, binding and effective for all purposes . At the request of either party, the parties agree to execute an original of this Agreement as well as any facsimile, telecopy or other reproduction. 8 . 5 Counterparts . This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, as executed, shall constitute one agreement binding on all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that all said parties are not signatory to the original or same counterpart . 8 . 5 Further Acts . The parties agree to request to promptly perform such further acts and execute and deliver such further agreements or other documents as may be reasonably necessary to effectuate and carry out the provisions of this Agreement. - 6 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is signed the day and year first written above. LONE PINE TOWNHOUSE ,ASSOCIATION, INC. f a Colorado non-profit corporation / ` yt ' B y: �A t-�'u GCE ,I.,, +�/co.�u t�¢.._ /0 i i.1 , Z3 144 ;' oberta Allen, Preesident - J: .uue D. Ginsberg Alip (2.4L-- _/t! A' Girni-1,34. /41!4,// 6-/, STATE OF (1,dac/6(0 ) ` >> ) ss : �!� COUNTY OF tlti✓ ) • rd Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5— day of 5110_{Q/' ,' 1989 by Roberta Allen, President of Lone Pine Townhouse Association, Inc . WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires : �66-tC(CL4.L!lr,/99/ No ry Public •' q �1-&ta J1/1. (,eude/0 ....*•4,......0.,°° 49..4).' , 10 8/7d •%/7 STATE OF Are'74) Y6-4. ) 1 ,•. 4bly1,Qt� ' ) s s : ,P �� COUNTY OF ,/L/�cJ�°l'er ) , ar. - :�' • \- Subscribed and, sworn to before me this A day of IL0- , 1989 by Jerome D. Ginsberg. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires : a, 4,t4( , No. ary Public JUI.ES ft. DANTO Notary Pubic, '..;..ate of New York No.02.1)A5917350 Quaiiiied in ;l e v York County Commission a..p.,ea f,iey 31, 1970 STATE OF 6, ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ilde;� ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this /c day of , 1989 by John C. Ginn. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: .3=/3,-y3 (%/616/6".1742,i4a . Notary Public 8 11'-9 3/4" • • / / ,, 9,_O„ - -7- N \ is . " ,...___..._ • i\ --4 3 --A \ \ - Ill F \ .E..-.- . •..._, :._.....i. _.1, 0 =�� •_ E = (r) iLI r u°l- oi'J o E „.__— —_ —___ r -- 1 - r, - - .... _ I } .�! I i 8I \\.) rnxor roOK �n�= r ox 2 c) �z o o a In oc1(02�� e-2a O X co m c mmnRa z C 1. $9 n n n toc• oom"? 7' °Oo � Cn O a n a S cwoo 0 --10200 m4 I I I .. I I I I .. I1 1 1 1 r r mVW W..� � OHO Ui U) ZQ 7. r`1.r rn x 4 z 0 rri ..k. A-.) n P El in r 44 1 ,,, 41 _ _ • �~SHELVE$ I I TL ,... • , 0 C 5 Mall gt. -c , to op I . _ 1 w _ z A 1.11 40 N ' m ®m p 9 4 ton 1 . . ?) .zi i, ra' la O 4 X --- e ?.,,) 1 2 = Z qq}} O r 4 � 0 if 17'-5' 11 4' T ~ D r TI 0 m z L 1N 2N M R% si Yl a III 6 In e 0-, -7...- :5' L n -04(7' I—N", '‘, :l r = ®W b, 11 ®� ^ j I40 . Y 41 i 2 ® a) rn tn • o a)� �� I r. za; r r.� _ Misr, a y coved '`b $iC� Q Z X > m m Ww�y b "u N O rn ClD m z c man�.� o„ C n a N � A z �mm" ��Q 'zDb(!� O • -� D D b tgctoo < C7 bmo —1 O Z O O $ mo l , l l ! C w�wcu..9 t ocno Cr V) Q Z K • • 779:4 C Ht !Ii;!E 13 Pn7 hHH _ (n . LLJ L _ a Q-d ro r¢l R ... cc g a I • _ i — rt ....,............._ 011D _ . . . Z Ii. In °_ 3 . LU L Z 9 z ........___,. ..._ , . ._ z .. P 8 • 0 n I NN L Li 11D I ._ . . •_ . , .2114 - L Q_ 6 ID Lan re ..._. ._ ._ .. _. .. _ �.s� — _..� A� r _..._. — r .. a Lil cy _ • z ,_,... ,..e,vv Lau I- 2 J 1 8 i \)12 �\ 1 \ : \\7:// SZ ~ 2 . 1 fTI R rn L. 0 —1— . aL 1 1 zb ! � zrn N IN �Y rn H . L $ si c �b c. � 3 `O _ � m m wwe �p $�N p Z x ED > N m m to y�_ F -den N i0 O _D r-n c�i rm.wok' 2 c,o� C Z Q 5 n > ceceom4 r �10 --I O Z Q O _� ,$� m D D > S co co c.c t7 co.°Deww^. owo Ui CO Z O Z Permit No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All applications for a building permit within the City of Aspen are required to include a certification of compliance with applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. The following certification shall accompany the application for a permit. Subject Property: _155 Lone Pine Road _River Bluff Unit 12 Ashen. CO I, the property owner, certify as follows: (pick one) ❑ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this building permit do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. Li This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this building permit have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: date: 8 2`7// Owner printed name: J.(_ Ke or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: November, 2014 City of Aspen 1130 S.Galena St. I (970)920-5090 DEW POINT CALCULATION RADER � JOB NAME: Burcham Residence +,+ AI ENGINEERING • COMFORT SYSTEMSrr JOB NUMBER: 16086.00 DATE: 11/16/16 CALLS BY: JOB i c, ••1 P`- p�. F: DP@ DP@ DP@ DP@ DP@ 1-11/16/16:, ' 20% RH 25% RH 30% RH 35% RH 45% RH 50 02 ,Ti 30 33 37 41 48 1� r rr f11� Outdoor design temperature (ODT) 1 1`rl�ti�.`4� Indoor design temperature (IDT) 70 Delta T = IDT- ODT 69 Thermal Resistance of Proposed Roof Assembly Layer R-value Outside air layer 0.17 Metal Roofing 0.00 3/4" plywood 0.94 4.5" spray foam insulation (R-6.7/in) 30.15 A: point of condensation analysis R-21 batt insulation 21.00 5/8" gypboard 0.56 Inside air layer 0.61 R-Total 53.43 R-value at A 22.17 TA= Temperature at point A TA = IDT- (R-value at A)/(R-Total) * (Delta T) 41.4 DPA = Dew point at point A (35% RH) 41 Is TA warmer than the DPA? YES Note: To minimize the potential for condensation problems, humidity levels within the home must be properly controlled and adjusted based on outdoor temperatures. City of Aspen General/Building Permit Application Alllik130 South Galena Street,Aspen Permit No.: 0129.2016.ARBK THE CIT\or,s pE'Aspen,CO 81611 Phone(970)920-5090 Fax(970)920-5440 Master Permit No.: Unit 12 = 0007.2016.ARBU PROJECT LOCATION Job Address: 155 Lone Pine Road, Aspen CO Unit#: 12 Legal Lot: Block: Tract or Subdivision: River Bluff Parce ID 1 1 0 Description PROJECT INFORMATION Description of Work: Add dormer in master bedroom, add window in living room and rotate fireplace in living room. Existing permit is new finishes. Use of Building: ❑Single Family QMulti-Family ❑Commercial/Residential ❑Commercial ❑Other Class of Work: DNew addition ❑Alteration ❑Repair ❑Move ❑Tenant Finish ❑Demo ❑Other ❑Change Order Valuation of Work: $ 55'000 IConst.Mit.Sq.Ft.: Disturbed Area: Utility Affected Area: Existing Gross Area of Unit(not FAR): Gross Area This Permit(not FAR): Parks Affected Area: MECHANICAL PLUMBING PLUMBING continued NO. TYPE OF EQUIPMENT NO. TYPE OF FIXTURE/ITEM Water Heater M/BTU ea. Repair,Alteration,or Addition Repair,Alteration,or Addition Gas Systems:#of Outlets Gas Log Water Closet(toilet),Bidet Water Piping&Treating Equipment Gas Appliance Bathtub Other: Ventilation Fans Lavatory(wash basin) Appliance Vents Shower ELECTRICAL Range Hood Kitchen Sink&Disposal Square Footage Boilers,(includes vent)BTU AFUE Dishwasher Valuation Gas Systems:#of Outlets Laundry Bar,Utility Sinks Forced Air/Gravity Sys.BTU AFUE Clothes Washer Air Handling Unit-CFM Floor Sink Wall,Suspended,or Unit Heaters Floor Drain Evaporative Coolers Hose Bib Snowmelt System Sq.Ft. 0 Total Fixture Count Other FOR CITY USE ONLY PERMIT TYPE: Choose option from dropdown PLANS LOCATION: Bluebeam Census Code Occupancy Load Occupancy Group Lot Area Zone District Deed Restricted it Stories ff of Dwellings Type of Construction: ** R2 VA Alarm System Req. Fire Sprinkler Req. Building Gross Sq.Footage Unit Sq.Footage Dyes Eno Dyes Ono 95 . 8 APPROVALS ✓ Name Date FEES Accepted by: GL 12/2/16 Fees due at Submittal: Fees due at Issuance: Zoning i Plan Check Permit Fee Parks Impact HPC Energy Code REMP School Ded. Building i Zoning 50% Hourly Plan TDM Impact Check Zoning Hourly Fire District i Eng.Review Ped.Amenity Review Engineering Housing Cash- Engineering Cons.Mit.50% Hourly in-lieu CMP Parks Review Zoning 50% Stormwater fee in lieu Utilities Utility Review Cons.Mit.50% City Use Tax Water Other Electrical County Use Tax Sanitation Plumbing GIS Aspen San. Env.Health Mechanical Dist. Parks Other Approved to issue by: RECEIPTS: Issued by: 6 General/Building Permit Application Paget Permit No.: 0129.2016.ARBK Master Permit No.: Unit 12 = 0007.2016.ARB CONTACT INFORMATION For Plan Review Questions Contact Name: Pam Phone No.970-366-0389 For Inspection Questions Contact Name: General Contractor Phone No.970-925-7090 PLEASE PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAY HELP US CONTACT YOU FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER Name: Grant and Wendy Burcham Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Mailing address: PO box 8784 City:Aspen Zip: 81612 E-mail Address: grantb@mobank.com OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT Name: Hal Reid Phone No.970-376-139!Alternate Phone No. Mailing address: p0 box 9967 City:Aspen Zip: 81621 E-mail Address:haltreid@aol.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Name: David Lambert Phone No.970-925-709(Alternate Phone No. Mailing address:60 Wildwood Lane City:Aspen Zip:81611 E-mail Address:davidlambertaspen@icloud.com ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER OF RECORD Name Hal Reid and Greg Gonzales bloom design Phone No.970-376-139(Alternate Phone No.970-366-0389 pam Mailing address PO box 9967 City Aspen Zip 81611 E-mail Address haltreid@aol.com and pam@sudmeier.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Mailing address City Zip E-mail Address STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD Name Steve Peightal Phone No.970-927-951(Alternate Phone No. Mailing address 298 Park Avenue,#301 City Basalt Zip 81621 E-mail Address Speightal@sopris.net ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Email City License No. MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Email City License No. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR Name Phone No. Alternate Phone No. Email City License No. NOTICE: This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days,or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced unless approval is received from the Chief Building Official. USE TAX: The General Contractor or Owner Builder is required to pay a Use Tax Deposit to both the City of Aspen(2.1%,first$100,000 is exempt)and Pitkin County(0.5%,no exemption)on the building permit at the time of issuance. INSPECTIONS: The General Contractor must schedule inspections online at www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development-Forms/ I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. It is my responsibility to review the approved plans and any comments that are contained thereon and see that the structure and/or project is built in compliance with all applicable codes. Contractor Signature: Print Name Date ❑ Check if you are a tested owner builder(single family only).You must take a test and complete the owner/building affidavit (CITY USE ONLY)Owner builder approved by: Date: Affidavit on file ALGeneral/Building Permit Application Checklist Permit No.: 0129.2016.ARBK THE G"O AW Master Permit No.: Unit 12 = 0007.2016./ GLOBAL CHECKLIST Land Use Questions If you check any of the boxes below,please consult with the Planner of the Day before submitting your permit application. Part of an approved COA Land Use Review ❑ Within Landmark Parcel or Historic District ❑ Work affects net leasable or net livable space ❑ Located in a 100-year flood plane or within 100' ❑ of high water mark Work involves a lot split or combining a lot ❑ Work involves changing from single family to a duplex/two homes,or vice versa ❑ Working of the exterior of a structure(house or Work involves changing an elevator or stair building) ❑ configuration El Adding to or decreasing the number of residential n units I Changing the use of an existing structure or space ri Changing the number or location of onsite ❑ ❑ parking Additional Scope of Work Please place a checkmark beside each item that applies to your project scope Exterior Lighting added ❑ Work involves exterior wall penetrations ❑ Work involves Roof Penetrations ❑ Work involves digging or excavation ❑ Work adds/removes/changes plumbing fixtures ❑ Involves Restaurant/Food Service ❑ Disturbs soil equal to or exceeding 1,000 Sq Ft Affects Parking Spaces,Parking Meters,Loading within 12 months ❑ Zones,or Alleys ❑ Work occurs in public right of way ❑ Adding Structures or Systems over Utility Lines ❑ Work affects Trees or occurs within the Dripline of a Tree ❑ Work within City Mall Boundaries ❑ - None of the Above ❑